?W^
«K :
<^ W1 „.-%->
p.* J
•Fa: /..« •& ,-*.f.»Jr>
H3
-HL'*.*" t*» ">
5' i<* 0
V"*?l»>
^
,**•
" 8 *>
>, . ? ».-*»»
' •(*«
- - -, .-»*>i^ '.^i.
, ^- •v^-^^i^vS.'*^.
,^.;.f^?^»
^
•*i
'»*'l
'tfi&f,V:?:
*^$4/;V ^
'-"«ti,Vv"'
CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
liPA PROJECT NO. C 530494 01
-------
OFA Code: EPA-10-WN-KITSAP-CENTRAL KITSAP CO.-WWTW-75
Publication Number: EPA-910/9-75-012
Publication Date: May, 1976
Grant Number: C-530-494-01
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Kitsap County, Washington
prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
with the assistance of
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, California 94710
SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.
6420 Wil shire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90048
MAY, 1976
Approved by:
Smith, On:, Ph.D.,
dministrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary Document ix
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1
Background 1-1
Baseline 1-4
Summary 1-5
Alternative Plans 1-5
Poulsbo 1-13
Project Costs 1-14
Numerical Rating 1-16
II ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING II-l
Physiography II-l
Geology II-3
Geomorphology II-3
Geohydrology II-4
Soils II-4
Suitability for Septic Tank Filter Fields II-7
Climatology II-7
Air Quality 11-10
Existing Conditions from Available Inventory 11-11
Data
Noise 11-11
Fresh Water Hydrology and Water Quality 11-16
Surface Water Hydrology 11-16
Groundwater 11-19
Terrestrial Environment 11-24
Proposed Treatment Plant Site 11-25
Proposed Pipeline Routes 11-30
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
(II) Marine Water Quality Regulations and Standards 11-33
Physical Marine Environment 11-36
Marine Water Quality 11-36
Waste Disposal and Water Quality 11-37
Initial Dilution at the Proposed Site 11-37
Dilution Due to Circulation and Flushing 11-38
Biological Marine Environment 11-40
Marine Vegetation 11-40
Marine Habitat 11-41
Vertical Zones 11-43
Wastewater Outfall Disposal Site 11-46
Biological Resources 11-49
Flora Resources 11-49
Fauna Resources 11-51
Water Resources 11-54
Recreational Resources 11-55
Utility Service Systems 11-56
Jurisdictions 11-58
Public and Social Services 11-58
Transportation 11-61
Kitsap County Budget 11-62
Land and Property Value 11-66
Labor Force 11-67
Income 11-68
History 11-69
Archaeology 11-70
Existing Land Use 11-70
Demography 11-71
Future Population Distribution 11-73
Visual and Aesthetic Environment 11-77
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
III PROPOSED PROJECT III-l
Introduction III-l
Design Flows and Quality III-l
Interaction with Other Plans III-5
Poulsbo and Lemolo III-5
Keyport III-7
Proposed System III-7
Project Features III-9
Project Costs 111-10
IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IV-1
Physical Impacts IV-2
Air Quality IV-3
Noise IV-4
Odors IV-5
Terrestrial Environment IV-6
Marine Biological Environment IV-14
Soils IV-20
Water Quality IV-21
Resource Impacts IV-28
Natural Resources IV-29
Utilities Service Systems IV-35
Municipal Services IV-38
Economic Impacts IV-44
Direct Effects IV-45
Indirect Effects IV-52
Socio-Cultural Impacts IV-56
Social Impacts IV-57
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts IV-61
Traffic Effects IV-64
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
V ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES V-l
Physical Impact Mitigation V-l
Mitigative Measures to Protect Vegetation V-5
and Wildlife Habitats
Mitigative Measures to Protect Groundwater V-7
Quantity
Mitigative Measures to Protect Island Lake V-7
Mitigative Measures to Protect Marine Water V-8
Quality
Resource Impact Mitigation V-9
Mitigative Measures to Protect Quantity of V-9
Potable Water Supplies
Economic Impact Mitigation V-9
Socio-Cultural Impact Mitigation V-9
Implementation of Mitigative Measures V-9
VI IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS VI-1
VII RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN VII-1
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Impacts of the Proposed Action VII-1
Physical Impacts VII-1
Resource Impacts VII-2
Socio-Cultural Impacts VII-2
Growth-Inducing Impacts VII-2
VIII REFERENCES VIII-1
IX COMMENTS AND RESPONSES IX-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION COMPUTER SUMMARY
Appendix B SOILS
Appendix C AIR QUALITY
A-l
B-l
C-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Appendix D BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY D-l
Appendix E BIOLOGICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT E-l
Appendix F STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS F-l
Appendix G ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE IN THE CLEAR G-l
CREEK DRAINAGE, EASTERN KITSAP PENINSULA
Appendix H ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SHEET FOR PRO- H-l
POSED HANSVILLE ROAD SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
SITE
Appendix I SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF 1-1
EFFLUENT
Appendix J MODELING OF WASTE DISPOSAL SITES J-l
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Study area location 1-3
1-2 Location of alternative elements 1-7
1-3 Detailed weighted rating of alternatives 1-18
II-l Location of study area and drainage sub-basins II-2
II-2 Geological cross-sections II-5
II-3 Location of geological cross-sections II-6
II-4 Soil limitations for septic tank drain fields II-8
II-5 Percentage frequency of occurrence of hour average II-9
surface winds
II-6 Noise measurement stations 11-14
II-7 Location of principal streams and their drainage 11-17
areas
II-8 Location of wells 11-20
II-9 Generalized vegetation map of study area 11-28
11-10 Proposed north Brownsville site 11-29
11-11 Amended proposed alternative pipeline routes 11-31
11-12 Interceptor routes through Lemolo and Keyport 11-34
11-13 Computed algal biomass concentrations in Dyes and 11-47
Sinclair Inlets
11-14 Phase II benthic sampling sites 11-50
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Figure Page
11-15 Commercial fishing statistical areas 11-52
11-16 Supplement to proposed Kitsap County planning policy 11-74
11-17 Major routes 11-78
III-l Estimated untreated waste loads III-3
III-2 Alternative plan no. 11 III-S
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1-1 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternatives 1-6
1-2 Comparison of Total Project Costs 1-15
1-3 Comparison of Project Ratings for Ten Alternatives 1-17
IT-1 Recorded Temperature and Rainfall for Bremerton 11-10
II-2 Air Pollutant Emissions in Kitsap County (1975) 11-11
II-3 Site Characteristics and Noise Analysis 11-12
II-4 Edited R.esults of Noise Program Output 11-13
II-5 Noise Criteria Used for Evaluating Trident Project 11-13
II-6 Low Flow Characteristics of Streams, Central Kitsap 11-16
11-7 1973-1974 Monitoring Results for Island Lake 11-18
II-3 Water Quality of Aquifers 11-21
II-9 Biotic Communities of Central Kitsap County 11-26
11-10 Biotic Communities Near Proposed Pipeline Routes 11-32
11-11 Water Quality Standards for Marine Waters 11-35
11-12 Federal Secondary Treatment Effluent Requirements 11-35
11-13 Percent of Time Site Provides 100:1 or More Initial 11-38
Dilution
11-14 Water Quality Standards and Estimated Diluted Waste 11-39
Concentrations
11-15 llajor Marine Fauna and Usages in the Vicinity of 11-48
Proposed Wastewater Discharge Site
11-16 Census of Agriculture, Kitsap County 11-51
11-17 Average Marine Landings and Value Within the Planning 11-53
Area
VII
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Central Kitsap County Recreational Resources 11-56
Major Water Supply Wells , 11-57
Existing Waste Collection and Treatment Systems 11-59
Existing Traffic Characteristics, Selected State and 11-63
County Routes, Kitsap County, Washington, 1973
11-22 Estimated 1980 Volume/Capacity Ratios, Selected State 11-64
and County Roads, Kitsap County, Washington
11-23 Access to Kitsap County, May 1973 11-64
11-24 1975 Kitsap County Budget 11-65
11-25 The 1974-75 Tax Rolls Assessment 11-66
11-26 Kitsap County Civilian Labor Force 11-67
11-27 Covered Employment in Kitsap County (September 1974) 11-68
11-28 Land Use on Central Kitsap County 11-71
11-29 Kitsap County Population 11-72
11-30 Annual Population Projections for Kitsap County 11-72
III-l Trident Support Site Wastewater Sources III-4
III-2 Recommendations for Pollutant Limits from Trident III-6
Support Site
III-3 Proposed Project Costs III-ll
V-l EPA-Recommended Implementation of Mitigative Measures V-ll
viii
-------
SUMMARY SHEET
CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY WASTEWATER FACILITIES
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
EPA PROJECT NO. C-530494-01
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
3. The subject action for this environmental impact statement is the
awarding of grant funds to Kitsap County, Washington for the construc-
tion of interceptor sewer lines, wastewater treatment facility and
wastewater disposal facility to service drainage sub-basins 9 and 10,
the Trident Support Site and the Poulsbo drainage basin. The present
estimate of project construction cost is $18,026,000. The County's
Facilities Plan, dated March 1976, was used by EPA as a major resource
document for the preparation of this environmental impact statement.
4. The recommended project is the eleventh of eleven alternatives eval-
uated in this EIS.
The proposed project would result in: (1) the elimination of poorly
treated effluent from Dyes Inlet; (2) discontinuance of the use of sep-
tic tanks in unsuitable soils in the sewerage area; (3) a reduction of
bacterial pollution of water supply wells and marine waters in the
study area; and (4) provide a. mechanism for locating anticipated growth
within the study area.
Major primary adverse impacts and mitigative measures associated
with the proposed project are:
(1) Installation of sewerage interceptor system will disrupt vege-
tation and wildlife habitat. Construction of outfall through shoreline
bluffs could promote erosion. A grant condition will assure revegeta-
tion of disturbed areas and tunneling of the treated effluent outfall
through the bluff area.
(2) In cases where interceptor sewers traverse areas reserved for
low growth, pressures for development may occur with the influx of
Trident population. The citizenry is encouraged to continue active
participation in the zoning process.
ix
-------
(3) Installation of a sewerage system with porous backfill could
create a drain by which the shallow groundwater could escape, lowering
water levels in shallow dug wells, a major potable water supply source.
A grant condition will require clay dams at every manhole along sewer
lines that traverse high groundwater areas in order to reduce draining
of the sewered areas.
(4) The community of Island Lake would not receive sewerage ser-
vice under this project. A grant condition will require a nearby inter-
ceptor to have adequate capacity for a future connection from Island Lake.
(5) Wastewater to be received from the Trident Support Site has not
been fully characterized. The wastewater treatment contract between the
U.S. Navy and Kitsap County will specify maximum waste constituents al-
lowable from the Trident Support Site.
(6) In order to assure a satisfactory technical basis for design
of the outfall diffuser section for the proposed outfall site, a compre-
hensive current metering study should be performed during the early design
stages of the project. The results of this study will enable the designer
to maximize initial mixing and dilution of the treated effluent. This
study will be required by the use of a grant condition.
5. The following Federal, State and local agencies and interested par-
ties were invited to comment on this environmental impact statement.
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Projects
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Region X
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region X
U.S. Department of Transportation, Region X
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Bureau of Indian Affairs
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Henry M. Jackson, U.S. Senate
Warren G. Magnuson, U.S. Senate
Brock Adams, U.S. House of Representatives
x
-------
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Puget Sound Governmental Conference
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
River Basin Coordinating Committee
Kitsap County
Port of Brownsville
City of Bremerton
City of Poulsbo
Suquamish Tribal Council
Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
INTERESTED GROUPS
Audubon Society
Friends of the Earth
League of Women Voters of Puget Sound
Northwest Steelheaders Council of Trout Unlimited
Sierra Club
Steelhead Trout Club of Washington
Washington Air Quality Coalition
Washington Environmental Council
Lemolo Citizens Club, Inc.
CH2M/Hill, Inc.
The draft EIS was made available to the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) and the public in December 1975. The final EIS was made
available to CEQ and the public on May 21, 1976.
XI
-------
I INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY
I
V
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This document is the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared
in conjunction with the Central Kitsap County Draft Facilities Plan (Ref-
erences 1 and 61). It is written to present to the reviewing public and
agencies the preferred wastewater management alternative, developed after
extensive evaluation and comparison with other alternative plans. In
this context, the Final Environmental Impact Statement is an integral part
of both a process and a document, commencing with the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. Alternative descriptions and impacts thoroughly ex-
plored in draft documents will not be repeated here. This report presents
a summary comparison of all 11 original alternatives, a detailed descrip-
tion of the environmental setting, a description of the preferred alter-
native and analysis of its environmental impacts, and responses to public
comments on the Draft and Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Statements.
For further information on the 10 rejected alternatives and the evaluation
process which led to the selection of one plan, the reader is urged to re-
fer to the draft statements.
The Draft Facilities Plan was released for public comment in July
1975. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement release followed in
September 1975. Since that time, several major ongoing studies of re-
ceiving water quality and population growth have been completed. The
results of the studies are incorporated into the Supplement to the Draft
Facilities Plan, released in December 1975.
The Environmental Impact Statement for Central Kitsap County's waste-
water facilities was prepared concurrently with the Facilities Plan.
Thus, refinement of the Facilities Plan between the draft and final docu-
ment stages resulted in changes in the environmental impact statement,
and a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released
in February 1976.
BACKGROUND
This environmental impact statement fulfills EPA's responsibility
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It is based upon
information supplied in the Facilities Plan and on-site data collection.
Although an effort was made to avoid duplication of information from the
Facilities Plan, the document is intended to be self-supporting and to
1-1
-------
provide sufficient background material.
The study area, shown on Figure 1-1, is on the Kitsap Peninsula on
Puget Sound, due west of Seattle. The area has experienced numerous
failures of septic fields due to hydraulic overloading, high ground-
water levels and soil characteristics which are unsuitable for disposal
purposes. Increases in population growth would only magnify these prob-
lems. 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 area. The Facilities Plan identifies the
following areas as having reported problems: Island Lake, Brownsville,
Dyes Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, Salmonberry Creek, Barker Creek,
Clear Creek, Silverdale Creek, Burke Bay and Fletcher Bay. Specific
areas where freshwater supplies have shown some bacterial contamination
at their sources are Dawn Park, Eldorado Water, North Perry Water Dis-
trict, Silverdale, Apex Airport and Clear Creek Mobile Home Park.
The only existing municipal sewage treatment plant in the study area
is in Silverdale, providing primary level treatment to locally originat-
ing wastewater prior to discharge to Dyes Inlet.
A new Trident Submarine Support Site, to be constructed in the
Bangor Naval Annex, will bring an estimated 31,600 persons into the re-
gion beyond normal growth and a total of 22,500 persons are expected to
reside in the study area. Wastewaters from this population would far
exceed the capability of the Silverdale Sewage Treatment Plant and would
greatly intensify all of the sewerage-related problems in the study area.
The existing sewage treatment facilities at the Trident Support Site would
also be unable to accommodate this large influx of population.
Federal regulations require secondary level wastewater treatment at
all sewage treatment plants by 1977. Thus, not only would capacity have
to be expanded for the existing facilities but a higher level of treatment
would be required at Silverdale. These problems combine with the sudden
change in population growth in the study area to produce a unique situa-
tion in which wastewater treatment facilities may be planned literally
from the beginning, without a commitment to use outdated existing facili-
ties.
The development of the Facilities Plan began in 1973 with a plan for
interceptor sewers and wastewater treatment facilities to serve Brownsville,
Silverdale and Meadowdale, in Kitsap County. The announced intent of the
U.S. Navy to develop a submarine support base (Trident Support Site) at
the Bangor Naval Annex, with an attendant large influx of population, pro-
duced a realization that wastewater management plans for the study area
should include provision for this population. Therefore, in February of
1975 Kitsap County authorized the URS Company to develop a Facilities Plan
for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal within drainage sub-
basins 9 and 10 and to consider wastewaters generated at the Trident Support
1-2
-------
Source: Reference 1
Figure 1-1, Study area location
1-3
-------
Site. The U.S. Navy has also expressed the desire to transport waste-
waters to the County treatment system.
The Facilities Plan defines 11 alternative plans for the development
of sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities in the study area. Since
the basic impetus for producing a facilities plan is the protection of
man's social and natural environments, a comparative evaluation of the
alternative plans must address all relevant aspects of those environments.
This is one of the major functions of the environmental impact statement
(EIS). Another is to provide to the public a concise statement of pro-
ject alternatives and to assure that no environmental impact has been
overlooked by the planner.
Authority and guidelines for the preparation of environmental impact
statements are found in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
implemented by Executive Order 11514 and the Council on Environmental
Quality's Guidelines of 1 August 1973. Final regulations for the prepara-
tion of environmental impact statements by EPA were published in the
Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 72 on 14 April 1975. Under these regu-
lations, an "environmental impact statement is a report, prepared by EPA,
which identifies and analyzes in detail the environmental impacts of a
proposed EPA action and feasible alternatives." With regard to Kitsap
County, municipalities and local agencies are required, when planning for
construction of publicly owned treatment works, to evaluate the environ-
mental impacts of the construction and subsequent operation of the treat-
ment works and to prepare an environmental assessment. This assessment
was presented in the Facilities Plan. The EPA must review the assessment,
collect corroboratory evidence when necessary and, ultimately, issue a
negative declaration or, if the project is expected to have significant
adverse primary or secondary effects or to be controversial, prepare an
environmental impact statement, as has occurred in this case.
BASELINE
The impacts of the proposed project take the existence of the Trident
Support Site as their starting point. The decision to proceed with the
Trident base has been made, and construction has begun. Impacts resulting
from this decision have been assessed, published and officially accepted,
although litigation against the Trident project is in progress in Wash-
ington, D.C. (Reference 2).
The proposed project will serve to mitigate some impacts expected to
result from Trident, and might increase others. The reader is urged to
keep in mind the basis on which the following environmental impacts were
assessed: Impacts of the proposed project take as their starting point
the existing conditions and conditions which will obtain when the full im-
pact of Trident is felt. If for some reason Trident were not to proceed,
1-4
-------
the entire Facilities Plan would require reassessment,
SUMMARY
Of the 11 alternatives addressed in this Environmental Impact State-
ment, 10 were distinguished by service area, treatment facility location
and marine disposal site. The eleventh involved a basically undeveloped
concept of land disposal of treated effluent. A no-project alternative
was addressed and eliminated in a preliminary screening in the Draft
Facilities Plan. The summary contains a brief description of each alter-
native and addresses the major issues of the project. These issues have
been identified as: population growth inducement due to the availability
of sewerage service, as well as the location of that population; economic
impact on the community from facility construction, operation and mainte-
nance costs; the effects on marine water quality due to the treated ef-
fluent outfall location; pipeline construction and growth inducement along
the Clear Creek corridor; and expected benefits from implementation of a
wastewater management system. The alternative plan numbers are correlated
in Table 1-1 with those of the Draft Facilities Plan, and the locations of
treatment plant and outfall sites are shown in Figure 1-2.
Alternative Plans
Alternative Plan No. 1
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new tertiary level wastewater treat-
ment facility located near the present plant in Silverdale. Treated
effluent would be discharged through a new submarine outfall into Dyes
Inlet. The Silverdale site is an aesthetically poor location for a
wastewater treatment facility because of its shoreline location and high
visibility.
It has been concluded that population growth within the study area
and associated demands upon utilities and municipal services will be
primarily due to the development of the Trident Support Site and that
project-induced growth will be negligible. The sewerage systems of each
alternative will have the tendency to concentrate future growth near
sewer lines, and this fact can be used by County planners to aid in con-
trolling growth within the study area. This impact is identical for all
subsequent alternative plans and will not be addressed again.
The placement of a proposed pipeline along Clear Creek, for the
transport of Trident Support Site wastewaters, will have some negative
1-5
-------
Table 1-1. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Facilities Plan
reference no.
( 1 )
( 1*)
( 3 )
( 3P)
( 4 )
( 8 )
( 9A)
(10A)
(11A)
(17 )
Plan
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Service
area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Sub-basin 9 and
Trident facility
Sub-basin 10 and
Bremerton plan-
ning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Treatment fa-
cility site
Silverdale
Silverdale
North
Brownsville
North
Brownsville
North
Brownsville
Silverdale
Bremerton
Bremerton
Enetai
Manchester
not chosen
Discharge
site
Dyes Inlet
Dyes Inlet
Bainbridge
Island
Bainbridge
Island
northern Port
Orchard
channel
Dyes Inlet
Sinclair
Inlet
Sinclair
Inlet
Port Orchard
channel at
Enetai
Manchester
Land dispo-
al sites
C4A)
11 Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
North
Brownsville
not chosen
.northern Port
Orchard
channel
1-6
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
Source: Reference 1
Figure 1-2. Location of alternative elements,
1-7
-------
Impacts on vegetation, aesthetics and stream ecology. It was determined
that diligent application of careful construction techniques and refor-
estation could reduce the negative impacts to an acceptable level. This
issue is similarly affected by all of the alternative plans, except No.
11, and will not be addressed separately for each alternative. The po-
tential for population settlement along this interceptor has received
substantial public opposition.
The treated effluent submarine outfall would be located in Dyes
Inlet in approximately 40 feet of water. Modeling results indicate that
first mixing and dilution of effluent would be poor and that subsequent
dispersion and flushing would be fair with the site providing 100:1 di-
lution at least 61 percent of the time. Water quality criteria should
be met consistently because tertiary level treatment would be provided
and an estimated dilution of only 10:1 would be necessary with this treat-
ment level.
Project benefits for this and all other alternatives are basically
identical. Substantial groundwater and potable water supply pollution
from inadequate and failing septic tank drainfields will be greatly re-
duced. Public health risks from contaminated wells will be reduced, and
it is expected that secondary or tertiary level wastewater treatment with
appropriate disinfection measures will reduce bacterial pollution in all
adjacent marine waters and may improve the quality of water in Dyes Inlet.
These project benefits accrue for all alternative plans and will not be
repeated subsequently.
This alternative was rejected because of the poor dispersion char-
acteristics of Dyes Inlet, the high cost of tertiary level treatment and
the location of the Trident Support Site interceptor through Clear Creek
Valley. A comparison of project costs is provided later in this Chapter.
Alternative Plan No. 2
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10, the Poulsbo facilities plan-
ning area and the Trident Support Site would be collected and treated at
a new tertiary level wastewater treatment facility located near the pres-
ent plant in Silverdale. Treated effluent would be discharged through a
new submarine outfall into Dyes Inlet. The Silverdale site is an aes-
thetically poor location for a wastewater treatment facility.
The submarine outfall will be located in Dyes Inlet in approximately
40 feet of water. Modeling results indicate that, with additional flow
from Poulsbo, first mixing and dilution of effluent would be poor and
subsequent dispersion and flushing would be fair. Water quality criteria
should be met consistently.
1-8
-------
This alternative was deemed unacceptable because of the poor dis-
persion in Dyes Inlet, the high cost of tertiary level treatment and the
location of the Trident Support Site interceptor through Clear Creek
Valley.
Alternative Plan No. 3
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater treat-
ment facility located near Brownsville. Treated effluent would be pumped
to Lemolo, from which point it would be pumped to Point Monroe on Bain-
bridge Island. An outfall southeast of Point Monroe would discharge the
treated effluent into Puget Sound. The Brownsville site is well screened
and aesthetically acceptable for a treatment facility.
The submarine outfall has not yet been designed. Initial modeling
results indicate that first mixing and dilution of the effluent would be
excellent and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be good, with the
site providing 100:1 dilution 100 percent of the time. Water quality
criteria should be met consistently.
Although this alternative was preferable to alternative No. 11, the
improvement in environmental benefits was marginal and insufficient to
justify the higher cost.
This alternative was evaluated with the Trident Support Site inter-
ceptor located in Clear Creek Valley. Removal of this interceptor to the
routing of alternative No. 11 would still not make the higher cost of a
Point Monroe outfall justifiable.
Alternative Plan No. 4
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater treat-
ment facility located near Brownsville. Treated effluent would be pumped
to Lemolo, where treated effluent from a proposed Poulsbo facility would
join the flow. The combined effluents would be pumped to Bainbridge
Island and discharged through a submerged outfall southeast of Point
Monroe. The Brownsville site is well screened and aesthetically acceptable
for a treatment facility.
The submarine outfall has not yet been designed but is expected to
reach at least a 165-foot depth. Modeling results indicate that first
mixing and dilution of the effluent would be excellent and subsequent dis-
persion and flushing would be good. Water quality criteria should be met
consistently.
1-9
-------
This alternative provides for common disposal for the Poulsbo and
Brownsville treatment plants but does not provide the cost benefits of
regionalization with a common treatment facility. The high cost of the
Point Monroe outfall and the Clear Creek location of the Trident Support
Site interceptor make this alternative less desirable than No. 11.
Alternative Plan No. 5
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater treat-
ment facility located near Brownsville. Treated effluent would be dis-
charged through a submerged outfall into north Port Orchard channel. The
Brownsville site is well screened and aesthetically acceptable for a
treatment facility.
The submarine outfall would be located in approximately 40 feet of
water in north Port Orchard channel. Modeling results indicate that
first mixing and dilution of the effluent would be fair and subsequent
dispersion and flushing would be good. This site would achieve at least
100:1 dilution 71 percent of the time and at least 10:1 dilution would
be met 95 to 99 percent of the time. With provision for increased coli-
form removals, secondary effluent could reach class AA standards with
only 10:1 dilution.
This alternative had major disadvantages in that it involved using
the Clear Creek interceptor for Trident wastes and that it did not max-
imize the benefits of regional treatment because it excluded Poulsbo's
waste.
Alternative Plan No. 6
Wastewaters from sub-basin 9 and the Trident Support Site would be
collected and treated at a new Silverdale wastewater treatment facility.
Treated effluent would be discharged to Dyes Inlet through a submerged
outfall in approximately 40 feet of water. The Silverdale site is an
aesthetically poor location for a treatment plant.
Modeling results on Dyes Inlet indicate that first mixing and dilu-
tion of the effluent would be poor and subsequent dispersion and flushing
would be fair.
Wastewaters from sub-basin 10 and the Bremerton planning area would
be collected and treated at the newly renovated and expanded Charleston
Sewage Treatment Plant. Treated effluent would be discharged to Sinclair
Inlet through a submerged outfall. The Charleston site would be aestheti-
1-10
-------
cally acceptable for expansion.
Modeling results on a 35-foot deep outfall in Sinclair Inlet show
that first mixing and dilution of the effluent would be fair and sub-
sequent flushing and dispersion, poor.
It is assumed that tertiary level treatment would be employed at
both locations in order to meet water quality criteria.
This alternative explored the concept of regionalization with Brem-
erton. Although regionalization, when applied over reasonable
distances, generally reduces total wastewater treatment costs, the need
to add expensive tertiary level processes would increase total costs
to study area residents over those of the preferred alternative.
Additionally, wastewater discharge to enclosed inlets such as Dyes and
Sinclair, is not desirable, even when treatment is provided for reduc-
tion of recognized pollutants.
Alternative Plan No. 7
Wastewaters from sub-basing 9 and 10, the Trident Support Site
and Bremerton would be collected and treated at a renovated and
expanded Charleston Sewage Treatment Plant; The treated effluent
would be discharged to Sinclair Inlet through a submerged outfall in
35-foot deep water. Modeling results indicate that first mixing and
dilution of the effluent would be fair and subsequent dispersion and
flushing would be poor. Initial dilution could provide at least 100:1
dilution of the effluent an average of 73 percent of the time but
because of the enclosed nature of the inlet, diluted effluent would be
the receiving water for dilution of more effluent. This fact, plus
the need to provide expensive tertiary level treatment in order to
maintain water quality made this alternative undesirable.
Alternative Plan No. 8
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10, the Trident Support Site and
the Bremerton planning area would be collected and treated at a new
wastewater treatment facility located near Enetai. Treated effluent
would be discharged to Port Orchard channel through a submarine outfall
in 80 feet of water. The Enetai site is well screened but located in
a desirable residential area and thus not aesthetically suited for a
treatment facility.
Modeling results predict that first mixing and dilution of the
effluent would be poor and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be
fair. Field studies verified the frequent presence of weak currents
1-11
-------
which would provide at least 100:1 dilution an average 63 percent of the
time. Nevertheless, water quality criteria should be met most of the
time.
The capital costs of this alternative are higher than those for
the preferred plan but annual operating and maintenance costs are
lower. The total net annual cash requirement for this alternative,
after Federal and State reimbursement, is slightly higher.
More important reasons for not selecting this alternative lie in
the relatively inferior discharge site at Enetai and the presence of a
Clear Creek Valley pipeline that this alternative requires. Because
the treatment facility is southeast of the Trident Support Site, the
Trident wastewater should be pumped in that direction and the alter-
native northern route found in alternative No. 11 would not be feasible.
Also, the benefits of regionalization with Poulsbo would be lost in
alternative No. 8.
Alternative Plan No. 9
Wastewaters from sub-basins 9 and 10, the Trident Support Site and
the Bremerton planning area would be collected and treated at an
expanded Manchester Sewage Treatment Plant. Treated effluent would
be discharged to Puget Sound near Rich Passage.
The submarine outfall depth would be below 165 feet. Modeling
results indicate that due to the depth and strong currents in the
area, at least 100:1 dilution could be provided 100 percent of the time
resulting in excellent first mixing and dilution and excellent subse-
quent dispersion and flushing. In terms of water quality, this alter-
native is highly desirable and equivalent to a discharge at Point
Monroe.
This alternative has a slightly higher annual cost than the
preferred alternative and includes the Clear Creek interceptor.
There is no provision of capacity for Poulsbo, Keyport, or the Keyport
Naval Torpedo Station. The Sinclair Inlet facilities planner and the
City of Bremerton have indicated that their preliminary studies show this
alternative as not being cost-effective for their participation.
Alternative No. 10
Wastewater from sub-basins 9 and 10 and the Trident Support Site
would be collected and treated at a new secondary level wastewater
treatment facility, the site presumably to be located at Brownsville.
The treated effluent would be sprayed onto the land for disposal.
Preliminary analysis, presented in Chapter II, indicates that at
high disposal rates the potential of polluting an extremely valuable
resource, the groundwater, in both surface and lower aquifers is too
great. At low disposal rates designed to protect groundwater, over
1-12
-------
8,000 acres of land would be required. In both cases, the spray
irrigation system costs would be very large. This alternative was
eliminated from further consideration in the environmental impact
statement due to its low feasibility.
Alternative Plan No. 11
This plan was developed in response to public pressures against
an interceptor sewer along the Clear Creek drainage basin and in order
to better accomodate wastewaters from the Poulsbo Facilities Planning
Area. Wastewaters would be collected from drainage sub-basins 9 and
10, the Trident Support Site and the Poulsbo area, with provision for
accepting Keyport's wastewaters. Secondary level treatment would be
provided at the north Brownsville site, and treated effluent would be
discharged into approximately 40 feet of water in north Port Orchard
channel. The north Brownsville site is reasonably well screened by
thick stands of trees and is aesthetically acceptable for a wastewater
treatment plant site.
The Trident Support Site wastewaters would be pumped eastward along
Luoto Road and State Highway 303 to Keyport and then south along State
Highway 303 to the plant site. Disruption of vegetation and ecosystems
by pipeline construction would be minimal because all pipeline routes
are along roadway rights-of-way except for the Liberty Bay crossing.
Outfall site modeling results, supported by some current measure-
ments, indicate that first mixing and dilution of the effluent would
be fair and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be good. It
appears that water quality criteria should be met consistently with a
minimum of 100:1 initial dilution occuring 71 percent of the time and
a minimum of 10:1 dilution occuring 95 to 99 percent of the time.
With improved coliform removals, 10:1 dilution of secondary effluent
will meet Class AA standards.
Alternative No. 11 is the preferred plan for a variety of reasons.
As will be shown at the end of this chapter, Alternative No. 11 has
the least cost of all the alternatives under consideration. This
plan provides for a much needed reduction in public health risks with
minimum negative environmental and social impacts. This plan provides
for the protection of the Clear Creek rural area by moving the Trident
Support Site sewer to another location and it would provide for the
discharge of treated effluent into a safe and acceptable location.
POULSBO
The inclusion of the Poulsbo Facilities planning area in the
1-13
-------
original group of alternatives was done to make sure that no viable
regional wastewater treatment system was overlooked. The preferred
plan includes wastewaters originating in Poulsbo because of the be-
lief that the single regional system is more efficient, less costly
and subject to better operator control than two facilities. This
belief is disputed by the City of Poulsbo, presumably on the basis
of cost. Cost figures developed by the facilities planner for
Poulsbo indicate lower treatment costs than presented in this document,
Furthermore, the current plan for Poulsbo is to discharge treated
effluent into Ne-Si-Ka Bay.
The costs presented in the next chapter show a definite benefit
to Kitsap County for regionalized treatment with Poulsbo, and thus
Poulsbo's participation is included as part of the preferred plan.
Also, Ne-Si-Ka Bay was not studied in detail for this report, but
it is believed that the marine water quality impacts of a discharge
to that bay may be less desirable and have greater impact on Liberty
Bay than the discharge of the preferred plan to the main body of
North Port Orchard channel. Also there may be long term benefit in
provision of an opportunity for Keyport and the Keyport Naval Torpedo
Station to remove their discharges from Ne-Si-Ka Bay.
If Poulsbo were not to join the regional system, this EIS would
not be invalidated. Marine water impact would be slightly decreased
in degree and total regional costs would increase. The resulting
alternative (as opposed to the preferred alternative No. 11) would
be similar to alternative No. 5 without the Clear Creek interceptor
route.
No-Project Alternative
The no-project alternative was subjected to a preliminary screen-
ing by the facilities planning consultant. Without the project, there
would be substantial negative environmental impacts, namely: polluted
groundwaters, unsafe drinking water supplies, increased pollution of
local surface and marine waters, failing septic tank drainfields and
no provisions for sewer service for an expanding population. These
impacts were deemed unacceptable, and the no-project alternative was
discarded.
PROJECT COSTS
Table 1-2 presents the final estimates made by the facilities
planner for total project costs of each alternative. This table
clearly shows that the cost to Central Kitsap County and the combined
costs for alternative No. 11 are the lowest of all. Alternative No. 5,
1-14
-------
01
t/}
H
Cfl
0
o
H
W
O
PH
PH
J
H
O
H
Pn
O
a
o
CrQ
H
prf
Q
^
4J
O
•a
c
1
o
u
ID
o
«-
M
4J
o
m
o
,0
3
(2
10
0
X
•
0)
o
J°
to
to
4J
«
to
4-1
C
JO
rH I*
« 3
o c
H to
rH
CO
§1
rH
CO
•£
CJ
rH
rH 0)
W §
o a
H q)
^
CO
3 35
| °
rH
3
a
c3
•^
•H 10
tO 3
jj 5
0 S
H tO
rH
3 ^
i o
rH
a
a
CO
U
1
CO "J
o -a
0
rH
g -a
B co
-1-5
(D
•H
CO
E
H)
4J
rH
CJvCMcMOvor-COcM
r«crtp^oocooorHin
CMCMCMCMCMCMCOCM
OOr^^Hr^ocAvO
rHrHO-HO'HOO
-Hr*_4CM*HO-*CM
— ir~vocoooocM-<
orHcMcnco-HincM
CMCMCMCMrHCMCMCM
OOOOOOOO
OCOOrHQOOO
CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
oo-oooooo
U U
COvOCOOVCOCOCOCO
CO in CO CO CO CO CO CO
cMP^mmovovoin
rOrHcMcMOO-»vOO
CMCMCMCMrHCMCMCM
inrHr^r^-stvoinrH
oooomininoor^.
px
rH
CM
10
O
CO
0
GO
rH
VO
O
CO
rH
O
0
CO
l-H
r»
^
00
si-
o
CM
CM
sr
"~*
rH
rH
rH
| 1
B
3
D.
00
1
m
0
2
CO
^
0
^
0)
>
0
•a
a)
N
tO -rl
to 4->
rH 0
rH 8
0 III
•a
to
in «
p~ to
en o
rH O
>
rH
CO
rH
§
O
•rt
60
0)
U
^
§
-rl
(X
•H
U
•rl
tO
0.
CO
"o
to
rH
3
O
A<
CO
a)
to
u
1
H
U
1-15
-------
which is a plan similar to No. 11 but does not include Poulsbo's
participation, is the next lowest cost alternative.
It is admitted that the capital cost to Poulsbo's residents in-
creases for a regionalized facility; however, the operating and
maintenance costs are very substantially decreased. Thus there is a
calculated net annual saving to Poulsbo with their participation.
Alternatives No. 2, 4 and 11 include participation of Poulsbo in a
regional facility. Other alternatives include the cost of separate
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities for Poulsbo.
Regionalization with Bremerton is calculated to cost substan-
tially more, as evidenced by alternatives No. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
The EPA is required by law to look at total project costs of
alternatives, prior to various reimbursements, i.e., to select an
alternative on the basis of total costs, not local costs. For
Central Kitsap County, alternative No. 11 provides the lowest total
costs with acceptable environmental impacts.
NUMERICAL RATING
A numerical rating and evaluation system was used within this en-
vironmental impact statement as a tool to assist in the comparison of
the relative merits of each alternative. The evaluation system is ex-
plained in Appendix A, where the computer output tabulating environ-
mental impacts for all alternatives is also displayed. A sensitivity
analysis within the computer program presents the expected change a
final score may undergo due to a change in a single category score.
Table 1-3 presents the new final weighted scores for each alter-
native, reflecting all changes resulting from Phase II studies, new
design data and the new alternative plan No. 11. These scores should
be used with discretion and only as. an aid to the ranking of alternatives,
Figure 1-3 presents a graphic display and comparison of positive
and negative ratings of categories for the ten alternatives evaluated
in detail.
1-16
-------
Table 1-3. COMPARISON OF PROJECT RATINGS FOR TEN ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
Project rating3
6.82
6.82
12.24
12.33
11.41
6.82
9.24
8.53
12.58
12.73
Relative ratingb
53.6
53.6
96.2
96.9
89.6
53.6
72.6
67.0
98.8
100.0
Resulting ranking
8
8
4
3
5
8
6
7
2
1
a
Per E.I.R.S. computer output, based upon weightings derived from sur-
vey conducted by URS Company.
Expressed as an index number (percentage); highest rated alternative
set at 100 percent; other ratings calculated from that point.
1-17
-------
*******************************************
* *
*
E.I.R.S,
*. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE ;
J. FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT *
*******************************************
DATE: 04/01/76
PORT ORCHARD
ALTERNATIVE 11
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING
12.73
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ADVERSE
POSITIVE
1 NUME- :l
JL PICAL :0
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIt
ATR QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TfPB
WILDLIFE 81 ITS HABITAT
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
r.flMMllNTTTF!
MARINE BIOL.
BENTHIC
MATFH Ml UMN
ENVIRONMt
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
MATER
MARINE WATER
GROUNOWATER
GROUNDWATFR QUANTITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RATINGSO
50005
50.00:
O.oo:
IMPACT ITEM NAME
P.HY.SICAL-_UieACIS-
tNVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
-AIK QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
OOOR
WILDLIFE Si ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL.
BENTHIC
.WATFK COLUMN
ENVIRONMENT
SURFACE
WATER QUALITY
SURFACE MATER
MARINE WATER
GROUNOWATER
GROUNPWATFg QIJAMTITY
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
SOILS (FERTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
10.46:
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEJ-
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SFRVICES (Ir
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS AND RECREATION
SYSTEM-
-0.50;
UTILITY SERV^ICJF SYSTEMS
-l.oo:
o.oo:
ELECTRICAL
WATER
25.00:
0.00:
ENVIKONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS ANO RECREATION
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNDERGRNO WATt
QUALITY _ -
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
FAUNA _
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
FLORA - CROPS/£OtfM£S£--
o.oo:
20.00:
NATURAL RESOURCES
POTABLE UNOERGRND WATER
QUANTITY
POTABLE SURFACE WATER
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
_FLORA - CROPS/COMMERCIAL
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
D1KECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES CO:
LOANS ANO SUBSIDIES I
PROPERTY TAX -
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUI
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
30.83:
0.00:
90.00:
2.50}
5.00:
0.00:
10.00:
10.00:
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
PROPERTY TAX
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX RATES
INDIRECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACT:
17.92:
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTI
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORIt
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREAT
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSIL
25.00:
50.00:
0.00:
5.00:
PLANNEO LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
.CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
_E_XT_ ESTHETIC IMPRESSION,
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONO
Figure 1-3. Summary Comparisons of Alternatives
1-18
-------
II ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
kt:
**• ^*» - ^ r*'
, A"
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The study area lies on the Kitsap Peninsula in central western
Washington, as shown on Figure II-l. The Kitsap Peninsula areas in-
clude 581.8 square miles of land bounded by waterways of the Puget
Trough (Reference 1), The Puget Trough is a north-south lowland be-
tween the Cascade Mountains and the Coast Range, extending from Oregon
into Canada, the marine portions of which are known collectively as
Puget Sound. The Hood Canal on the north and west and Puget Sound
proper on the east border the Kitsap Peninsula area. Extensions of
Puget Sound into the peninsula area include Port Madison, Liberty Bay,
Port Orchard channel and Dyes and Sinclair Inlets.
The study area, on the Kitsap Peninsula, lies entirely within Kit-
sap County, between 122°30' and 122°45' west longitude and 47°36' and
47°A7' north latitude. The study area contains drainage sub-basins 9
and 10 aud those portions of sub-basins 12 and 13 which lie within the
Bangor Annex to the Keyport Naval Torpedo Station. Environmental im-
pact assessments will not be conducted on the portions within the
Bangor Annex (also referred to as the Trident Support Site) as that fa-
cility is the subject of an environmental impact statement already com-
pleted (Reference 3).
Drainage sub-basins 9 and 10 generally follow topographic, fea-
tures separating drainage areas tributary to Dyes Inlet (sub-oasin 9)
and central Port Orchard channel (sub-basin 10). Figure II-l presents
tlie generalized sub-basin boundaries as defined by the Basin t'!an (Ref-
erence 4). These boundaries are somewhat flexible in areas becween
clearly defined streams; therefore, a definition of the study area
that reflects possible growth patterns and possible sewerage 'ervice
boundaries in thes'B vaguely defined areas was prepared by the facili-
ties nianning consultant. The facilities planning study area bounda-
ries define t.ht. study area for this environmental impact as^ebs^ent
CJ.KJ arc a.lso shown on Figure II-l. The approximate size cf the plan-
ning are,) is 33 square miles, of which 10.8 square miles are wifain
the TridH.r:t Support Site.
The topography within the study area is undulating tfrr:..in with
II-l
-------
Source: References 1 and 4.
Figure II-l. Location of study area and drainage sub-basins
II-2
-------
elevations between sea level and 400 ft. Steep bluffs and ravines
exist along the eastern and western boundaries, but the majority of
the shoreline is gently sloping beach. Low north-south ridge areas
separate Central Valley from Clear Creek Valley, and sub-basin 9 from
sub-basin 10.
GEOLOGY
Geomorphology
Information on the geology of the study area is obtained primar-
ily from Water Supply Bulletin No. 18 (Reference 5).
The oldest rocks in the study area are of the Tertiary Age. Ba-
saltic and andesitic lavas were laid down in great thicknesses during
the early and middle Eocene Epoch throughout western and southwestern
Washington. Volcanic activity subsided toward the end of the Eocene
Epoch, and during the Oligocene and early Miocene Epochs marine sedi-
ments accumulated in thicknesses of thousands of feet over the volcan-
ic rocks. These formations were greatly deformed in the late Miocene,
giving rise to the ancestral Cascade Mountains. These mountains were
largely eroded during the early to middle Pliocene. Puget Trough was
formed in the late Pliocene as a result of a north-south uplift which
produced the present Cascade and Olympic Mountains.
After the Tertiary Period, the present Puget Sound lowlands re-
ceived great deposits of sediments consisting of silts and clays inter-
spersed with layers of coarse sands and gravels. The coarse materials
were deposited by streams and glaciers, whereas finer sediments set-
tled down in lakes. Several large ice sheets covered the Puget Sound
lowland during the Pleistocene (Ice Age) Epoch. These glaciers origi-
nated in Canada and were 2,000 to 5,000 feet thick in several instan-
ces.
Climatic fluctuations resulted in several advances and retreats
of the ice mass during the Pleistocene time. The last ice disappeared
about 14,000 years ago. Sands and gravels deposited by these ice
masses were carried by streams emanating from the front of each gla-
cier. Between ice periods, lush forests similar to those presently
growing in the study area appeared and were successively buried under
ice and stream deposits. Their decomposition over thousands of years
has yielded peat beds mixed within clay and silt materials.
L5uring the advance of each new ice sheet, a primary deposit of
till or hardpaa was spread onto the preexisting topography. The pre-
cise number of glacial advances and retreats is not known because of
II-3
-------
partial obliteration of the effects of earlier glaciers by succeeding
ice flows. At least four glaciations have been documented in recent
stratigraphic investigations of the area.
In Recent time, the streams which emptied into Puget Sound have
formed deltas at their mouths. Erosion of the uplands and deposition
of silts and sands in the lowlands have continued to the present time.
Geohydrology
The succession of glaciation and formation of mountains in the
Puget Sound area has resulted in a layering of base material under the
study area. Often this base material is fractured and discontinuous
so that aquifer layers do not necessarily readily intermix. Figure
H-2 shows the cross-sections of the geological stratification under-
neath the northern and southern parts of the study area (Reference 5).
The lines along which the cross-sections are represented are shown on
Figure I1-3.
As can be seen from Figure II-2, there are basically two aquifer
layers and one surface water table in the study area. The study area
is capped by a layer of relatively impermeable till of 20 to 50 feet
in thickness which does not permit surface water to pass easily into
the underlying aquifer. Below this till is a shallow aquifer in
Colvos Sand and Advance Outwash base materials. The aquifer is often
above a useful water table, and most drilled wells must penetrate to
the Salmon Springs formation. This aquifer is underlain by the imper-
meable Kitsap Formation, below which are the Salmon Springs and Pre-
Salmon Springs formations. The latter contain abundant fresh water.
Within the study area, surface waters can generally reach the
first aquifer level (Colvos Sand) at points where this formation has
been exposed through erosion, namely, in creek valleys and in lowlands
between hills. There is essentially no connection between surface wa-
ters in the study area and the Salmon Springs formations.
SOILS
Soils within the study area ave underlain either by strongly har-
dened or by slightly compacted or noncompacted subsoils. Soils under-
lain by cemented hardpari include those of the Alderwood and Edmonds
series. Permeable sabsoils and substrate may be found with Everett,
Tndianola and Kitsap series soils and with undifferentiated alluvial
soils. A detailed presentation of soil types found in the study area
is presented in Appendix B.
II-4
-------
N9£—'
Ofr£—
UJ
CO
d
o
•H
4-1
a
a)
to
i
CO
CO
o
cd
o
•H
t>0
o
iH
o
CU
cu
J-4
3
II-5
-------
Source: Reference 5«
Figure II-3. Location of geological cross-sections
II-6
-------
Suitability for Septic Tank Filter Fields
The soils in the study area which are generally suitable as sep-
tic tank filter fields include (1) Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ev),
(2) Everett gravelly loamy sand (Eg) and (3) Indianola loamy sand (Is).
These soils are suitable due to the underlying subsoils, which provide
good pollutant filtration, with reasonable hydraulic permeability.
They cover less than five percent of the area and are mostly in the
southern and western parts. Most of the other soils in the study area
are severely limited for use in this method of wastewater disposal.
In most instances the existence of a hardpan and/or high impermeabili-
ty imposes a severe limitation rating on leach fields. Suitability of
soil for septic tank leach fields is shown graphically on Figure II-4.
CLIMATOLOGY
The climate of the study area is one shared generally by the en-
tire Puget Sound region. The Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound produce a
mild maritime climate with a substantial and long rainy season extend-
ing over mild and pleasant winters, with temperatures averaging 40°-
50°F during the day and 30°-40°F during the night. The Olympic Moun-
tains west of the study area serve to block passage over the study
area of most storms which occur along the western coast of Washington.
Cool, dry summers produce daytime temperatures averaging 70°-80°F and
nighttime temperatures averaging 50°-60°F.
The range and monthly mean temperatures during 1974 for Bremerton
are shown in Table II-l along with total monthly precipitation. There
was no snowfall in 1974, but the Bremerton area experienced a relative-
ly wet winter. Total precipitation for 1974 was 57.28 inches, 13.14
inches above the norm of 44.14 inches. The study aiea, which is with-
in 5 to 15 miles from Bremerton, is of similar topography and is ex-
pected to have a similar climate.
A discussion of wind conditions in the study area is aptly summa-
rized in the Facilities Plan (Reference 1), from which the following
is taken:
Wind sampling in the vicinity of the Planning Area was begun in
July, 1974, by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. The loca-
tion of the sampling site is ... at Dewey Junior High School on Perry
Avenue and Holman Street in Bremerton [approximately five miles from
the study area]. The wind rose (a graphical representation of wind
speed and direction frequencies of occurrence over time) for the per-
iod July 1974 through December, 1975 is presented in [Figure II-5].
The spokes indicate the relative frequency of winds of different speeds
II-7
-------
f* *~, XVA /""""% *
** «" %"'-', *,'',-\*~>^
LEGEND
LIMITATION
RATINGS
SLIGHT AREA
MODERATE AREA
SEVERE AREA
FAILURE AREA
,1
Source: Reference 61
Figure II-4. Soil limitations for septic tank drain fields
II-8
-------
NNW
1.4
(20)
NORTH
3.2
(3.7)
(I 9)
LOCATION- PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, DEWEY JR. HIGH, PERRY AVE
AND HOLMAN ST., BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
DATES- JUL-DEC, 1974. (JUL-APR, 1975) DIRECTIONAL FREQUENCY ONLY
OBSERVATIONS - 3,976
I.I- 4.0- 7.0- 11.0- 17.0- OVER
3.9 6.9 10.9 169 21.9 21.9
PERCENT
Source:
KNOTS
Reference 1.
Figure II-5. Percentage frequency of occurrence of hour average sur-
face winds
II-.9
-------
Table II-l. RECORDED TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL FOR BREMERTON
Precipitation, inches
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
ANNUAL
Temperature, °F
Mean
37.0
41.3
43.7
48.6
52.8
59.8
62.7
65.2
63.9
53.4
46.2
41.5
51.4
High
55
51
58
75
72
-
88
91
89
75
58
54
91
Low
20
29
27
_ a
37
-
42
50
44
38
35
27
20
Total
precipitation
12.31
7.03
7.98
3.44
1.77
1.33
3.11
.06
.35
1.32
8.60
9.98
57.28
Departure
from normal
4.78
1.81
3.55
.91
.18
-.08
2.55
-.08
-1.35
-2.78
1.69
2.67
13.14
Reference: Climatological data, "Washington, Annual Summary 1974,"
U.S. Department of Commerce, N.O.A.A., Vol 78, No. 13.
*i
Dash indicates missing data.
and indicate the direction from which the wind blows. The numbers
below the directional signs on the perimeter of the case indicate the
percentage frequency winds blow from the direction (disregarding
speed); the first number is for 6 months of data and the second number
(in parentheses) relates to 10 months of data. For example, winds
blowing from the East (E) accounted for 6.6% of the six month total and
5.6% of the 10 month total. The data from May and June is expected to
show primarily a northeast orientation. Light and variable winds are
those less than 1.5 knots and are shown in the center of the case. Al-
though wind direction and speed is influenced by local land forms and
land use, the Bremerton wind case generally depicts the predominant
wind pattern expected in the central portion of the Planning Area.
AIR QUALITY
Air quality in Kitsap County was evaluated by Northwest Environ-
11-10
-------
mental Technology Laboratories, Inc, Results were presented in the
Draft Facilities Plan. These results are restated in Appendix C and
are summarized below.
The air quality in Kitsap County is very good. A monitoring pro-
gram in Bremerton, a location assumed to be a "worst" case because of
its greater population, has shown that carbon monoxide levels are far
below one-hour and eight-hour standards. It is assumed that typical
"smog" constituents such as hydrocarbons, photochemical oxidants and
nitrogen dioxide would also be present at very low levels. This is
due to the generally low county population, particularly within the
study area, and to the frequent presence of winds from nonpolluted
areas, exchanging air within the study area.
Existing Conditions from Available Inventory Data
Pollutant emission rates appropriate for the study area have been
estimated and are summarized in Table II-2 for existing (1975) condi-
tions. Countywide estimates were provided by the Puget Sound Air Pol-
lution Control Agency which summarized the 1972 air contaminant emis-
sions broken down for Kitsap County and for the following categories:
fuel combustion, industrial sources, solid waste disposal, transporta-
tion sources and miscellaneous area sources such as orchard heating,
agricultural burning and slash burning. These data were updated to
1975 assuming that only transportation and residential area sources of
fuel were population dependent. Current solid waste disposal and slash
burning are also updated in accordance with population estimates.
Table 11-2. AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IU KITSAP COUNTY (1975)
Carbon Hydro-
monoxide carbons
A a
58.19
B b A B
1.10 13.76 0.27
Nitrogen Sulfur
oxides dioxide Particulates
A B A B A B
6.34 0.12 4.27 0.08 2.12 0.04
Tons per day.
Pounds per person per day.
NOISE
A sampling and analysis of the existing noise levels in the study
area were conducted by the U.S. Navy in conjunction with their Trident
Support Site Environmental Impact Statement (Reference 3). Table I1-3
11-11
-------
H
CO
co
I-l
O
3
P
I
a
3
rH
O
0
O
CJ
3.3S
U IH
UJS*
au3
*3"*
u r"»
§4)
"•g
.33
•H kl
o u
0) 0 0
W -H
I rH rH
•H rH -H 4-1 O
H !s cU
4) T3
4J i-H CO iH
3 4> a W
o > a t-t
43 0) kl
4-1 rH O 4J
*s"l
kl iH 01 4J
4J43«
4J -H
o
-H « kl
lu i O
<4H iH
•OB.*4>4J4S-rJ
C3 < rH Mr*
a « -o 41 O 0 • -3
43 >,TJ S -H «
0041 41 00 rH I O
iH kl 0 kl 0. 3 OO
43 TJ (X-rH 41 -H rH
kl 4J XI rl
S-H 43 -H
CO U 3 •
TJ 0) 4J
•H 4J -H CO d
kl < S rH 41
frH 4) -O
4) > -rl
43 • » 41 M
4J 41 a rH H
•HMO)
Ski 4) 4J
U a 3
H 0 -H O
• O -H O 45
4f 0 C U
CO -H 41 -H
a r-i 41 »
CJ g) 43 S
r-i a -H ki
rH43 4J 4J O
a nj o. u
a 4J 41 43 jo
O. CJ 00 4J
0 41 CJ iH -rt
•H o a z »
Sr430ki-rl0Ot*
JodH»oaS
ft
(fl
H
u
a
M
J
CJ
&
•a
a.
a
4J -a
•H O
£4 O
-•s
n) o
S3
0 00
O rH
>.3
a u
2S
US
kl CO
13 4)
kl
41
4J
3 •
>» Q 13
ki (2 kl
a a
4J 0 TJ
§4J
CO
rH iH
W 4J 41
O 45
§•8."
a M TJ
4J 4) 4)
iH *J 4)
^ 0 U
•H X
•30"
wax
U TJ
' o a
4J o|
u
41 rH
n a
o o
rH CO
O rH
O 41
rH W >
•H 4)
00 rH
0 41
•H 4-1 01
jt -rt CO
kl Q -H
s.«i
I
S °rS
41
01
se4*
g
U
• kl
rH 3
O CJ
4= T)
£§
d
a
4-1
to
O 4)
rH
CO 43
3 3
cr a.
•H 4)
4-1 U
4S
4) Q)
So-
s-s
*£
a
gH
« rH
c: 41
4J Q)
O CO
O
00 0
^S
ki 3
(X V4
..3
O U 4)
c3 oi o)
0. 3
o » a ,
4J 4) O
§"J8.
4J >
0 O 4)
25§
rj- 45 a o
. d 4J M
S
4i a
kl O
41 XI
•0S
004,
43 4)
«?
•B UH
§2
§ It
en 43
81!
3 3
a
u
cr
a*
0 0)
O 4J
•H -H
U CO
U
0 C*
3 -H
ai a
43 44 a
W a 43
00
4J rH -H
a 0) 43
•• 4) 4J
rH I
O <4H >>
o a 4)
43 rH
O 4) rH
co ki a
»*>
U 41 rH
33!"
0 10 4-
4) 0
8 W 4) •
4) -H CJ TJ
rH 43 O
W 4J TJ O
0 00
0 u a
8 a »
4) 0) 0 4J
P rH oo a
4) O 3
•o 4i -H
SiH 01 U
01 rH CO
4) U
n a
4J 00
kl UH CO
*4 • a irt
00 kl X
0 O 4J 4)
•H en
4? 3
•O 0)
5 4)
t2 4J '
0 4) CD
O <4J [2
^33;?
2-So. 30-
rH rH a 4) T4 O
•H MO to
CO Ss 4-1 41 41 rJ
M rl kl 43
IH 41 « 4J ••
M
-------
summarizes the characteristics of the measurement stations in the
study area, and Figure II-6 locates those stations.
Measurements of ambient conditions were made in the summer of
1973. These measurements are summarized in Table II-4. The criteria
by which these noise levels were evaluated are found in Table II-5.
Table II-4. EDITED RESULTS OF NOISE PROGRAM OUTPUT
Existing
noise level
Site
3A
3B
3C
4
5
6
7
11
(1973)
Peak a
hour
58/46
58/61
69/61
73/56
70/50
77/66
59/48
72/55
, dBA
Night
peak
-
-
71
59
-
-
80
1980 predicted
without Trident
Peak a
hour
55/43
70/59
70/59
72/60
73/61
81/71
6'8/56
76/61
L50
-3
-2
-2
4
11
5
8
6
Night
peak
-
-
72
69
-
-
80
noise levels, dBA
with
Peak a
hour
57/46
78/67
74/63
75/63
75/63
83/73
68/57
83/68
Trident
L50
0
6
2
7
13
7
9
13
Night
peak
-
-
74
71
-
-
83
L10/L50*
Source: Reference 3.
Table II-5. NOISE CRITERIA USED FOR EVALUATING TRIDENT PROJECT
L level
Maximum allowable
exterior noise level
Source
Comment
L10
70 dBA
"5C
55 dBA
FHWA's PPM 90-
2, Table 1
EPA-NITD 300.7
Effects of
Noise on Peo-
ple, p. 49,
Fig. 14; and
Land use category
B: residence, mo-
tel, hotel, public
meeting room, li-
brary, hospital,
school, church,
picnic area
Criteria based on
outdoor speech
communication in-
terference at a
conversing distance
11-13
-------
Source: Reference 3.
Figure II-6. Noise measurement stations
11-14
-------
Table II-5 (Continued). NOISE CRITERIA USED FOR . . . TRIDENT PROJECT
L level
Maximum allowable
exterior noise level
Source
Comment
^peak
(nighttime)
60 dBA
Permissible
increase of
ambient
(£,50) noise
level
0-5 dBA; few com-
plaints if gradual
EPA Region X
Guidelines,
p. 31
EPA-NITD 300.7
Effects of
Noise on Peo-
ple, p. 68,
Fig. 17; and
EPA Region x
Guidelines,
p. 3, corrected
EPA-NITD 300.3
Community Noise
Ch. 5; and EPA
Region X Guide-
lines, p. 32,
and correspon-
dence with Re-
gion X, EPA
of 10 ft
Criteria based on
50% of the people
being protected
from awakening if
interior peaks do
not exceed 50 dBA
Ambient noise lev-
el for this study
chosen as 1.50» the
outdoor median
noise level (with
consent of Region
X, EPA); criteria
based on community
reaction (i.e.,
annoyance) to lev-
el increase above
existing condi-
tions
Source: Reference 3.
In general, the study area is of a rural and quiet nature. Any
noise levels exceeding guidelines for adjacent human use activities
occur along major arterial roads through the County and are the result
of truck and automobile traffic. Development of the Trident Support
Site in addition to normal County growth will increase noise levels at
sites 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 on the order of 2 to 13 dBA. Principal
areas of high noise will be Clear Creek Road, Bucklin Hill Road and
State Route 3.
11-15
-------
FRESH WATER HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Surface Water Hydrology
Streams
Principal streams within the study area are shown in Figure II-7.
The principal streams and drainage areas are tabulated in Table II-6.
Total drainage area encompassed by these creeks is 24.2 square miles,
with the largest drainage area being associated with Clear Creek (7.46
square miles) (Reference 5).
Table II-6. LOW FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS, CENTRAL KITSAP
Stream
station Stream
number
0705 Clear Creek
KP60 West Fork/Clear Creek
KP52 Steele Creek
KP59 Barker Creek
KP59A Barker Creek
KP61 (unnamed)
KP62 Strawberry Creek
KP63 Knapp Creek
KP64 (unnamed)
Source: Reference 5.
o
Estimated.
Drainage
area,
sq miles
7.46
3.68
4.75
4.02
0.44
3.01
0.28
0.55
Low flow,
of c
cz s
1.5
2.16
4.56
0.89
3.81
0
0.1 a
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
1.08
0
0.03
Month/year
8/47
8/47
5/71
8/47
8/47
10/47
2/71
5/71
6/71
8/71
9/71
12/71
8/47
8/47
8/58
8/58
Chemical analyses of streams, performed in 1961, indicated that
surface water within the study area was of excellent quality with re-
spect to State of Washington standards. More recent information from
11-16
-------
LEGEND
INDICATES DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARIES
INDICATES STREAM AREAS USED BY
MIGRATORY FISH
SEASONAL GUAGING STATION
PARTIAL RECORD GUAGING STATION
NOTE'- NUMBERS ARE U.S.G.S.
STREAM GUAGE NUMBERS
Source: Reference 5.
Figure II-7. Location of principal streams and their drainage areas
11-17
-------
1973-1974, including bacteriological sampling, shows a deterioration
in the water quality (Reference 1), Bacteriological sampling of Clear
Creek indicated that the standard on coliform count of 240/100 ml for
class A water was exceeded in 90 percent of the samples, An increase
in iron concentration to 0.3 rag/1 was noted in the more recent infor-
mation. Sampling from Burke's Creek showed that the coliform count of
1,100/100 ml was exceeded in 50 percent of the samples.
Comparison of data on surface water quality within the study area
indicates a general deterioration of water quality. High coliform
counts indicate possible contamination due to excessive septic tank
drain field failures. Presently, data is limited to several creeks;
sampling of other streams in areas where septic tank failures are
known to occur would probably indicate similar deterioration in water
quality.
Lakes
Island Lake is the only lake within the study region. It encom-
passes an area of approximately 43 acres, with drainage via Barker
Creek to Dyes Inlet.
Island Lake water is of good quality and normally meets the State
water quality standards for Lake Class waters. Recent (1973-1974)
data from monitoring programs is summarized in Table II-7. Bacterio-
logical sampling from 1973-1974 revealed that between 10 and 25 per-
cent of all samples exceeded the coliform count of 240/100 ml, which
is the lake standard. This fairly high percentage indicates the possi-
bility of contamination due to septic tank drain field failures, al-
though the observed incidents of high coliform levels have been random
and do not indicate continuous discharges from malfunctioning drain
fields.
Table II-7. 19.73-1974 MONITORING RESULTS FOR ISLAND LAKE
Parameter
Temperature
PH
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate
Phosphate
Unit
oF
PH
mg/1
mg-N/1
mg/1
Minimum
38
6.7
8.2
.02
.002
Maximum
74
7.7
13.2
.02
.002
Source: Reference
11-18
-------
Groundwater
Because there are no significant surface water resources in the
study area, water supply is obtained from groundwater aquifers. Fig-
ure II-8 shows the locations of wells as given in Reference 5, Well
depths were computed by overlaying the elevation of the static water
level on a topographic map. There are many shallow dug wells in the
study area, used primarily for domestic water supply. Some well capa-
city data were available and are shown on Figure II-8, Well water
quality is believed to be generally excellent, Well water quality data
for the area are actually quite limited, but the quality of the aqui-
fers which these wells tap is given in Table II-8, These estimates of
water quality are probably valid for the deep aquifers but are only ap-
proximate for the surface aquifer, which is subject to contamination
from a variety of local sources. With respect to bacteriological qual-
ity of certain of the groundwater sources within the study area, recent
data were much more plentiful. Bacteriological sampling was carried
out over the period from 1973 to 1974, The following discussion of
well types, depths and quality is organized by geographical location.
North Silverdale
There is a large cluster of wells just north of Silverdale, some
of which are artesian wells. Most of the wells are very shallow, with
an average depth of approximately 20 feet. About one-half of the wells
are dug wells, while the other half are drilled wells. Flow from the
artesian wells ranges from 25 to 65 gallons per minute (gpm). Most of
the dug and drilled wells penetrate only through the till surface layer
to reach the uppermost water table. One well in the area extends be-
yond the till into the Golvos Sand geologic deposit, 80 feet below the
ground surface. That particular well yields about 35 gpm. Much of the
water obtained from the shallow wells is probably recharge from surface
runoff.
Results from bacteriological sampling in the Silverdale area
indicated that between 18 and 20 percent of the samples contained more
than one coliform organism per 100 milliliters of sample. Although
not excessive for drinking water standards, this exceeds the limit for
groundwater sources, which is set at one coliform per 100 ml of sample.
Uncontaminated groundwater supplies should have virtually no coliform
count.
Chemical constituents of four water supplies in the Silverdale
area were determined by the State Health Department during the recent
study period (1973-1974). Water from these wells generally met the
USPH standards for drinking water, with only a few exceptions, The
11-19
-------
LEGEND
DUG WELL, DEPTH OF 100 FT.,
YIELD OF 250 GPM
•;: •g DRILLED WELL, DEPTH OF 5 FT.,
F INDICATES ARTESIAN WELL
Source: Reference 5>.
Figure
Location of wells
11-20
-------
00
P5
fi*
i |
CO
o-
fl4
0
H
g.
pi
H
tl
•
00
I
M
M
m
r— \
fl
H
jj
c
rH
K
C
o
•rH
JJ
ca
g
0
01
c
•H
n
01
.0
i
M
O>
4-1
5
3
4J
rfl "O
Is
DC CO
ctt
2 <*
5 CM
2J •*
oq CM
Is
0>J
en
co in
1 "
*HJ °^
§1 2
CIS] rH
Sn o
^ \D
0)
<*
sr oo o\ oo
fHintHcnr^^' *oom »cn eft
srsrisricnvoi -I 1 fH
limioiiiniotcN i
VOCM *o *'lH • • r-i m
VOvfCMtMOOOOOCMVOr-l O
cn fH CM in ' • CM 1H
o\ o
fHcntHcMsrinincM .CMOO o
•a-l 1 1 IfHfHienifH fH
rocMocni ICMISTI 1
•tj\ • . . * o O .OCM-* CM«»tHr» -fH • -CTl O
^oinooi'TVcMToi 1
fHr^fHcM -en «iH - -in CM
rHrH • - -m • • -ooo -o m
O 9 10 E tO^U-HJJJ^iHVHS
r-lrH 00-Q4J UrHrHU O Ol'^'M
CO
*
09
«
f^
«n
00
A
00
r*
0
00
I
00
VO
cn
^
o\
I
r-t
SO
.
SO
^^
to
41
00
ca
%
X
o
•H
b
1
rH
"g.
6
g
5
^3
•rt
5
8-
•0
,_!
f— 1
1
f
o
3
O
01
.£>
•8
1 .
rH rn
u o
e u
•H S
w to
g .
^ -s
m w
m eg
•1 3
fH O
"3 *«
•& °
oo cn
1 §
: 1 f
y C C
M U Vi
i£! CO O
01
« oo a
5 «
rH 3
41 CX *H
0 B 0
h 3 C
3 cn tn
O
Cn It) rO
11-21
-------
Dawn Park Estates' well exhibited high levels of iron (1.72 mg/1) and
phosphate (1.77 mg/1). Kitsap Water District No. 6 showed high phos-
phate concentrations (2.4 mg/1).
East Silverdale
About one mile east of Silverdale, around Bucklin Hill Road, lies
another group of wells. All of the wells in this area are drilled
wells except for two artesian wells located near the shore of Dyes
Inlet. Well depths range from five to 100 feet, The artesian wells
yield a combined flow of 40 gpm, while the deepest well averages 250
gpm. Except for the artesian wells, these wells all penetrate into
the Colvos Sand layer and should have the same excellent water quality
characteristics as the wells in the Silverdale area.
Meadowdale
Centered around Meadowdale, in the southeast corner of the study
area, is another group of wells, most of which are dug wells. Depths
of the dug wells range from 10 feet to about 70 feet, with the average
depth being around 25 feet. These shallow wells extend beyond the
surface till into the Colvos Sand layer. There are two deep drilled
wells in the area, with depths of 110 and 275 feet, producing 450 and
40 gpm, respectively. These wells extend below the Colvos Sand layer
through the Kitsap Formation, thus falling into the Salmon Springs
Drift category. Noteworthy also is an artesian well north of Meadow-
dale on the Port Orchard coast which produces about 1,500 gpm. All of
the wells in the Meadowdale area yield excellent quality water. The
deeper wells, drawing water from the Salmon Springs Drift Formation,
yield a higher mineral content, as reflected by the higher total dis-
solved solids content. The increase in the bicarbonate concentration
of this water has raised the average pH value, but it still remains
within acceptable limits. This water is of excellent quality with re-
spect to USPHS standards for drinking water.
Brownsville
Approximately one mile west of Brownsville lies another group of
wells. Virtually all of the wells in this area are shallow dug wells
with depths ranging from six to 35 feet and an average depth of 18
feet,, There is one drilled well, 35 feet deep, in the area. All of
these wells reach into the Colvos Sand layer, thus yielding an excel-
lent quality water (see Table 11-8). Water derived from the shallow
11-22
-------
wells is probably recharge from surface runoff.
Results from recent bacteriological sampling does show, however,
that about 5 percent of the samples collected from the North Perry
Water District contained more than one coliform organism per 100 ml of
sample. Although this exceeds acceptable limits placed on groundwater,
it is still quite acceptable with respect to USPHS standards for drink-
ing water.
Clear Creek Area
There is a small cluster of drilled and dug wells about 1.5 miles
north of Silverdale, next to Clear Creek. These wells are all 25 feet
or less in depth. The Colvos Sand layer in this area is very shallow;
therefore, most of the wells extend through the Kitsap Formation into
the Salmon Springs Drift Formation.
North Clear Creek Road
Just west of Clear Creek Road, about 3.5 miles north of Silver-
dale, lies a small group of dug and drilled wells. The shallower
wells average 40 feet in depth, while data on the deep wells indicate
depths of 125 and 200 feet. These deep wells yield 300 and 1,500 gpm,
respectively. The shallower wells derive water from the till surface
layer, while the deeper ones penetrate into the deep-lying Colvos Sand
layer. Recent bacteriological sampling from the Clear Creek Mobile
Home Park well indicated that 10 percent of the samples contained more
than one coliform organism per 100 ml of sample.
With exception to bacteriological results, the water quality here
should be excellent, as described in Table II-8.
Island Lake
There are a few small wells of varying depths surrounding Island
Lake. These wells range from 15 to 80 feet in depth and extend as far
as the Kitsap Formation. The deepest well produces 30 gpm. These
wells should yield excellent quality water, but Island Lake may be a
recharge area, and its quality may affect the future quality of the
local groundwater.
11-23
-------
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
The Kitsap planning area is located within the Western Hemlock
Forest Zone, which is characterized as being the most extensive vegeta-
tion zone in western Washington and Oregon and the most important in
terms of timber production. The Puget Sound area is a sub-unit within
the Western Hemlock Zone and contains slight differences in vegetative
distribution and dominance, mainly because of climatic and soil fac-
tors (Reference 8). The topography within the planning unit is gener-
ally low-lying hills and plateaus. The elevation averages from 200 to
300 feet, with some upland ridges reaching 400 to 500 feet. The area
lies in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, receiving 30 to 35
inches of annual precipitation, with at least 90 percent of the precip-
itation falling between November and April. The amount of moisture
plays an important role in the distribution and abundance of local veg-
etation.
Conifers originally covered almost the entire study area. Since
the arrival of European man and his subsequent land uses, the vegeta-
tion has changed to its present mosaic, which can be characterized as
being composed of seven biotic communities: (1) Coniferous Forest,
(2) Broadleaf Forest, (3) Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest, (4) Pas-
ture/Meadow, (5) Freshwater Marsh, (6) Residential and (7) Marine
Shoreline. There is considerable intergrading of species within these
units, and they should not be viewed as distinct entities. The distri-
bution of these units is largely a function of climate, relief, sub-
strate and the occurrence of fire, grazing, logging and other human
activities. The Coniferous Forest is the predominant unit, the wet,
mild, maritime climate being favorable to the growth of conifers.
Hardwoods are generally subordinant except in stressful habitats, in
recently disturbed areas or in specialized habitats such as riparian
zones (Reference 9).
The fire potential during the short dry season in the Puget Sound
area is very high. Historically, there were many large, destructive
fires before the introduction of fire suppression measures in the
early 1900's. In the past 24 years, there has been only one small
wildfire, of 62 acres, in Kitsap County (Reference 10). before the ar-
rival of civilization, fire was part of the natural ecology, and peri-
odic groundfires that burned slash and debris kept the fuel load from
becoming excessive. In fire ecology, the most important factor is the
presence of fuel to carry a fire. Many of the forest stands have an
accumulation of downed timber, slash and brush that provide a continu-
ous ladder of fuel from ground to canopy. A wildfire in such an area
in the dry summer months would be extremely difficult to control.
No rare or endangered plant species are found within the planning
area (Reference 11). Representative vegetation and wildlife for each
11-24
-------
biotic community are presented in Table II-9. A more complete listing
of species and occurrence is given in Appendix D.
Of the wildlife occurring within the study area, the American
peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is the only species consid-
ered to be endangered (Reference 19). Because of urbanization, forest-
clearing and other changes in land use, this bird is probably transient
and does not depend on specific parts of the study area as a permanent
or primary habitat. Outlying regions beyond the study area which are
less disturbed and closer to their natural habitat may attract and sup-
port a small peregrine falcon population.
No endangered mammalian species are recognized within the study
area (Reference 20); however, several rare species which may exist in
the study area have been identified by the Washington State Game
Department. These are the mountain lion (Felis concolor), sea otter
(Enhydra lutris), fisher (Martes pennant!) 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 20).
The seven biotic communities within the study area are shown on
Figure II-9 and are described in Appendix E.
Proposed Treatment Plant Site
North Brownsville Site
The proposed site is adjacent to Highway 303, approximately 1.5
miles north of Brownsville, as shown in Figure 11-10. The site is
situated within a 30- to 35-acre stand of Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf
Forest. The land slopes gradually to the southwest in a wide mound be-
ginning near the northeast corner. The southern and eastern edges of
the site descend toward open field and a freshwater marsh zone, as de-
Dieted in Figure 11-10. Several small springs were apparent during a
winter 1975 field survey. Water seepage originated within the wooded
areas and orobably indicates a high groundwater table.
The wooded stand is predominantly immature Douglas-fir and western
red cedar, with a scattered association of bigleaf maple and red alder
in semi-open areas. The understory is generally shaded and moist, with
much tree litter and downed wood. The ground cover is patchy and con-
centrated mainly in clearings with maximum light penetration. Typical
ground vegetation includes lady fern, sword fern, salai, Oregon grape,
holly and a seasonal environment of mosses and fungi.
11-25
-------
JH
H
Q
a
^
("> .
rii
w 3 at
0} iH tfl (fl O &
MO W U M
0) » 43 1 4-»
0. 43 X 1 d W
O U tfl -O 01
o o) T-J 4t *o -
O 01 U iH d
l-i CD O O
- 0 - * 00 • O
d to r-4 a> M u
OI - iH TJ Vi tH Cfl
oo ot tH cd 01 43 H
•H CO 01 44 O. r4
D. 3 4J O 0) rt -
O l/l -H Oi 3 *-•
T3 i-i 43 M w
••eg d 4-1 o> >H
01 *O 4J Id rH (fl
•O 4) 01 (0 43 00 S
•H rH -H 43 3 -H d
PQ 43 19 y d J^ <3l
•o
4) *
MH d X d
01 Ol J-i 4-t O :
4-» 60 43 0) 3 60
UCT34J4-IOHJr-
(8 3 Ot iH M M 14
o o w 3 a oo o
to X 3
41 - (0 -
43 «4-4 hi tU 13 4J rH •
U O «3 d d'H-4 -H (d E rH t
3 *O in O> l-( W r-
C 0) Ui OJ tfl
M (fl 0) 41 rt O.
-H U ri 4J -a - T
v tn *-> -H -H oi d at -H
o o y *J n »-« -^
a o M oi -< rH O 00
O 3 C Ol rH .H W
IM u (fl TJ nj E 1
Q. Cd M 43 01
rH d 0) 0) •
(d O 43 > d
U d -H 0 0» 0
4.) 3 *J >> 43 42 -H
d o « rt td « u
01 43 *-* B rt
0 CO 0) * rl >
oo m o (d [4
o rt > d -HJ P u
(d 43 01
tfl - 13 *J O *O (4
d >* ot « d
O 4J N H-i fl| iH
•H d vt o» o
V4 o td u 4-* 4J (X 41 fd d
S 3 5 § S 2 3
§
o
£
at u
*t-t U)
d M
o o
O fK
5
V i M g *
3 01 *T3 60 d « .X
0 ^ d 3 -H «
H v* 01 o - n) d
•H W M M to M
* 3 P 01
01 o- 5 » -a Tj ^
4-1 to O 01 P Ot 4t
O H « (d ^ 4-t
X 60 3 0 U Vi
OP * o n) rt *d
a -H 01 Q rH 43 60
XrH tfl 1
- rH O « W -O »
o> <4-i > e o) u
« d *o p, d *a
43 H 41 E « * P
41 ^ 3 -H *O fl
01 43 O ••-, 60 t-i P
O U (fl ft «
(fl O 1 -H -H -H td
O 01 -H -H
p -Jjooj-t-a •
ID .M R] (fl O 01 60
p -fL, (X, 4-1 O O
» 3 V4 (fl 4-) M
J^ S 01 - - 60 1 *W
P CU > [fl LJ-H600)
J<4= 4ttfl OtrHQ ^
r - >.
3 V* - Ot 4J d
H Ol >i 1 00 Ot O
1 3 V-i TJ d -H ti
o ^ tfl rt v* -a
3 iH 01 O V* tfl P •
flV<43V4O>Ot4l
H at TJ c
3C-H4t -w O -O O
3 iJ • U M • J3
3 o. oi cn (0 to 60
J rt D. M 43 43 3
H 4^ W tfl 4-i l-i O
-I Vj * 0) h
H -WWO414343
J C 3 3 CLrH 4J
d u j) o CL.* d
^aj3rH3tJOT3
u-i a; IH « 3 s P
- -H W B 3
UT3 -3U1XOO
3. l-i 01 4) 0) U <4-<
fl O 0) T3 t) d
-*3Od-HO*4-i(0
JOwM(flW43O-H
•g
3
,a
T3
41
rH
-H
(d
4-4
13
41
)~i
^
3
o
Ji
01
4)
^
U
t»
tft
TD
^
W
•4H
3
r-t
60
•H
J3
m
V4
(d
u
(Q
«j
y
x
4-1
•H
3
4J
Ul
V
kt
o
*M
»j
01
T3
iH
eg
5
1
i-f
c
O
(J
G
4)
0)
3
4J
4t
ja
T3
0)
tn
u,
4t
a.
to
u
01
d
M
«4H
rH
-3
2
m
* 1 13 1
o at at -43
U 4-1 (XJ4 4-1
>» d d 1-1 *H p M
P 3 C 43 K 3 0
5 T*t 3 QI 3 *-* s d M
O O 4J (Op. » O
•a ptHta*a ^H - ti w
-OrHOtP *43014Jfl)
oiotoix P tdd*H
4tT)VJ «00 -H-O^tOi-H
3nio -ud a a E tH
Oljid 4JOtO (U » (fl cfl
(XCt^OlrHM »(04JrH
•H OOiH 43 d P -H Cd d
•Q43POOV4 - O 3 43 0) l-i
OU-HptdX O O J3 0)
O 3-H3O OH«4-lJ3
Oltfl T3 (fl- flJUOl
dO.3*O4) - ViXrH>HO^
V^p. 4>d43 O -H 60 C (fl
4> (0 V4 P 3 U •> IH (d P
4JU(fl3Od M 4-IO— 01
Wt-OOWiiH crJ-OC-Ht*
4I^OIUU>4-i • 01 K O 4-1 3 l-i
3UUUI to 43 Vj 4J -H Oli3(dV^(fl4-i D 00
T3 l-i 3 O O P. CX 43 >, (U C C T3
0) 00 10 O tfl W -H P
60^10 « * **CJ3 4i(d
cu- -uiVt*a w o P to
•HOI^tadJUOl iH • B U 1 T3
Pp.OOrHOOp n ^£ 01 43 l-i
|J T3 -H Qj J3 (fl 5 E C )-* 4-* 60 rt
3O3V4UPO •H30IU3N
o o a> -H (fl qj ,j <3j^aioto*H
S3W'^3*JW •'IW'OJtf^H
, ai.
§o oi *d
a *-» d
43 -H *-• «0
4 3
P W 43 X
L4 17
4» X - M
4J rH C 4t
tn d n ja
H M ^ td b
60 Ol U K 4)
3 13 rt »-* ja
O d rH (0 M
Q ^J ja T3 41
41 T3
-43 rH
Ot • X 01
rH ^ U -
O. U V-t O.-O
O O 41 3 Ol
Q rH 43 0 M
*O
tO oi
X *O 1 O rH
•H OJ MiU CrH^H
(flT3 rt
LI d 43 oi at 4-i at
OJ (fl rHOOO)4ttap
01 3 (fl O L> (fl O O
00 O J3 XtH ,_3 0 M
•H 4-1 tH tfl i* (iq
•M « (fl *o -o
tndco3*ooid Pot
OlfHCflOPrHtdCdp*
V4 O -rl 3 O rH O
O 00 (-< > O (0X43
-H M O flO
W t4 IH D. (0 T3 (0
3VJCJ 41 tfl p 4) 14-1
O3Up>p3^i4H
•mO343U4-trtM43
iJ
«
01
v<
&
u i
O 3 60 rt
""".Sd
ni *T ai u
rH 0) 0) 41
•H -H r w
•3 V4 -H 4»
w rt 3) 3
41 H
to *M •
*H T3 60
41 TJ (3 •
Ot d O -Hj W
^ o (tf 3 >
•H -H So
rH 4-1 | rt M
T3 d T3 3 H
rH 4) 41 rt
•H E 4) U D.
S W rt W
0) *O
— P 0) 41 TJ
w o u o d
rH N Q («
g a «
e « rt O d
tn*HO>X4-» a. o. o
4) ti-« rH QJ t-l 4-1 rtO*S
3 -HE V»3 V< 3 B
U4> -0>4& 60WO
- tfl 43 rH 45 O
V> CU (fl 41 - d (0
•H ^.-HiHU O d O
eo03rt-a -oto
3 41 * 41 O. W
ovM*oxv4rt y o J3
Q rt d v< w 3
41 fl O * rt 4J 4C
U-*rH U X U 4-1. O
O60-(flV4(0 4t rJ «-"
•HtlV4V4tflO'H(UO
4J 43 QJ OJ (U y 43 3O
(0 T3T343 V^ 0) O VI
01 *>Hd41 - »«H
Uk>tfl3fHX*JU|4-( -
Otfl J-i 4-» 45 43 y a t0iH)
00 43 4-1
d 4-1 0}
OHO)
•3 S »
M ••§
3 *O rt
y rt
y o *
o pi oi •
tfl «H rH r-
•O rH ^ fl
P -H > t
rt 33 u)
U p Q
(OPS
•H O r
*O rH L»
S310
SS'S
"3UH
o rt
t-< 0)
^ <4H T3 (0
41 -H rt 0)
x d o V4
SO r4 O
U r4 FM
11-26
-------
N
!3
£3
O
f^
<
c/3
H
3
,_j
M
H
W
0
C/3
H
M
hH
B
Q
0
u
u
l_]
H
M
M
*
x—N
T)
(U
3
JJ
Pi
O
U
^
o^
t
1 — t
, j
cfl
H
S
C
O
"jj
nj
O)
u
»
at
CJ
nj
to
43
V)
4)
rH
e
TJ
(fl
O
•rl
JJ
(0
CJ
O
>
c
i
o
u
X
cO
rH
(J
•H
Ll
X
-H
d
3
Q
U
oi
00
en
rH
crj
g
•rl
d
CCJ
T)
d
cfl
TJ
•H
sq
1
41
00
at
d
cfl
tfl
a.
^
rH
<0
U
•H
O.
H
C
O
•H
CO
JJ
0£
a>
d
•H
l-i
Cfl
iH
&
I
T) B TJ •
X VI d rH
o » -H u cfl 3
B in n ni
§>Jil r
SO) Ll CO JJ
0. Cfl 43 rH U
CX 3 (0 tfl O
OI iH O tfl 43
5 "°.2 3 «
W J3 O iH
a u » * a s
e w o
J2 -rt 0
O **-* 4) bO c
3 TJ Li 0 Li
(fl rH -rt M TO
O > U-i 43
•H d .£ at 3 ^
.-t (0 tfl LI w 3
13 O 3 JJ d rt
rH iH LJ j*
•iH Li 43 U TJ
3 41 JJ -rl d rt 44 Q
-r) 3 o d, o)
41 0 W |
Li Li d -43 cfl
O J-l "H rH (fl &0 TJ
> CTj (0 rH i— I 3 Ll
(0 IX 3 3 ccj O -H
14-1 w c/> cq s M pa
oo -o
T) d to d
V -H - iH
M oo d oo
* -H B ta
at u o s
rH CO rH
O. O Li
§- W 4)
41 -H
co at - L,
d 43 r-t 41
•H 43 tfl rH 4)
> CO <« rH 43
U 10 JJ
* >
LI JA at d
rt d a « o
V ^ rH JJ
CJ (fl ^ 1
TJ O «*•• Cfl
41 * O O 3
-J 43 M 1 O
3 43 X rH
C -H rH rH
Ll O d -H Tt
4) CO rH 3
JJ CO U
(fl — -H TJ TJ
3 *H 01 -H tfl
CO Ot < Li
•H TJ TJ Ot
- d TJ
C - 41 tfl rH
O Ll rH CO
•H QJ JJ rH
<0 rH 0) Ot 4)
jj co d co pd
rH
tfl
•H
JJ
41
T)
•H
<5
at
Hi
(X
to
TJ
c
(4
•a
d
(0
rH
g
01
u
JJ
to
(0
ft*
8 -if
Ll rH -H
U * O 43
Li 00 3 -
d at o at
o at d u to
B TJ nj 3
0 rH O TJ O
O rH -H (U B
j4 at tfl TJ
3 .3.8 S
Si .i §
rH TJ J* 3 ««
CO -H Ll O 1
3 Ll (0 Li 01
Ll -r4
(I) CX Ol TJ 3
(U d Li
L* X Li i-4 -
1 Li 43 J* 01
JJ 00 CJ 43
at -co tx
O TJ Li 43 • CO
•H Li « 3
> -H rH Cfl O JJ
- 4) O L* H Ji
at 3 TJ at cfl o
43 rH CO 3 (X O
(U 43 41 41 CO ft
O £ L>
4= d M 43 -
(X *r4 d cfl CO
CO Ll * d •-*
d) JJ 41 43 d cfl
- d u u to e
cfl O 41 -H cfl d
to 3 3 ^ to <
41 »
43 CO
H at TJ
10 Li
to o
a> LI to d
d co co
o.w-1 x (X
o to 3
0) iH O
•H JJ TJ Ol
43 4) JJ
3 -H Ot JJ
Li X 3
d tfl 01 43
Li > 1
ai x - co
to C —
ai at • -H a
3 -a ex B at
: co o.
TJ r-t a T) W
d O X rH
rt) d U 41 d
•H Cfl -H O
1-1 rH IM B
•H tfl J3 B
n-i 4) * O
t i-l - 10 U
(0 U X 01
cfl at L. 43 ai
-H (X Lt (0 Ll
00 (0 Ot 3 O
3 43 Li S
03d
Q O O » L*
JJ OB
"it *d "S
o> co a.
CJ TJ rH
L* 0 >
33
(9 rH 00
<;
rH
5
Ll
01
JJ
CO
(0
O)
r»
jf
0
3 1
O 00 41
LJ rH d JS
41 rH O JJ
43 41 (0 O
- d d
TJ d fl) tO
d 4)
CO H X *J
30 d
TJ *JH tfl
rH tO Ll >
§^l «•
» 41 rj ij
O rH rH X
•H -H 43 O
rH 43 CJ
3 M 0)
ca d co d
o d o
*w 3 y
•H * 1 0
rH 3 TJ CO
u o at L«
8dJ8 5
-H
Li (0 TJ *J-I
41 rH rH |
JJ -H CO U)
jj cfl tO
3 JJ TJ rH
43 jj at oo
* o o
tO rH Q
Ot * cfl
43 41 d rH
tfl 00 O tO
3 (fl -H d
Li 43 Cfl O
43 tfl -H
* rfl to
* . 3
TJ 0) CO 43
-H at LI *>
to d o
JJ rfl TJ Li
t S OJ cj
CO (0 00
d rH CO *
d o> o) cfl
CO O L* 3
JJ CO
d oo d *H
at d cfl v-t
tfl O -r4
grH 00 iH
O T) Li
* rH (fl
CO d 3
3 Li 43 d
LI jj * eg
43 (0 CO 43
to o) o
LI 43 £ in
ru jj ai TJ
CO O Li iH
3 d JJ (Q
Q
Q
o
43
43
O
o
CJ
•H
1
to
(fl
rH
CO
3
O
U
rH
tx
(fl
£
cfl
at
rH
fH
CCJ
,
§
o
rH
rH
g
ca
4>
X
jj
O
TJ
d
CO
4)
rH
(0
at
•H
CO
rH
CO
•H
JJ
d
•3
•H
V)
J3 rH
^ d *«
rH -r« JJ
Cfl »JH d
C O
O 01 JJ
10 CO JJ
fl 3 O
60 3* d rH
C O iH O
1 II 1
3 W 00 41
(0
Li 41 d d
CB w rfl 3
TJ 3 O o
4) O -H H
U 43 Li
4)
-,-> i at
C rH < (0
43 d TJ O
o o d B
(fl Li
• at 3 at
TJ to o at
W ^- LJ TJ
CO Li CX Cfl
C 4) (0 rH
3 43 00 E
O <0 O d
B 3 to <:
X (4
rH -H
Li JJ
3 g c
TJ at
- -H at
CO tO 43
at 01
(X Li 41 ^
- d to w
C -r* 43 rt
o at
Li d tO Li
TJ o at to
C 1 o
TJ o at 01
O U tX D.
TJ tfl tfl
o at cj
43 Li U 10
Li (fl iH TJ
JJ d
T) 41 O tfl
O rH X rH
Li U 0)
Cfl d
- -r4 X -H
Cfl JJ fl) TJ
LI £ «
D.TJ O
CA d 3
CO - T)
d to o
(fl ^ ffl Ll
U O Ll C
O 13 cfl -H
CO
at at
rH CO X
rH TJ d n
•H 41 1-4 '
SJJ U p
JJ (0 Li
O tfl TJ O C
Ll CJ d JJ £
OQ 1/5 fl) CJ v
rH B t
W *H C
CO • 41 Li (J.
at s at
43 -H 0 (X I
u (0 co 14.
3 T) 43 **•
W 3 43 JJ I
O JJ Ll r*
tfl TJ iH O J
at co 3 d
u 2 to co J-
•H CD d c
3 C 0 rH t
0 tfl 43 CO )-
00
o
IM 13
S i!
u u
s s
"u S
10
IX «
M
•a' • S
Cfl Q) Tj
JJ *cO ^
d ^
rH (0
tfl *
at LI d
O JJ Ll
(0 43
* OO
rt c 3
U Li t-l
at 43
rH JJ
Cfl CO JJ
Li 0) (4
0) 3 41
*H 43 M
JJ CJ]
JJ O ••
1^ B
(fl d -H
LI to pa
Qt
u
J
0
•§
rH
o
•
*J
H
oc
00
ca
tfl
M
M
*2
q
O
t
ai
x o
j at •&
* *"* J3
tO U
3 -1 3
4 nj OJ
J Li -Q
3d H
41 *
0 CJ >
J rt
^ TJ LJ
3d M
H (0
i TO -a
TJ 0
- Li CO
D 43 *2
5 o w
a1
0
1
TJ O «
w » 01 3d
to Li J4 * « O
341 a o. o
-d 41 3 ca 3
rH U d <4 rH (4
JJ | O rH rH
• -H T) <0 3 00
at 3 « oo
O. O LJ Li (4 »
0 TJ U CO -
to TJ a to a)
41 (4 01 W JJ
CJ r-| Ll 3 Ll •
Q rH d 00 0 «tl «
B -H Ll *H P, iHl
§ 43 41 * U rt r-<
O 1 JJ TJ (4 d 3.
U 41 (4 «
J| ^l^-l
^ ^ d 1 _ «
- -H a js J3 i ta
t>0 a. fd U V 60 -H
01 13 -H 3 r-* (3 d
r-t fl O. tt «W -H M
2(0 'M M O
a a a u
O O J4 .a «» «
u i -a -o H M
(0 «rt Q 4) 1-4 a
a a o H o « -H
^ o) 0 W 00 4 ?
a
o
1
o
>w
4)
4
tl
JJ
3
X
ILt
9
43
J>
1 >M
p^ O
•g
(4 QJ
3 u
"2 J
P •rt
•a a.
M _.
a p
A M
U 01
o u u
s a -3
,? ^ M
At X
.* a
co u at
4251
•H
•3
U
C*)
11-27
-------
Poulsbo
LEGEND
CONIFEROUS FOREST
2. BROADLEAF FOREST
3. MIXED CONIFEROUS/
BROADLEAF FOREST
4. PASTURE/ MEADOW
5. FRESHWATER MARSH
6. RESIDENTIAL
7. MARINE SHORELINE
L
Reservation
111
:••/ •••: Q: >.<•••••'••••<<
Source: Reference 1; adjusted after site surveys.
Figure II-9. Generalized vegetation map of study area
11-28
-------
TREATMENT FACILITY
SITE
Source: Reference 61 and site visits
Figure 11-10. Proposed north Brownsville site
11-29
-------
Adjacent to the site, the wooded area borders a pasture with a
stream and seasonal marsh occypying the lower areas. The demarcation
between forest and open field is sharp and often linear, following lot
lines. At the present time a farmhouse and barn on the site are occu-
pied; however, several old wooden structures for hay storage and ani-
mal shelter are scattered through the woods. Due to the predominance
of Douglas-fir over maple and alders, wildlife on the site would be
characteristic of a Coniferous Forest community. Animal numbers are
generally low due to the uniformity of the wooded area and its limited
understory. In addition, domestic animals—particularly cattle—roam
freely throughout the area, disturbing the natural environment.
Proposed Pipeline Routes
The expanded proposed pipeline routes are shown on Figure 11-11.
Biotic communities which would be traversed by the pipelines are pre-
sented in Table 11-10. The majority of the pipeline routes will be
within the road or the roadway right-of-ways.
One pipeline route with significant sections which pass through
vegetated areas and which does not follow established roads is dis-
cussed in detail below. This route (303C) connects the Bucklin Hill
Road interceptor with the Brownsville treatment plant site and in-
cludes the route from the treatment plant to the outfall site in
Port Orchard.
Pipeline Route 303C
The exact alignment of this pipeline segment is shown in Figure
11-10. Three sections of the alignment pass through sensitive biotic
communities: (1) a wetland ecosystem between Madison Road and the pro-
posed Brownsville treatment plant site, (2) a freshwater marsh between
the treatment plant site and South Keyport Road and (3) a steep ravine
on the last 600 feet of alignment descending to the beach at Port
Orchard.
The pipe alignment between Madison Road and the treatment plant
site traverses low farmland within the drainage course of the north
fork of Steel Creek. The creek originates in springs within the wooded
area of the treatment plant site and flows southward, forming several
small ponds. During the wet season, the low pasturelands and woodlots
in the vicinity of the site become waterlogged because of high ground-
water table. The grassland area is generally poorly drained and un-
suitable for agriculture. The extent of the wetlands varies greatly
between seasons and can be classified as forested swampland intergrad-
ing into grassy marshland, which further drains into an open riparian
11-30
-------
Source: References 1 and 61
Figure 11-11. Amended proposed alternative pipeline routes
11-31
-------
co
W
g
S x
PS g
J_l
Prl P
535 C
H "*
M T
!r 1
Cb G
r-1 1
r~i v
&. 01
b
0 §
@ £
W o)
g
0 a
S I
* •;
i
c
to *
W c
M "*
H "
M
U
Table 11-10. BIOTIC
n
u
c
3
5
o
r--.
\o Vi
CO
ir»
^
)
•
i
i co r*
1 VO
i
1
! CM
J
^
j
3 rH
^
3
rH
(U
Location and description
Lverdale, along Highway 3. Lev
IH
en
0
u
0
o
•H
f
O
41
c
•H 0)
rH U
41 3 CO
O. O M
1-1 V4
CU,
in
CM
1^^
rH
o
m
00
CO
o
to
>%
1
60
•H
«
0
4J
CO
>,
I
60
•H
SB
§
VI
U-l
•8
&
_ i
Bucklin Hill
1
level.
rH
in
CM
o
in
4J
M
O
41
M
O
4J
"3
O
oi
H
3
a
•H
rH
Jt
O
3
n
§
u
VH
CO
O
to
1
60
1-1
Ed
M
CO
o
to
W
§ .
U
°> X
at 3
o u
•a
4)
41 41
u a
i -.
H Q
t»
al
H iH
o
cs IM
i^
0
rH
O
CO
O
CO
o
tH
>O
3
i-l
1
g ^ -a
4> O H
W O
4J - -
to
O CO
l>
X
23
d 5
es
CM T(
M
sa
SrH
a,
•o
§4J
B
o4 a)
rH B
rH (U
•H 41
W U
4-1
a
From Buckli
Brownsville
u
CO
0
to
From treatment plant site east
tfall site C at Port Orchard.
crossings.
rH
rH
i
ng terrain with farmlands and £
•H 01
P. u
0 O
rH rH
CO
T3
S>> 41
rH T3
•H 0
3§
o
in
o
CO
o
CM
1
1 Reservation to Mountain View
llowing Highway 303 to Keyport.
hills, completely follows road
m o
iS1"
S5 -a
o1 §
60 U
C (a
4 to
« 41
O
to
o
CO
Undulating
easements.
s
Tl
_J
3
1
CO
41
0
•H
VI
Ml
J3 "
1
rx
.C
n
u
•J
**
8^3
4J *l
i §
•S3
W ^
0) to
U 41
C*4 04
1 1
in vo
>M
<4
01
1
b
^*
81
M^ 10
•H «
C X
Q ^^
0 01
VI
•o a
41 U
X
-------
strip (Steel Creek). Aquatic vegetation is seasonal and is limited to
mosses and scattered rushes, while wildlife is limited to a few orders
of aquatic insects, amphibians, some migratory ducks and almost no
fishes.
The freshwater marsh between the treatment plant site and South
Keyport Road was at one time contiguous with the marsh area, described
in the preceding section, at the origin of Steel Creek. Highway 303
now separates the marshes, but the habitat type remains similar for
the two areas. The roadbed forms a drainage barrier for the upper
marsh and induces an enclosed, permanent marsh environment. The pond
area is fringed with rushes and cat-tails; common wildlife includes
the red-winged blackbird, various ducks, the Pacific treefrog and the
red-legged frog.
The last segment of the pipeline route follows a narrow ravine
which descends 200 feet to Port Orchard channel. The open ravine is
relatively steep (30 to 40 percent slope in places) and is marked by
a small, permanent spring at the head of the ravine. The adjoining
Broadleaf Forest areas are extremely steep, with cliffs dropping 100
feet vertically to the beach. A visual inspection of the cliff strata
revealed 10- to 30-foot layers of alternating sand and gray clay. Dur-
ing the wet season, continuous water seepage within the upper 10 to 20
feet of the cliff area causes random slumping in the clay layers. The
ravine itself was apparently formed by gradual erosion and is lined
with considerable thicknesses of water-saturated clay. The sides of
the ravine are thickly vegetated with alder, bigleaf maple, vine maple,
salal, Oregon grape, salmonberry, lady fern and sword fern. The cen-
ter of the ravine supports only a fragile ground cover of youth-on-age
and Synthyris over the unstable clay substrate.
Pipeline Routes 303P and 305
Figure 11-12 has been provided to show the detailed location of
proposed pipeline segments through Leraolo and Keyport. Pipeline routes
303D and 305 would be constructed entirely within the right-of-ways of
existing roads, as would all other remaining pipeline segments with the
exception of the crossing of Liberty Bay.
MARINE WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
Marine waters adjacent to the study area have been designated as
Class AA (Extraordinary), with the exception of Dyes Inlet and Sinclair
Inlet, which have been designated Class A (Excellent). Criteria for
these classes are included as Appendix F and include numerical values
11-33
-------
POULSBCV
LEGEND
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
OUTFALL
Source: Reference 61
Figure 11-12. Interceptor routes through Lemolo and Keyport
11-34
-------
for some parameters and qualitative nondegradation statements. Applica-
ble standards for streams and lakes are also included in the appendix.
Some of the more significant criteria are shown in Table 11-11. These
standards apply throughout the water body except within a limited ini-
tial mixing zone surrounding a wastewater discharge.
Table 11-11. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR MARINE WATERS
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 dose 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 NPDES or permit system. Per-
mits define the minimum quality of discharged effluent that will main-
tain 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 by mid-1983. Sec-
ondary treatment is defined numerically as shown in Table 11-12. Best
practicable waste treatment technology is presently defined as secon-
dary treatment plus any additional treatment required to meet water
quality standards. Thus it is apparent that all alternatives will re-
quire secondary treatment; however, some may require further treatment
in order to meet water quality standards.
Table 11-12 FEDERAL SECONDARY TREATMENT EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
Value
Characteristic Unit
Monthly average Weekly average
Biochemical oxygen demand
(five-day)
Suspended solids
Fecal coliform
PH
mg/1
mg/1
no./ 100 rnl
PH
30
30
200 a
6.0 to
45
45
400 a
9.0
•a
Geometric mean.
11-35
-------
PHYSICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
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 cov-
ering approximately 2,500 square miles. Water depths of 600 feet are
typical in the central basin near Seattle, and maximum depths extend to
930 feet. Theoretically, the entire volume of the Sound's waters is be-
lieved to be replaced about twice a year. Considerable variation occurs
between the extremities and the central basin, however, and flushing
efficiency varies widely on a monthly basis. Tidal exchange of Sound
waters with incoming ocean waters varies with depth and density charac-
teristics. Submerged sills within the Sound tend to restrict the ex-
change of some of the colder bottom waters which are stratified at depth.
The exchange of the upper waters, however, is relatively efficient.
The shallow sills are critical in controlling the mixing and the
nature of the water which contributes to the deep waters in the inner
basins of Puget Sound. Mixing by surface cooling during the winter
and by flow across sills tends to equalize oxygen and nutrient salts
vertically through the water. Because of this mixing and the tidal
exchange that occurs with waters of the open ocean, the water of Puget
Sound is well supplied with oxygen and with mineral salts necessary to
support aquatic ecosystems. Consequently, Puget Sound provides a rich
habitat for a diverse community of organisms.
The Puget Sound subsystem most affected by the proposed alternative
is the Port Orchard subsystem, which includes Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet
and Liberty Bay.
MARINE WATER QUALITY
Information on the quality of waters in the study area has been
recorded as far back as 1932. The following paragraphs are summarized
from the Draft Facilities Plan (Reference 1), which itself summarizes
data obtained from a multitude of soxirces.
Point Jefferson to Blately Harbor: extraordinary water quality,
with only occasional violations of standards, deemed to be due to na-
tural causes.
Port Orchard: generally extraordinary water quality; frequent
violations of bacteriological, and turbidity standards in the Burke Bay/
Brownsville area.
11-36
-------
Rich Passage: extraordinary water quality, with only occasional
violations of standards, probably due to natural causes.
Dyes Inlet/Port Washington Narrows: generally excellent water
quality; frequent violations of coliform standards and occasional vio-
lations of dissolved oxygen standards.
Sinclair Inlet: average water quality conditions; considered ac-
ceptable, but frequent violations of the coliform standards.
In conclusion, marine water quality conditions in the study area
might be described as excellent but with local bacteriological problems
in areas that are subject to only mild flushing.
Waste Disposal and Water Quality
The effects of wastewater disposal upon the receiving environment
are dependent upon the quality of the discharge, the dilution it re-
ceives in the receiving water and the nature of the receiving water.
Appendix J explains the mechanism by which dilution is accomplished in
the marine environment and clearly defines the difference between ini-
tial dilution and subsequent dispersion and flushing. It is the cumu-
lative effect of each type of dilution process that determines the suit-
ability of a site for treated wastewater disposal.
Initial Dilution at the Proposed Site
The following calculations of resultant water quality at this out-
fall site were performed by Engineering-Science, Inc. using a methodol-
ogy separate and different from those discussed in Appendix J.
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. This approach is
embodied in the PLUME model used by Parametrix to calculate initial di-
lution. The second approach is based on the continuity equation:
0 Q
where
C0 is the initial dilution
u is the current speed across the diffuser, ft/sec
11-37
-------
b is the diffuser length, ft
d is the effective depth, ft
Q is the wastewater flow rate, cfs
Irrespective of diffuser port configuration and sizing, the maximum ini-
tial 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 ini-
tial dilution.
If it is assumed that an initial dilution of 100:1 is a desirable
goal, that one-half of available total depth is the effective mixing
depth and that a reasonable rule of thumb for diffuser length, based
on hydraulic considerations, is 50 feet per mgd, then a minimum current-
speed necessary to obtain this dilution can be calculated. The frequen-
cy of occurrence of this current-speed, and consequently dilution, can
then be estimated from University of Washington information on frequen-
cy of occurrence of current speeds (Reference 53), as shown in Table
11-13.
Table 11-13. PERCENT OF TIME SITE PROVIDES 100:1 OR MORE
INITIAL DILUTION
Discharge site
North Port Orchard
Depth,
ft,
40
Spring
83
Frequency
Neap
60
Average
71
Table 11-14 compares applicable water quality standards with efflu-
ent 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 wa-
ter quality, it does demonstrate that at any disposal site which experi-
ences good flushing action it is reasonable to expect that secondary
treatment will be sufficient to meet the standards. Available data permit
only a rough estimate of 95 to 99 percent of the time at dilution will be
10:1.
Dilution Due to Circulation and Flushing
The proposed disposal site is at north Point Orchard, where an out-
fall would be located about 1.5 miles north of Brownsville. Discharge
would be out into the deep water in the Port Orchard basin. Excluding
the effects of shoreline surface tension and possible laminar flow
through Agate Passage, model results for this area are probably accurate.
Strong currents coming from Agate Passage and Liberty Bay provide good
11-38
-------
Table 11-14, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ESTIMATED DILUTED WASTE
CONCENTRATIONS
Characteristic
Total coliform,
AA
standard
70
Estimated
waste concentration
Secondary effluent a
Undiluted
1,000
Diluted 10:1
180
Diluted 100:1
11
MPN/100 ml
Dissolved oxygen, 7 3 7 7.9
mg/1
pH
Toxicity
Ammonium
Chlorine
, t.u. b
c, mg/1
, mg/1
7-8.5 6-9
1.25
20 - 25
0.1 - 0.5
7.8 - 8.1
0.12
2 - 2.5
0.01 - 0.05
8
0.01
0,2 - 0.25
0 - 0.005
Assumed background for secondary effluent is 100 MPN/100 ml for total
coliform; 8 mg/1 for dissolved oxygen; 8.0 pH value.
Assumes dechiorination of effluent.
c
Can be significantly reduced by extending biological treatment period,
mixing in this basin. An approximate dilution ratio was calculated on
the assumption that the northern Port Orchard basin, exclusive of Lib-
erty Bay, is a complete-mix basin. It was also assumed that all net
flow into or out of the basin occurs through Agate Passage and that the
bssin is separated from Port Orchard at Battle Point.
Calculations were made during the preparation of this report to
confirm the good mixing observed in the Port Orchard basin section of
the model study. It was assumed that an eight-foot tide occurs and
that the effluent will be completely mixed in this basin after the two
days it takes to reach equilibrium concentrations. With a tidal ex-
change of 25 percent each tidal period, a dilution of one part effluent
to 5,000 parts water was estimated. This dilution is considered accu-
rate within an order of magnitude. Adverse wind conditions, Iccal ed-
dies, etc. could reduce effective mixing. This site is estimated to
have fair initial dilution and good subsequent dispersion and flushing.
Marine water quality standards should be consistently met, and often
exceeded, with the discharge of properly treated secondary level efflu-
ent at this site.
11-39
-------
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The Marine ecosystem within the waterways, inlets and passages of
Puget Sound is a complex system with myriad links and multiple affect-
ing factors. The Kitsap County marine environment has been described
in detail in Basic Data and Related Sources to Shorelines and in Appen-
dix D, Kitsap County Shoreline Inventory (Reference 22). The inventory
was compiled from marine biological records of the Bureau of Sports
Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Interior in conjunction with
Evergreen State College and the North Kitsap Marine Environmental Cen-
ter, Poulsbo, Washington. Portions of this report are quoted exten-
sively below.
Marine Vegetation
Vegetation in saltwater and estuarine areas of Puget
Sound and connected waterways is very important to the marine
environment. Marine vegetation can provide the following bene-
fits: stabilization of the beach shore system and the subtidal
shore system; an environment for wildlife, benthic and other ma-
rine life; energy through the photosynthesis process; increased
productivity in the marine environment; food for all forms of
marine life. Examples of marine vegetation are kelp, eel grass
(ZosteraJ, 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 salini-
ties, moderate water currents and semistable sandy bottoms, and
usually at depths lower than one foot below mean lower low wa-
ter. 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, be-
low 10°C], Eel grass is a food source for black brant, detri-
tous feeders such as limpets and snails, and other marine life.
The heavy beds of underwater eel grass provide ... [excellent]
photosynthetic food production capability. They are used by
spawning herring and provide nursery areas for small shore
fishes and salmonids. The eel grass beds also provide habitat
for certain benthic organisms and crustaceans.
11-40
-------
Kelp
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 provide a dense, jungle-like environment at mid-depth
in the water column, like large underwater trees. Kelp beds
are prime habitat 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 si2t usually
comprise the bottom materials. For anadromous fish (salmonids)
spawning in tributaries to these areas, the salt/fresh water
area is used by descending young salmonids for feeding, as a
transition zone between fresh and saltwater, and as a refuge
from predators. The substrate in these areas provides and har-
bors organisms that are extensively grazed upon by juvenile
pink and chum salmon. Other fish make extensive use of these
areas for feeding and as a. nursery area. Such fish include
starry flounder, stickleback, eulachon, surf perch, sculpin,
Pacific herring, surf smelt and various species of flounder
and sole. Some fish may spawn in these areas. At depths
greater than one foot below mean lower low water, eel grass
may be present. [Pacific herring and surf perch may spawn
here.] Dungeness crab (particularly juveniles) feed exten-
sively in this type of habitat during the summer and fall
months. Shrimp usually inhabit the bottom substrate. If bot-
tom conditions are favorable, clams may be found in the sedi-
ment.
Steelhead, salmon and cutthroat trout have been observed in the lagoon
at the mouth of Clear Creek.
11-41
-------
Wildfowl, particularly heron, are attracted to estuarine environ-
ments and sandy beaches. Herons are common in these areas, yet the
Pacific Flyway population is small. Shorebirds feed on the numerous
snails, worms and insects of the estuaries and shorelands. Some spe-
cies 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 pro-
longed 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 communities 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.
11-42
-------
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. At Ilahee, butter, littleneck and bent-nose clam, bar-
nacle, 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 interface,
fish concentrations or presence of aquatic vegetation in areas where
fresh water crosses the beach. Bars, spits and gravel beaches are fa-
vored 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 beuthic, water column and surface zones, which are distinct
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 surface. 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
11-43
-------
clams and worms, and epifauna utilizing the zone above the substrate,
such as crabs, barnacles, mussels, limpets and snails.
Man places a direct value on some of the benthic organ-
isms, such as clams, oysters, other edible molluscs and crus-
taceans. Others, while not seeming to be of value, are actu-
ally of great indirect importance through various food-chain
and food-web relationships. Barnacles, which are abundant in
the intertidal zone are often considered a nuisance, at worst,
and of no importance at best. They are actually an important
source of food for several species, including the pile perch.
The bent nose clam, while it seldom attains a size large enough
for people to feast on, is the victim of an interesting feeding
relationship in which the English sole bites off the siphon of
the clam if the fish finds it sticking up from the sand. Both
the perch and the sole are food for man.
Other seemingly unimportant benthic organisms, such as
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.
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
lordit lumberinerid and cirratulid polychaetes and some unidentified
curaaceans.
At the mouth of Rich Passage offshore of Manchester, in water
depths greater than 60 feet, were found large concentrations of the
small clam Axinopsis serricatus and some Macoma carlottensis. Poly-
chaetes were generally scarce.
Benthic fishes in the general study area include spiny dogfish;
bay goby; great, rough-back and Pacific sculpins; speckled sanddab;
starry flounder; and flathead, rock, slender, English, C-0 and sand
11-44
-------
sole. A more complete listing of probably occurring fish species is
given in Appendix D.
The Water Column Zone
Marine life in the water column zone is extremely complex and dif-
ficult to comprehend completely. It has been observed that many ani-
mals, including salmonids, rockfish, bottom fish, herring, oysters and
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,
especially at nighttime, to feed on tha collected waste, decom-
posed plant life, smaller shore life and other smaller fishes
on the bottom. During the daytime, the larger fish retreat to
safe deeper waters. Shallow bay and shoreline areas are neces-
sary during the infant state of development for many fishes.
Important local fish species in the water column include stickle-
back, eulachon, bay pipefish, pricklebacks, shiner and pile perch,
striped and white seaperch, sturgeon and pygmy poacher. Fishes favor-
ing algal and other vegetative associations include northern clingfish,
plainfin midshipman, blackbelly eelpout, whitespotted greenling and
longspine combfish. Other pelagic fishes include Pacific herring, sal-
mon, Pacific cod, Pacific hake, walleye pollock and Pacific tomcod. A
more complete list of probably occurring fish species is given in Appen-
dix D.
The Surface Zone
The surface zone is used for navigation, water contact
sports and visual and aesthetic appreciation; as a resting area
for wildfowl; and for protection of small fish, predation by
larger fish and swimming by mammals such as seals and otters.
[This zone is utilized by all life forms, including—indirectly
—benthic life in the intertidal zone.] Phytoplankton require
high percentages of light transmission to carry on the photo-
synthesis process.
Increased water turbidity or any activity which occupies the total sur-
face zone hinders any ether use of that zone and halts phytoplankton
production. Since the surface zone consists of an interface of water
11-45
-------
element and air element, it is important to consider this zone as an
edge environment which is affected by activity or development on
either side.
Algal concentration studies for Sinclair and Dyes Inlet were per-
formed in Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters (Refer-
ence 23). Although limited phytoplankton data were available for the
calibration, the algal concentrations were studied for their value as
an indicator of productivity in the marine environment and as an indi-
cator of other factors, such as nutrients, light, certain growth coef-
ficients and zooplankton. Computed algal biomass concentrations in
Dyes and Sinclair Inlets are shown in Figure 11-13. A species nonspe-
cific algal biomass was computed, based on 80 mg biomass corresponding
to one mg chlorophyll a.
In winter, the model computed the lowest algal biomass with an av-
erage of 800 yg/1 in Port Orchard. Spring values were higher, presum-
ably due to increased light (heat) energy and upstream nutrient inputs.
Concentrations exceeding 1,500 yg/1 were computed for Sinclair Inlet,
Port Washington Harrows, Dyes Inlet and Liberty Bay. Model results
show that summer algal concentrations dropped to approximately 500 yg/1
in the bays and inlets while remaining relatively high in Port Washing-
ton Narrows and near Bremerton. By contrast, the main channel of Puget
Sound, near Bainbridge Island, ranges from 5 yg/1 in the winter to 348
yg/1 in the spring. Model results can only approximate true conditions,
which could vary from those predicted.
The seasonal pattern of variation in algal concentration tends to
infer that phytoplankton in Puget Sound are primarily limited by light
and secondarily by the input of nutrients. Continuously high concen-
trations from spring to summer in Port Washington Narrows reflects the
nutrient loading from the Mannette Sewage Treatment Plant wastewater
outfall on the western shore of East Bremerton and the return of much
of that wastewater at each tidal cycle.
Wastewater Outfall Disposal Site
A summary presentation of the prominent features at the proposed
marine outfall disposal site is given in Table 11-15. The table indi-
cates the general presence of shellfish and vegetation species in addi-
tion to fishing and other activities in the local area.
In July and August 1975 the intertidal marine environment of three
of the potential wastewater outfall sites was assessed in detail, by
Northwest Environmental Consultants. The sites studies were (1) Site
B, Point. Monroe; (2) Site C, north Port Orchard; and (3) Site F, Dyes
Inlet at Silverdale. These additional findings were briefly summarized
11-46
-------
2
s
I
to
§
I
CO
4J
0)
•a
H
41
cd
i-4
"a
10
1
CO
I
a
•rl
CO
u
g
u
CO
CO
CO
H
cd
•a
a)
H
M
M
01
60
•H
11-47
-------
Table 11-15. MAJOR MARINE FAUNA AND USAGES IN THE VICINITY OF
PROPOSED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SITE
Marine environment summary Site C» north of
Brownsville
Mussels x
Barnacles x
Cockles a
Manila clam a
Gaper clam a
Bentnose clam x
Butter clam x
Japanese oyster a
Pacific oyster a
Oyster drill infestations a
Geoduck (subtidal) a
Littleneck clam (subtidal) x
Intertidal hardshell clam a
Mixed shellfish a
Herring spawning areas x
Surf smelt spawning areas a
Major waterfowl areas a
Eelgrass beds a
Sea lettuce (ulva) and Laminarla a
General fishing area (sport salmon) x
Concentrated fishing area (sport salmon) a
Commercial salmon fishing (gill net) a
Nonsalmon sports fishing
Cutthroat a
Bottom fish a
Commercial otter trawl
Regularly fished a
Historically fished a
Closed to trawl x
Commercial herring fishing , x
College of Fisheries research areas x
State tidelands a
Aquatic land use allocations
Bedlands: aquaculture a
commercial a
Tidelands: commercial a
Presence of existing outfalls a
Source: Reference 22.
Note: "a" indicates absent or insignificant; "x" indicates present,
11-48
-------
in the draft EIS. For detailed descriptions, refer to the baseline
stxidy (Reference 62). Following is a description of the results for
the proposed site at north Port Orchard. Sampling sites are identified
in Figure 11-14.
Site C, North Port Orchard
The proposed site has an intertidal beach beginning at the base of
a steep, 200-foot eroding cliff area. The first 30 feet is composed of
large cobbles, boulders covered with periwinkles and barnacles, drift-
ing logs and many fallen trees. From 30 to 60 feet, the beach becomes
silty sand with pebbles and cobbles and is populated by periwinkles,
limpets, purple shore crabs and native and Japanese littleneck clams.
From 60 to 90 feet, the beach flattens out to dark gray sandy silt,
covered heavily with green algae (Enteromorpha} and inhabited by the
bent-nosed clam and the parchment tube worm. Beyond 190 feet, the
sandy silt is thickly vegetated with eelgrass and supports several clam
species, cockles and polychaete worms of the family Owenidae. Below
the intertidal zone, aquatic vegetation diminishes, and burrowing ani-
mals, particularly geoduck clams, brittle stars (Amphiodra occidental-
is), the tube worm Phyllochaetopterus prolifica, and the nut clam Acila
castrensis are abundant. Beach seining during the summer of 1975 net-
ted predominantly shiner seaperch, staghorn sculpin and jellyfish.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Flora Resources
The planning area is situated within a broad evergreen belt char-
acterized by dense growths of primary and secondary coniferous forests.
Approximately 290,000 acres or 60 to 65 percent of Kitsap County is
commercial forest land. The major commercial species is the Douglas-
fir. Commercial tree-harvesting occurs in limited portions of the plan-
ning area but does not constitute a major industry. The production of
and floral products such as Christmas trees, holly and foliage plants
(brush and ferns) comprises a minor industry in Kitsap County.
Agricultural production is limited to home fruit and vegetable
gardens, small-scale farms and forage for grazing livestock. The 1969
U.S. Census of Agriculture reported consolidation and decreasing num-
bers for farmsteads, as shown in Table 11-16.
11-49
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
BENTHIC SAMPLING SITES
Source: Reference 62
Figure 11-14. Phase II benthic sampling sites
11-50
-------
Farms
Table 11-16. CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE, KITSAP COUNTY
Total Total Percent of
Land use number acreage county
1964 1969 1964 1969 1964 1969
845 260 50,907 24,461 19.7 9.7
Woodland, including wood- 607 159 35,467 16,071
land pasture farms
Source: Reference 24.
Fauna Resources
Fisheries and Aquaculture
There are three major salmonid-producing streams in the planning
area which, although small in size, support runs of coho and chub sal-
mon and steelhead trout. They are Clear Creek at the head of Dyes
Inlet, barker Creek on Dyes Inlet and Steel Creek, which enters Port
Orchard at Burke Bay. The shoreline areas of Kitsap County are also
important for the overall salmon production of much of Puget Sound.
Juvenile salmon migrating to the ocean remain close to shore for pro-
tection and food.
Puget Sound also produces major groundfish resources, including
several flatfish, rockfish, herring, smelt and other species. Some of
the species present are dependent on shallow shoreline reaches for
spawning and/or nursery areas. The commercial and sport harvest of
shellfish in the area is relatively intense, with emphasis on oysters,
hardshell clams, crabs and shrimp. Significant commercial production
of Pacific oysters occurs in the Poulsbo area in Liberty Bay and in
lower Dyes Inlet near Silverdale.
Commercial fishing statistical areas for central Kitsap County are
shown on Figure 11-15. The three-year average commercial poundage and
dollar value of marine landings within these statistical areas are
given in Table 11-17. The statistics reflect commercially valuable and
harvestable species but do not necessarily rellect all resident species,
ecological effects, productivity or Fisheries Department harvest re-
strictions. Salmon were not included in individual pert catch statis-
tics because they were categorized as a wide-ranging species net speci-
fic to particular areas.
11-51
-------
FLEITCHER
A
REMER70N
Source: Reference 1.
Figure 11-15. Commercial fishing statistical areas
11-52
-------
Table 11-17. AVERAGE MARINE LANDINGS AND VALUE
WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, 1972-1974
Kingston and
Port Madison
Species
Pelagic fish
Herring
Silver smelt
Dover sole
English sole
Rock sole
Sand sole
Flounder
Ling cod
True cod
Rockfish
Blue perch
Silver perch
White perch
Skate
Pelagic total
Benthic species
Butter clam
Horse clam
Littleneck clam
Pacific hard
clam
Pacific oysters
Octopus
Crab
Sea cucumber
Geoduck
Benthic total
TOTAL
Source: Reference
(lb)
3,353
3,371
18,066
2,081
1,166
9,161
71
14,574
1,926
561
873
3,953
350
59,506
6
4,517
285
545
5,145
1,200
11,698
71,204
22..
($)
671
336
2,171
240
188
713
16
1,457
202
44
135
778
10
6,961
1
1,084
42
112
2,857
300
4,396
11,357
Fletcher Bay
(lb)
21,751
72
24
4
457
2,106
24,414
132,987
21,187
74,355
570
2,148
425,694
658,941
683,355
($)
4,350
14
6
-
36
415
4,828
12,218
1,065
17,845
84
537
41,871
73,530
78,358
Bremerton
(lb)
33,910
232
69
7,231
313
22,259
64,014
519
20,878
1,000
2,148
24,545
88,559
($)
6,782
46
7
570
48
4,383
11,829
47
5,011
148
537
5,757
17,586
Poulsbo
(lb)
2,949
406
165
661
1,355
5,536
45
8,986
197
113,576
67
122,871
128,407
($)
590
81
20
52
267
1,010
4
2,157
29
130,612
14
150,388
151,398
The Kingston and Port Madison areas produced over 33,000 pounds of
groundfish, of which English sole and cod species were most important.
Overall economic yield was the lowest (4.4 percent) compared to the
other areas.
The Bremerton area, including Dyes Inlet, yielded the second low-
est economic marine harvests (6.8 percent). Predominant catch items
included herring, white and blue perch and littleneck clams.
The Fletcher Bay area includes Fletcher Bay on Bainbridge Island
and the main portion of the Port Orchard channel. The main fish catch
is herring; however, the majority of the local income is derived fron
geoduck clams, with sonie contribution by butter and littleneck clams.
The Fletcher Bay area accounts for approximately 30.3 percent of total
planning area marine catch income. Geoduck harvests alone account: for
53 percent of the income.
11-53
-------
The Poulsbo statistical area includes Liberty Bay and the connect-
ing channel from the bay to Port Orchard. Although the area is small,
the Poulsbo region accounts for 58.5 percent of the local income. The
major economic species is the Pacific oyster, which comprises almost
87 percent of the fishing income. Supplemental marine resources in-
clude littleneck clams and herring.
Terrestrial Fauna
The primary livestock activities in the general area are dairy
farming and the raising of poultry; some beef and swine farming also
take place in the region. However, the largest concentration of live-
stock is found on McNeil Island, well to the south of the planning
area.
Game species within the planning area are generally associated
with particular habitats. Mammals generally prefer densely wooded
areas with intermittent openings and running water. These include
bear, deer, bobcat, coyote and rabbit. Black bear numbers have been
estimated at 300 to 500 within Kitsap County (Reference 25). Although
major bear populations usually occur in the southern and western por-
tions of the county, small populations are found near Island Lake and
in scattered areas. Deer range through the semi-open areas but are not
in great abundance. Bobcat and coyote counts are not available, but
these species are considered numerous in rural, farm and wooded areas.
Rabbits, on the other hand, are found in all meadow and brush areas,
with a cyclical abundance from year to year. Gamefowl occur in limited
areas and include blue grouse, ruffed grouse, mountain quail, ring-
necked pheasant and California quail. The most conspicuous and proba-
bly most abundant animal is the raccoon. These are plentiful along the
shorelines of lakes and streams and near agricultural areas.
The only lake within the planning area is Island Lake, which con-
tains populations of rainbow trout. The Department of Fish and Game
stocks the lake with preseason legal and mid-May fingerling trout.
WATER RESOURCES
The planning area is located within several miles of marine and es-
tuarine water on all sides. To the west is Hood Canal, a long, narrow
and deep salt water body; to the northeast, east and south is the Port
Orchard system. The latter, characterized as shallow, is directly con-
nected to Puget Sound proper via Rich Passage and Agate Pass. A number
of streams are found in the planning area, among them Clear Creek,
Steele Creek, Barker Creek, Strawberry Creek and Knapp Creek. Island
11-54
-------
Lake, with an area of about 42.7 acres, is the only lake located in the
area. Surface waters are used primarily for domestic, agricultural and
recreational purposes and by migrating fish. Most of the area is under-
lain by Vashon Drift till, which normally is impermeable and yields
little groundwater. However, deeper strata, including the Colvos sands
and the salmon and pre-salmon spring deposits, yield moderate to large
quantities of water. The major local groundwater supplies are located
in Silverdale, Meadowdale, Bangor Base and Gilbertson (Reference 1).
If planned improvements are implemented, including the tapping of addi-
tional aquifers, adequate domestic water supplies will be available to
meet the projected needs resulting from the development of the Trident
Support Site (Reference 3).
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Kitsap County has been a popular area for second homes and and at-
tractive site for vacationers. Its scenic beauty as well as the area's
recreational resources—particularly water-based recreation—are among
the reasons for its appeal.
Although it is currently deficient in recreational land, Kitsap
County offers a number of recreational opportunities. However, no rec-
reational lands were designated as winter sports areas, wildlife habi-
tat areas, wetland areas, outstanding natural areas, or wilderness
areas (Reference 25).
For Central Kitsap County, in which most of the planning area
falls, the recreational areas available in 1974, along with the corres-
ponding demand for 1973, are shown in Table 11-18 (Reference 25). The
standards for determining the number of acres required per 1,000 popu-
lation for each area are also presented.
The activities which are common in the aforementioned recreational
areas include field sports such as soccer, baseball and football; court
sports such as handball, tennis, volleyball and basketball; water sports
such as boating, water skiing and swimming; and other miscellaneous ac-
tivities such as horseshoes, shuffleboard, etc. Other recreational ac-
tivities which are pursued by the public include hunting and camping.
The County, recognizing that the existing 837 acres of developed
recreational land are inadequate to meet current and future needs, has
made a number of recommendations and planning policies. The reader is
referred to the proposed "Kitsap County Park and Recreation System Plan"
by ORB for further details.
11-55
-------
Table 11-18. CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Standard
Area type number acres per 1973 demand 1974 supply
1,000 population (acres)
Small urban park
Neighborhood 2.5 141.3 14.8
Community 2.5 157.0 28.5
Large urban park
Without shoreline 1.5 154.7 218.8
With freshwater 1.5 154.7 125.9
shoreline
With saltwater 2.0 206.2 93.1
shoreline
Special-purpose
Golf course 1.0 a 103.1 81.0
Nonurban trail
Bicycle path .6 J 61.9 275.0
Nature walk .9 b 92.8
Eciuestrian trail .3 b 34.2
837.1
a
Number holes/1,000 population.
Number miles/I,000 population.
Source: Reference 25.
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
The utility service systems which are currently available in
Kitsap County are gas, electricity, water and telephone. The gas, elec-
tricity and telephone systems are privately owned, while a number of mu-
nicipalities, water districts and private systems provide water service.
Telephone service to the U.S. Naval reservation at Bangor and to
Poulsbo, Keyport and Lemolo is provided by the United Telephone Company.
Most of the rest of the planning area is served by the Pacific Northwest
Bell System, which is presently making improvements in the area, includ-
ing extending switching capabilities, increasing the number of lines and
extending service to areas requesting it, according to the system's Com-
mercial Forecasting Office.
11-56
-------
Electricity for the planning area, excluding the navel base but
including Poulsbo, is provided by the Puget Sound Power and Light Com-
pany, the western division of the Bonneville Power Administration. The
Puget Sound Power and Light Company indicates that there are no prob-
lems in handling the electrical requirements of the planning area and
anticipates that it will be able to adequately handle any future in-
creases in demand.
The Cascade Natural Gas Company has been providing natural gas to
Kitsap County in the Bremerton and Port Orchard areas, which are out-
side the planning area. The company states that its natural gas supply
is sufficient to provide service to the planning area but that there
has been the economic problem of making the gas available to the area,
given the low present population density and the nature of the terrain
(Reference 26). At present, natural gas service does not extend as far
north as Poulsbo; however, it could be provided by Cascade Natural Gas
Company if demand reached a level high enough to justify system instal-
lation cost.
The planning area has a number of water systems in operation. The
publicly owned Silverdale Water District serves a population of approxi-
mately 2,100, with meters installed only for schools and commercial cus-
tomers and the remainder being served by local wells (Reference 1).
Privately owned water systems in Kitsap County include nonprofit corpo-
rations. The State Department of Health regards all water systems serv-
ing two or more families as public, regardless of ownership. These must
comply with public health requirements. Most of the water for the plan-
ning area is supplied by wells.
The major sources of groundwater in the planning area are shown in
the following table.
Table 11-19. MAJOR WATER SUPPLY WELLS
Location
Silverdale
Meadowdale
Bangor Base
Gilbertson
Well
designation
25/1E-16J
-21B
-28R
25/1E-25M
25/1E-60
-32K
-32L
-32M
25/1E-24H
Yield
25
22
25
50
35
350
30
550
250
Capacity
(gpm)
250
100
150
450
100
1,500
300
550
1,500+
Source: Reference 1.
11-57
-------
Table 11-20 shows the extent of existing waste collection and
treatment systems in the study area.
The wastewater collection and treatment systems outside the study
area but recommended for inclusion with the regional facility serve
Poulsbo, Keyport and Lemolo and are also described in Table 11-20. As
the table indicates, Lemolo is sparsely populated and has no treatment
plant. Poulsbo has a wastewater treatment plant which provides only
primary treatment and is at two-thirds capacity. Plans to expand and
upgrade the system, including as a serious possibility the link-up with
the proposed system in central Kitsap County, are under consideration
at this time (References 61 and 66). Keyport has a secondary level
plant with ample remaining capacity but has been cited in the media as
a source of pollutants to Liberty Bay.
JURISDICTIONS
Kitsap County's governmental responsibilities are defined by the
State. Three elected County Commissioners oversee administrative and
legislative activities. Other elected officials include sheriff, asses-
sor, auditor, treasurer, clerk, judges, prosecuting attorney and coro-
ner. In addition there are 12 primary appointed County officials.
There are 11 districts in the county, including school, water, fire,
port and sewer districts, each with its own taxing authority. County
agencies such as the departments of planning, budgets and personnel,
human resources, public works, engineering, etc. handle planning and de-
velopment for the county. The county has four municipal governments:
Bremerton, Port Orchard, Poulsbo and Winslow, all located outside the
planning area.
There, are a number of Federal, State and regional agencies which
administer programs to the county. Three important regional agencies
which exercise planning policies in the county include the Puget Sound
Governmental Conference, the Central Puget Sound Economic Development
District and the Puget Sound Health Planning Council. The Health Plan-
ning Council and the Economic Development District do not directly af-
fect the selection of a facility alternative. The Puget Sound Govern-
mental Conference acts in an advisory capacity in the selection process
(Reference 60). Responsibility for alternative selection lies with
Kitsap County and the funding agencies.
PUBLIC AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Public and social services are provided in Kitsap County be a num-
ber of different agencies. The Kitsap Community Action Program made a
11-58
-------
Table 11-20. EXISTING WASTE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Service
area
Parkwood
Firglade
Kariotis
North
Mobile Home Park
Quad 2
Woodridge
Eldorado Park
Eldorado Hills
Division 1
Division 2
Division 3
Highland Park
Bridleview
Adkins Trailer Park
Bali Hal
Woodmere
Evergreen East
Bridle Ridge West
Silverdale
Poulsbo
Keyport
Civilian
Navy
Lemolo
Type of
system
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Interim
Septic tank
Septic tank
Interim
Septic tank
Dry sewers
Dry severs
Dry sewers
Dry sewers
Dry sewers
Dry sewers
Dry sewers
Primary plant
Primary plant
Secondary
plant
Secondary
plant
Individual
septic tanks
Existing Proposed Existing Capacity,
residences residences flow, mgd mad
259 sf 460 0.07
1 school 1 school
70 sf 73 0.024
37 sf 204
48 mh
104 mf
1 golf
61 sf
25 sf 31 0.009
10 sf 0.004
41 sf
34 sf
53 sf
11 sf 16 0.004
16 sf 0.006
66
66
98
10
20 sewered to
Parkwood East
50 septic tank
407 0.17 0.23
700 sf .40 .60
100 mf
105 sf .02 .06
industrial area .08 .14
serving popula-
tion equivalent
of 1,400.
80 sf 75 mf .02
Source: References 1, 60, 63, 64 and 65.
Notes: sf - single family; mh - mobile home; mf = multi-family; interim - collective
septic tank treatment; dry sewers - individual septic tank treatment with un-
connected neighborhood sewers.
11-59
-------
"Human Resources Survey" in May 1973 and found that 415 agencies pro-
vide mainly "social" services to county residents. These agencies were
classified as follows: 10.1 percent, public; 63.2 percent, private
volunteer agencies with human resource services as their primary goal;
27.5 percent, private agencies which have services as a secondary func-
tion and exist primarily for other purposes, such as fellowship. Ap-
proximately 28 percent of these agencies are out-of-county agencies
which provide services to Kitsap County. The largest cateogries, by
agency function, are represented by recreation and fraternal agencies
(17.1 percent), general and child welfare agencies (16.1 percent) and
educational and religious agencies (12.5 percent). The State Depart-
ment of Social and Health Services provides county residents with such
programs as public assistance, vocational rehabilitation and veterans'
assistance.
Health services in the county are limited. There are two hospitals
in Bremerton, which is located outside the planning area. One of these
hospitals, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Hospital, exclusively serves
the military segment of Kitsap County, including military dependents.
The other hospital, Harrison Memorial, is available to the civilian pop-
ulation. The Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department provides a vari-
ety of personal and environmental health services and handles a near-
maximum workload. Emergency response services include commercial and
community ambulances, fire departments and volunteer servcies, but there
is no integrated dispatch or communications system for the different
ambulance jurisdictions.
The Kitsap Comprehensive Health Planning Council has been trying
to develop a county health plan which would make health care services
more accessible and available to county residents living outside the
Bremerton area. The council states, "The development to meet the emer-
gency medical needs of Kitsap residents has been uncoordinated, uninte-
grated, and uneven in quality and quantity" (Reference 3).
Dentists and physicians are concentrated in the urban centers of
the county. About 80 percent of the county's physicians are located in
the Bremerton area. The Bremerton Program Planning and Grant Adminis-
tration indicated that in 1973 there were 54 available full- and part-
time primary-care physicians and 47 dentists per 100,000 people compared
to the state average of 82 and 60 per 100,000 people, respectively.
They also stated that there were eight medical clinics, 55 pharmacists
and 256 nurses in the county.
Law enforcement in the county is provided by the State, the County
and the municipalities within the county. There were 141 officers serv-
ing the county in 1974. The International Association of Chiefs of
Police require that there be at least one commissioned law officer for
every 1,000 people. The police force currently complies with this re-
quirement but will have to expand as population growth occurs in the
county.
11-60
-------
Fire protection is provided mainly by volunteer fire departments.
Three fire stations and one sub-station are located in or immediately
adjacent to the planning area. The "Central Kitsap Study Area Compre-
hensive Plan" (Reference 27) calls for two more sub-stations in the
planning area.
Public educational facilities for the planning area include three
elementary schools, one junior high school and one high school. In
October 1974, 4,415 students were enrolled in these schools. There are
two private parochial schools in the county, one in Bremerton and one
In the Central Kitsap School District. Facilities for higher education
are provided by the Olympic Junior College, located in Bremerton. It
is the seventh largest of the 22 community colleges in Washington.
Construction to expand educational facilities of the Central Kitsap
School District No. 401 has already been funded by local voters,-with
the following estimated completion times.(Reference 28):
1 Elementary School - Foster Road area September 1976
1 Elementary School - Esquire Hills area September 1976
1 Elementary School - Bangor (South Gate area) September 1977
1 Elementary School - between Silverdale and September 1977
South Bangor
1 Elementary School - Eldorado Hills area September 1979
1 High School - south of fairgrounds September 1979
1 Elementary School - east side of district September 1980
The sewage treatment facilities in the planning area are adminis-
tered by the Kitsap County Department of Public Works. The wastewater
treatment plant at Keyport is within the Kitsap County Sewerage Dis-
trict No. 4, administered by three district commissioners. The Poulsbo
treatment plant is under the direction of the city engineer. A regional
facility to serve a number of communities in the planning area would be
administered by the Kitsap County Department of Public Works (Reference
67).
TRANSPORTATION
As of 1983, assuming the existence of Trident, the Kitsap County
transportation network will be severely overloaded.
Traffic impacts are determined by using volume/capacity ratios.
Any road has a certain calculated capacity, which is determined by the
number of lanes, topography and speed limit. The volume/capacity ratio
is calculated by dividing the observed or (for future conditions) esti-
mated traffic volume by the calculated capacity. When the ratio is be-
low 1.0, traffic is stable and moves at satisfactory speeds. As the
volume approaches capacity (when the ratio is close to i.O), freedom of
11-61
-------
movement and speed become restricted. At ratios above 1.0, traffic
movement is impeded and traffic is severely congested.
Table 11-21 shows 20 selected segments of the Kitsap County trans-
portation system as of 1973 (before Trident). Table 11-22 shows the
impact on these 20 segments that will result from Trident and from the
expected general Kitsap County growth rate.
Kitsap County is located on a peninsula; access to the region is
chiefly by bridge or ferry, with the only land access over an isthmus
to the southwest. As shown in Table 11-23, the average daily number
of passenger trips in and out of the county is 16,233. The ferry ser-
vice cannot transport more vehicles during peak hours with its present
equipment; because of costs, no new equipment is likely to be purchased.
It should be noted that most of the ferry traffic is composed of
commuters who live in Kitsap County and work in Seattle. As the
Trident-generated population will live and work in Kitsap County, its
presence will not affect peak ferry traffic although it will affect
off-peak traffic.
The six-year road construction program for Kitsap County includes
two small segments which overlap parts of proposed pipeline routes.
One section, to be repaired, is about one-third mile long and is lo-
cated on Luoto Road in the northern part of the planning area, just
west of Highway 3. The second segment is a one-tenth mile segment of
Bucklin Hill Road in Silverdale, at Kitsap Way. Minor repairs to traf-
fic facilities will be made along this small section. At this time it
cannot be predicted when the roadwork will be undertaken. The work on
Luoto Road will probably not begin for several years because of present
unavailability of Federal funding. In order to minimize the disruption
and expense involved in road improvements and in utilities excavations,
all utilities projects are coordinated by the Utilities Coordinating
Council in Kitsap County (Reference 68).
KITSAP COUNTY BUDGET
The amount of revenue necessary to operate county services per fiscal
year is determined by the projected budgets and expenses of the various
county service agencies and departments. Table 11-24 shows a breakdown
of the 1975 Kitsap County budget (Reference 29). The budget for the
county has fluctuated between $14 and $17 million for the last four years.
However, with an influx of population and the relative increase in demand
for public services, the budget is expected to rise sharply.
The general obligation (GO) bond approach is the method most wide-
ly used by public entities to finance improvements which are considered
11-62
-------
Table 11-21. EXISTING TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS, SELECTED STATE AND
COUNTY ROUTES, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON, 1973
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Segment number
and
description
SR 305, Winslow to Day Rd.
SR 305, Day Rd. to Agate
Pass Br.
SR 305, Poulsbo to Bond Rd.
Connection, SR 305 & SR 3,
Bond Rd. to Finn Hill Rd.
SR 3, Finn Hill Rd. to
Sherman Hill Rd.
SR 3, Sherman Hill Rd. to
Luoto Rd.
Luoto Road
SR 3, Luoto Rd. to SR 3
Fwy.
Clear Creek Rd . , Base to
SR 3 Fwy.
Clear Creek Rd . , SR 3
Fwy. , to Silverdale
Bucklin Hill Rd. , Silver-
dale to Tracy ton Blvd.
Bucklin Hill Rd. , Tracy-
ton Blvd. to SR 303
SR 303, McWilliams Rd. to
North Bremerton
SR 3 Fwy. , Clear Creek Rd.
to Newberry Hill Rd.
Interchange
SR 3 Fwy. , Newberry Hill
1C to Chico 1C
SR 3 Fwy. , Chico 1C to
Oyster Bay 1C
SR 3 Fwy. , Oyster Bay 1C
to Werner Ave. 1C, West
Bremerton
SR 3, End of Fwy. to Gorst
Junction
SR 16, Gorst to Junction
with SR 160
SR 160 from Junction SR
16 to Port Orchard
Average
peak-hr
volume
390
350
-
-
650
643
-
655
206
210
-
352
547
-
858
605
-
1551
1720
787
-
Capacity
1200
1200
1200
1200
1000
1000
1100
1200
1100
1100
1100
1100
1400
1660
3300
3300
1660
1910
1910
1100
Volume/
capacity
ratio
0.32
0.29
-
-
0.65
0.54
-
0.55
0.19
0.19
-
0.32
0.33
-
0.26
0.18
-
0.81
0.90
0.71
Source: Reference 3
Note: Congestion within Bremerton not specifically analyzed.
11-63
-------
Table 11-22. ESTIMATED 1980 VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS, SELECTED STATE
AND COUNTY ROADS, KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Volume/Capacity ratios a
Segment numbers b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Without
Trident
1.01
0.68
1.41
1.00
1/24
1.06
0.13
1.01
0.28
0.23
0.49
0.37
0.75
0.52
0.38
0.35
0.52
0.94
0.95
0.88
Option
1.18
0.89
2.28
1.94
2.36
2.23
1.24
1.31
3.28
1.38
1.22
1.02
1.30
1.91
1.06
1.00
1.14
1.32
1.27
1.22
With Trident
1 c Option 2 a
1.13
0.81
1.88
1.53
1.87
1.67
0.59
1.31
0.98
0.54
0.60
0.49
0.98
0.95
0.61
0.58
0.83
1.17
1.14
1.04
Volume/capacity ratios calculated using estimated 1980 peak hour traffic volume
and 1973 capacity at level of Service "C".
See table for segment location.
c Assumes all military family housing off-base.
Assumes all military family housing on-base.
Source: Reference 3
Table 11-23. ACCESS TO KITSAP COUNTY, MAY 1973 a
Route Passengers per month
Hood Canal Bridge 125,000
Winslow-Seattle Ferry 180,000
Bremerton-Seattle Ferry 110,000
Edmonds-Kingston 72,000
487,000 b
Average volume month; volume tends to increase during summer and decrease
during winter.
On a daily basis, the average is 16,233 passengers.
Source: Reference 3.
11-64
-------
Table 11-24. 1975 KITSAP COUNTY BUDGET
Budgeting entity
County
Road district
Municipalities
School districts
Fire districts
Library districts
Island recreation district
Public utilities district
Hospital district
Port districts
Tax dollars budgeted
2,139,516.47
1,595,554.16
1,233,642.66
9,525,754.13
711,599.33
347,476.24
100,888.93
158,170.27
66,034.94
505,547.88
Percent of revenue
13.06
9.74
7.53
58.13
4.35
2.12
.62
.97
.40
3.08
TOTAL 16,384,185.01 100.00
to be of general benefit to a region as a whole. They are primarily
secured by and payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable
properties within the jurisdiction of the issuing entity. General ob-
ligation bonds represent the highest type of credit that a public en-
tity can issue; as a result, they can normally be sold at lower inter-
est rates than can other types of bonds. The lower interest rates stem
from the fact that the GO bonds are backed by the public agency's total
assets, and the interest payments are not subject to Federal income tax.
Such bonds represent an equitable system for financing works of benefit
to the entire area of the agency; when employed with deferred redemp-
tion schedules, the costs of the improvement may be paid by future pop-
ulations receiving the benefit of that improvement so that per capita
cost is held fairly constant over the life of the issue.
General obligation bonds must be approved by a two-thirds vote of
the electorate and are limited to a reasonable percentage of the as-
sessed valuation. Under emergency or urgent circumstances, special
legislation may permit the issuance of general obligation bonds. Fea-
tures of general obligation bonds can be summarized as follows:
(1) lower interest, (2) lower annual cost to meet principal and inter-
est payments compared with other types of bonds and (3) greater flexi-
bility in raising funds.
The revenue bond is another method which may be used by an entity
to finance major facilities when an adequate method of levying and col-
lecting service charges to secure payment of the bonds can be developed.
Differing from general obligation bonds, payment of revenue bonds is
secured solely by the revenues derived from, or as a result of, the im-
provement constructed with bond proceeds; no property taxes may be
levied for their payment. This type of bond is becoming increasingly
popular in California and elsewhere in the United States because of
11-65
-------
increasing difficulties faced by many communities and public agencies
attempting to finance an increasing number of services within their
general obligation bonding capacity.
Major advantages of revenue bonds can be summarized as follows:
(1) there is no legal limit on the amount of such bonds, (2) revenue
bonds are payable solely from the revenues of the project and can never
become a lien or charge against real property, and (3) payment of the
bonds is derived solely from users of the facilities of the project for
which the bonds were issued.
The disadvantages of such bonds can be summarized as follows:
(1) management of the funds is relatively inflexible; (2) the interest
rate is usually higher than that for general obligation bonds; (3) own-
ers of property now using the service pay nothing toward the bonds,
even though some indirect benefit may be received by such owners from
the project financed by such bonds; and (4) a reserve fund must be
maintained as additional security for bond payment and may be in ex-
cess of expected requirements by 30 to 50 percent.
LAND AND PROPERTY VALUE
Property values in Kitsap County have been rising for the past
nine years at an increasing rate, particularly in recent years. The
County Assessor's office indicates $980,833,997 total valuation of tax-
able property for the 1975 Tax Rolls. The county assesses land and
personal property in terms of existing market value plus improvements
made to land and personal property during the fiscal year (Reference
29). Table 11-25 describes the breakdown of taxable property.
Table 11-25. THE 1974-75 TAX ROLLS ASSESSMENT
Type of property Assessment, $
Land
Acreage 336,391,047
Improvements 318,092,922
City and town lands 84,419,958
improvements
Personal property
Boats 5,279,340
All other 51,077,642
TOTAL 980,833,997
11-66
-------
For the next few years, the increase in land value and personal
property is expected to continue due to the influx of population in-
duced by Trident. A significant increase in assessed value will result
from improvements made to the land for residential and commercial de-
velopments and the increase in taxable personal property. This ex-
pected increase, though it has just begun, is here considered to be
part of the baseline context (environmental setting) of the area.
LABOR FORCE
The economy of Kitsap County is dominated by the Federal defense
industry. Civilian employment in 1972 at the Puget Sound Naval Ship-
yard and Bangor Annex accounted for about one-third of the county's
total employment. A breakdown of county civilian force employment for
the year 1972 follows.
Table 11-26. KITSAP COUNTY CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
Employment category Number of persons
Total civilian labor force 36,600
Unemployed 3,300
Total employed 33,000
Agriculture 1,000
Mining, forestry and fishing 200
Contract construction 900
Manufacturing 900
Transportation, communications and utilities 900
Wholesale and retail trade 4,900
Finance, insurance and real estate 800
Services 3,300
Domestics, self employed and 3,400
unpaid family workers
Government (Federal, state and local) 17,000
Federal only (12,100)
Source: Reference 30
By way of comparison, mid-1974 Kitsap County data on Covered Em-
ployment (which generally excludes agricultural employment and clas-
sifies employment slightly differently than the preceding 1972 County
Civilian Labor Force breakdown) is presented in Table 11-27.
To some extent, the relatively higher skills required at the naval
installations are reflected in the occupational distribution of the
county civilian force. The 1970 ratio of white-collar to blue-collar
workers in the county was similar to that in the nation as a whole.
11-67
-------
However, within the blue-collar category (craftsmen, operatives and la-
borers) almost 60 percent of Kitsap County workers belonged to the
skilled craftsman category, compared to a national proportion of ap-
proximately 33 percent (Reference 3).
Table 11-27. COVERED EMPLOYMENT IN KITSAP COUNTY
(September 1974)
Employment category Number of persons
Total covered employment 29,531
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries 125
Mining 38
Contract construction 1,090
Manufacturing 1,045
Transportation, communications and utilities 953
Wholesale and retail trade 5,609
Finance, insurance and real estate 900
Services 3,855
Government (Federal, state and local) 15,916
Federal only (14,535)
Source: Reference 30
INCOME
The following information on income levels in Kitsap County was
largely derived from the Trident Support Site Terminal Environmental
Impact Statement and the publication "Manpower Profile" from the U.S.
Department of Labor (References 3 and 31). Median family income in
Kitsap County in 1969 was $10,541 (12 percent higher than the national
median family income of $9,430); a large segment of the population fell
into 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 was earned by 5,525 families (21 percent of the
county total). In 1969 most county households earned income from
direct wages and salaries, with 9 percent depending on self-employment
and 15 percent receiving social security payments. About 45 percent
of all households identified additional sources of income, suggesting
that income comes, to a large extent, from retirement sources other
than Social Security. This is a characteristic of predominantly mili-
tary communities where retired military personnel commonly work at
other jobs. A total of 8,828 persons (9.1 percent of all county resi-
dents) comprising 1,936 families (7.3 percent of all households) re-
ceived less than poverty level income. The 'near poor'—persons with
incomes less than 125 percent of poverty level—totalled 11,534 (11.9
11-68
-------
percent of total county population), while the 'poor poor1—persons with
less than 75 percent of poverty level—numbered 5,925 (6.1 percent).
Mean income of families below poverty level was $1,602. Public assist-
ance provided income for about 4 percent of county households.
HISTORY
The Kitsap Peninsula was inhabited by the Suquamish and Clallam
Indians before the European explorers arrived (Reference 20). They
existed on a seasonal subsistence basis. Chief Sealth and Chief Kitsap
are the two most famous Squamish.
The English explorer, Captain George Vancouver, was the first
visitor to the area. He sailed into Puget Sound in 1792 and gave names
to such areas as Port Orchard Bay and Restoration Point. In 1841, Cap-
tain Charles Wilkes arrived and named Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, Agate
Passage and others.
Homesteaders began populating the area in 1850, concentrating prin-
cipally along the coast. A timber industry developed in response to a
need for lumber to provide housing in San Francisco during the Califor-
nia gold rush. Five of the largest sawmills in the world were estab-
lished in areas surrounding the planning area, including Port Gamble,
Port Madison, Port Orchard, Port Blakeley and Seabeck. The Port Gamble
sawmill is still operating today. Until 1944 when the U.S. Naval Base
was established at Bangor, the timber industry was the region's main
industry.
In 1857 Kitsap County, originally called Slaughter County, was
created from portions of Jefferson and King Counties. Settlers founded
small villages such as Poulsbo, Keyport, Port Orchard, Silverdale, Man-
chester and Traceyton. They came largely from the eastern and mid-
western United States between the years 1850 and 1870 and were gener-
ally of German, English and Scandinavian descent. Further settlement
was induced by the Great Northern Railroad terminus in Seattle in the
1880's and by the 1890's Klondike gold rush. Immigrants from northern
Europe began arriving after World War I.
Kitsap County has been developing slowly. The Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard was established in 1891 by the Federal government. The town
of Bremerton arose on the eastern outskirts of the shipyard. Other
naval installations were later established at Keyport and Bangor which
provide the county with a major source of revenue. Kitsap County is
still principally a rural area which is slowly becoming urbanized in
planned growth regions.
The proposed Trident Support Site to be built at the U.S. Naval
Base in Bangor has just been approved. Completion of this facility
11-69
-------
is expected in 1983. A population increase of approxiamtely 30,000
people has been projected to occur in Kitsap County due to Trident.
This will cause major impacts in the area as far as resources, eco-
nomic and socio-cultural conditions are concerned.
ARCHAEOLOGY
Prior to findings of an archaeological survey of the planning area
done in mid-December 1974, the National Register of Historic Places and
the Site Survey Records for Kitsap County from the University of Wash-
ington indicated that there were no known sites of archaeological or
historical significance within the planning area (see Appendix G). The
archaeological survey revealed one minor site located near the Browns-
ville Marina or Burke Bay, a shell midden which has been essentially
destroyed by historic and modern activities such as road construction
and dredging operations. Because of the extensive destruction, the
investigating archaeologist has judged that further investigation of
the site would not yield any cultural information of value. No other
historical or archaeological sites have been identified in the planning
area.
EXISTING LAND USE
The major land use in Kitsap County is low density residential,
including both primary and seasonal residences. Within the planning
area the principal urban concentration occurs in the unincorporated
town of Silverdale. The other area of concentration is in Brownsville,
which is undergoing transitional growth to higher densities.
There is a large U.S. Naval reservation on the northwest portion
of the planning area. The land surrounding the naval base is largely
rural and dominated by residential, agricultural and open-space use.
Residential and recreational use characterizes the land in the southern
portion of the planning area.
Year-round residences and vacation homes occur primarily along the
shorelines, but suburban residential developments have been increasing
in the inland areas during recent years.
Due to the beauty of the area, recreational and open-space land
uses tend to be more important than agricultural land use. Natural
understory and lushly wooded forests provide an aesthetically pleasing
landscape. The farms in the area are generally small, widely scattered
and operated on a part-time basis. Forestry occurs in some portions,
while commercial land uses are associated primarily with the urban
areas.
11-70
-------
Most of the planning area falls within central Kitsap County. . To-
tal land area for that portion of the county is 81,850 acres. The Har-
stad study for central Kitsap County (Reference 27) indicates that in «
1968, 10 percent of this, area was developed. Developed land included all
land in use categories other than open space, where open space is de-
fined as "areas of undeveloped land used for agriculture, forestry, graz-
ing, etc., and areas where topography is too severe for development." A
breakdown of developed land for this area is shown in Table 11-28.
Table 11-28. LAND USE ON CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY
Land
use
Developed
Residential
Single family
Multiple family
Trailers
Commercial
Manufacturing
Parks and recreation
Public
TOTAL
Undeveloped
Total land
Percentage of
developed land
56.1
.2
.1
.5
0.0
4.7
38.1
100.0
Acres, no.
4,614.5
17.7
9.9
42.6
0.0
390.3
3,130.1
8,221.4
73,358.8
81,580.2
Source: Reference 27
DEMOGRAPHY
The impacts on the study area population as a result of the Tri-
dent base were studied by A. D. Little, Inc. and were recently made
public in their report entitled, "Analysis of Selected Impacts of Tri-
dent Related Population Growth in Kitsap County; A Report to the Cen-
tral Puget Sound Economic Development District" (Reference 56). The
new data are shown in Table 11-29 together with previous estimates,
given to facilitate comparison. The A. D. Little report presents some
minor differences from estimates contained in paragraph 2, page 11-76
of the draft EIS. Table 11-30 contains annual population projections
which appear in the A. D. Little report, substantially expanding the
projections found in the draft EIS.
11-71
-------
Table 11-29. KITSAP COUNTY POPULATION
Selected area of impact
Bremerton
Port Orchard
Poulsbo
Winslow
Unincorporated areas
TOTAL
1960 a
28,922
2,778
1,505
919
52,293
86,417
1970 D
35,307
3,904
1,856
1,451
59,131
101,649
1970 c
35,307
3,904
1,861
1,529
61,054
103,655
1975 u» u
37,132
4,065
2,415
1,810
70,802
116,224
U.S. Census.
Reference 32.
From A. D. Little report (Reference 56).
Includes locally stationed military and dependents.
Table 11-30. ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR KITSAP COUNTY a
Civilian population Military population
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1990
1995
Figures
Source:
Without
Trident
103,407
105,170
107,013
108,083
109,147
110,207
111,261
112,310
113,354
114,393
115,427
116,457
121,682
128,214
represent
Reference
With
Trident
103,407
109,593
116,287
120,350
124,374
127,710
129,019
130,240
131,456
132,619
133,653
134,683
139,908
145,449
January
56.
Without
Trident
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
totals.
II-72
With
Trident
11,073
11,343
12,100
14,086
16,699
18,299
20,397
21,400
23,068
24,509
24,544
24,549
24,549
24,549
Total population
Without
Trident
114,480
116,243
118,086
119,156
120,220
121*280
122,334
123,383
124,427
125,466
126,500
127,530
132,755
139,287
With
Trident
114,480
120,936
128,387
134,436
141,073
146,009
149,416
151,640
154,524
157,128
158,197
159,232
164,457
170,989
-------
It is estimated that by 1990 the population distribution in Kitsap
County with and without the Trident Support Site development will be
as follows.
1990 population percentage
With Trident Without Trident
Kitsap County 100 100
North Kitsap 12 14
Central Kitsap 57 59
South Kitsap 21 19
Bainbridge Island 10 8
According to the 1970 census, 96.1 percent of the population was
white, with blacks accounting for 1.4 percent and other groups, 2.5
percent. The population characteristics of the county population tended
to differ from the state in general. As an example, 9.98 percent of the
population was 65 or older in 1970, compared to a statewide average of
9.4 percent. Because of this fact, a higher than average number (15
percent) of county population receives Social Security payments. Due
to the presence of the military (the economy of the county is heavily
dependent on employment related to the U.S. Navy), the percentage of
males (51.2 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. Approximately 25 percent of 1970 county pop-
ulation was of school age.
FUTURE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
The new population that will be added to Kitsap County and, par-
ticularly, to the study area, will be limited in location by three
constraints: the County Plan, location of existing transportation,
and location of the sewer interceptors and feeders.
An amended element of the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, ap-
proved on 24 June 1975 by the Kitsap County Planning Commission and on
28 July 1975 by the Board of Kitsap County Commissioners, is titled
Planning Policies; Outline for the Future Growth of Kitsap County,
Washington (Reference 58). Figure 11-16 is taken from this plan.
Four categories of land use intensity are described in the plan:
rural, transitional, urban and redevelopment areas, all but the last
of which are represented in the study area.
11-73
-------
Poulsbo
LEGEND
[22 RURAL
TRANSITIONAL
URBAN AREA
Source: Reference 58,
Figure 11-16. Supplement to proposed Kitsap County planning policy.
11-74
-------
Residential development is considered desirable in urban areas, as
stated in the element (page 1): "Briefly stated, it is the County's
policy and goal to encourage development to take place in close prox-
imity to existing urban centers." Transitional areas, which are de-
fined in the element as "adjacent to urban areas" (page 1) may be con-
sidered for installation of municipal service facilities as part of
coordinated development. "Rural areas," however, "are located ...
where urban development should not occur."
Kitsap County is predominantly rural in character. As of the 1970
census, 55.8 percent of the county's population lived in rural areas
which fringe the primary urban center of Bremerton and the smaller cen-
ters of Winslow, Port Orchard and Poulsbo. Areas surrounding Liberty
Bay, Bainbridge Island and Dyes Inlet also contain a portion of the
rural population. In contrast, the urbanized population is clustered
in a number of cities, such as Bremerton, Winslow, Port Orchard and
Poulsbo, as well as in the unincorporated centers of Silverdale, Kings-
ton, Suquamish, Indianola and Manchester.
Current growth trends identified in the county include: a declin-
ing dominance of Bremerton; sectional shifts in new population growth,
with population increasing in the southern portion of the county at the
expanse of the central and northern portion; and an increasing dis-
persal of population throughout rural and urban fringe areas due in
part to preferences for single-family dwellings located in semirural
areas.
Factors influencing these current trends include private market
forces and public policy. Private market forces have had a predominant
influence on the nature of population patterns and have consisted of
strong housing preferences for detached single-family dwellings and
a tendency to develop small but costly housing projects because of
fragmented land ownership. Influential public policies include zoning
practices which have encouraged dispersed development; construction of
new roads, which has released adjacent land for development; and the
construction of utility lines, which has also allowed adjacent popula-
tion growth to occur.
Future population growth trends will be influenced by additional
factors, according to the A. D. Little report. The county's physical
and environmental characteristics will play a more definitive role in
determining growth since future growth will occur in the county's in-
terior, where land is available, rather than along the shoreline,
where growth has traditionally occurred. Future development of the
county will therefore be subject to consideration of topographic bar-
riers, unstable slopes, unsuitable soils, geology and hydrology.
Growth will be substantially influenced by the development of the Tri-
dent facility, which will bring in military and civilian personnel.
According to the A. D. Little report,
11-75
-------
...the recognition by a large number of people throughout
the County of a Trident base will not only result in probable
higher levels in in-migrants that can fill the construction
jobs but a higher level of in-migrants related to the expec-
tation of jobs during the operation of the base (p. 11-25).
Table 11-30 contains population projections to 1995 and depicts
the anticipated growth of civilian and military populations with and
without the development of Trident.
Four alternative population growth models were developed by A. D.
Little, Inc. to illustrate means of managing future population growth
in Kitsap County. All models were defined in line with specific plan-
ning parameters, which included density factors, housing mixes, physi-
cal and environmental constraints and requirements for schools, shop-
ping and roadway facilities and water supply and sewer systems. Addi-
tionally, all models except one consider the population growth induced
by Trident. Because the Trident facility development appears certain,
the fourth model or Current Trends Model without Trident, will be dis-
missed from further discussion.
The first model, or Current Trends Model with Trident, considers
future population growth on the basis of past and present population
trends and projects them into the future. This model predicts that
rapid and decentralized population growth and housing construction
would take place in the more rural areas and in fringe areas around
major urban areas. Densities in urban areas would be high since there
is a lack of available land; rural densities would be low because de-
velopment would be scattered and devoted to detached, single-family
units. In terms of timing, growth would be dispersed, with new de-
velopment occurring simultaneously in different locations. As esti-
mated, land required for such development would consist of 23,554
acres, or a 60 percent increase over that used currently for residen-
tial and related purposes.
The second model, or the Urban Concentration Model, suggests that
future growth could take place adjacent to existing urban centers in
order to concentrate or cluster the population. It is anticipated,
consequently, that no Trident-related growth would occur in the southern
portion of the county or on Bainbridge. New housing would develop in
high densities with decreased land consumption so that services would
be extended in an orderly fashion. Land required to manage this type
of growth would equal that utilized without Trident's development, if
current population growth trends were carried into the future.
The third model, or New Town Model, calls for the creation of a
new town, which would accommodate the Trident-induced population in-
creases. By creating such a town, impacts of Trident would be elimi-
nated in existing urban centers such as Poulsbo and Silverdale and in
northern rural areas. Instead, the population (estimated at 11,000 by
11-76
-------
1985) would be concentrated in northern Kitsap County in a town created
near the Bangor Annex. Densities would be low since primarily single-
family detached dwellings would be built, but the land required for
such development would be only 20 percent of that required in the
Current Trends with Trident Model.
Within the study area, the limits of the second constraint are
shown in Figure 11-17, indicating that development will most likely
take place in the areas served by Bucklin Road, State Route 3, State
Route 303, the southern portion of Clear Creek Road, and Anderson Hill
Road, extending from Silverdale to the northwest.
The added Kitsap population, with or without the proposed waste-
water project, would tend to concentrate in the areas described above.
The third constraint—the sewer pipeline—will serve to locate
expanded populations within the "transitional area" in the study area,
regardless of which pipeline route is ultimately chosen.
In summary, the distribution of the increased populations is ex-
pected to diffuse within the limits imposed by the County Plan, with
concentration along the major transportation corridors and pipeline
routes.
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
The study area has an extremely pleasing visual and aesthetic en-
vironment. The heavy predominance of wooded greenery and the low pop-
ulation density in the rural areas have created a relaxing atmosphere
of escape for many dwellers. Of particular beauty are the shoreline
areas, and the public's appreciation of these areas is evidenced by
the relatively high shoreline land costs, ranging from $200 to $600 per
front-foot. Shoreline housing is predominantly low density and fre-
quently blends well with the terrain.
The older residential areas in Silverdale and Brownsville have, in
general, aged with a special quiet charm and remain desirable for habi-
tation. New housing tracts, principally in the Meadowdale area around
Military Road and Bucklin Hill Road, that are now under construction or
in the planning stage are being developed with an appearance typical of
urban sprawl and retain little of the rural character of the region.
The north Brownsville proposed treatment plant site occupies a
heavily wooded 15-acre portion of a 40-acre lot that adjoins an open,
marshy field. State Highway 303 passes through the extreme northeast
corner of the proposed site. The wooded portion contains young trees
11-77
-------
1. Bucklin Hill Rd
2. State Route 3
3. State Route 303
4. Clear Creek Rd.
5. Anderson Hill Rd.
Source: Reference 1
Figure 11-17. Major routes
11-78
-------
and a great amount of fallen timber, Indicative of recent logging
activities. This, combined with standing water observed during a
December site visit, produces a littered appearance. There is a
scrapped automobile yard located directly across the highway from
the proposed site.
Sewage treatment plants can be designed with architectural flair
and landscaping to provide a not unpleasing appearance. Nevertheless,
they will retain a commercial or semi-industrial atmosphere that may
be ill-suited for certain locations. In general, sites that have
adequate screening, are relatively remote from residential neighbor-
hoods and do not intrude upon the landscape are aesthetically the
most acceptable.
11-79
-------
Ill PROPOSED PROJECT
-**/
;- - • ^^/ti/a^***. •
\ *'
iMf
-------
CHAPTER III
PROPOSED PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The proposed plan contains provisions for the transport of sewage
from sewered concentrations of population, treatment of the sewage to
levels compatible with receiving water quality criteria and discharge
of treated effluent to the final disposal site. Wastewaters would be
collected from drainage sub-basins 9 and 10 in north-central Kitsap
County, the Trident Support Site, now under construction in the U.S.
Navy Keyport Torpedo Station Bangor Annex and Poulsbo. Poulsbo's
decision to participate has not been finalized but is included as the
preferred alternative. Provisions have been made to accept Keyport
and Keyport Torpedo Station wastewaters if those entities decide to
join the regional system. Detailed descriptions of sub-basins 9 and
10 are provided in Chapter II, Environmental Setting.
Design Flows and Quality
The facilities planning consultant has estimated that the study
area population will rise to approximately 21,500 in the year 1995
from a 1975 population of 10,500, due in large part to the influx of
population associated with the Trident Support Site. This population
value was based on studies conducted by the Puget Sound Governmental
Conference (Reference 33), the Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plans
for Central Kitsap County (Reference 46) and Arthur D. Little Co.
(Reference 56). Of this population, it was predicted that only 18,000
persons would be connected to the ultimate sewerage system. The im-
pact of a viable sewerage system upon population growth and sewer
connections will be examined in Chapter IV, Environmental Impacts.
The 20-year design flow, for 1995, was estimated at 3.8 million
gallons per day (mgd) of average daily flow from the study area. This
value includes 85 gallons per person per day (gpcd) of average dry-
weather flow and 15 gpcd of daily infiltration of groundwater into
the sewers. Inflow of storm water to the system through openings such
as manhole covers would further temporarily raise the daily flow value.
Commercial and institutional flow exclusive of Trident Support Site
wastes are estimated to total 0.3 mgd. Further details may be found
III-l
-------
in Appendix L of the Draft Facilities Plan (Reference 1). It is not
intended to collect storm water runoff into the system, and the sewer
design would attempt to minimize such inflow. The division of sewage
flows in 1995 is estimated to be as follows: sub-basin 9 at 1.1 mgd,
sub-basin 10 at 0.7 mgd and the Trident Support Site at 2 mgd. The
addition of Poulsbo's and Lemolo's wastes would raise the total flow
to 5.3 mgd.
Wastewaters originating through 1995 are expected to be of typi-
cal domestic sewage quality, containing approximately 230 milligrams
per liter (mg/1) of biochemical oxygen demand and 200 mg/1 of suspended
solids. The untreated waste loads assumed by the facilities planner
are presented in Figure III-l (Reference 1). Typical domestic waste-
waters provide no problems to the standard sewage treatment processes.
Industrialization within the study area is virtually nonexistent
and is expected to remain so during the planning period. The major
future source of nondomestic wastewaters is the Trident Support Site.
Although the bulk of the sewage from the Trident Support Site will be
domestic in origin, there will be some contributions from drydocks and
repair facilities. The U.S. Navy projection of 2 mgd of average daily
flow from the Trident Support Site (Reference 3) is presented by
sources in Table III-l. It is not possible to predict, before the
facility is constructed, the exact quantities of industrial waste that
may be produced because of two principal factors: (1) a large portion
of shipyard wastes results from seepage and washdowns in drydocks
(Reference 47), and (2) the military retains the prerogative of
changing the nature of activities conducted at its military bases.
With regard to the second item, conversation with Trident Support Site
personnel indicated that current plans do not call for any major ship
repair activities at the drydocks. There can be no guarantee, however,
that this situation will not change at some time in the future.
It is the intent of the U.S. Navy to provide pretreatment to all
industrial wastes to attain compatibility with standard sewage treat-
ment processes adopted by the County. A series of analyses of un-
treated drydock drainage waters at other locations has indicated no-
table quantities of chlorides, hydrocarbons, chromium, copper and zinc
(Reference 47). With the exception of chlorides, the oils and metals
can be appropriately reduced by existing treatment systems. The use
of fresh water for cleaning ship hulls and for dust control can greatly
reduce the chloride content of the discharges to that originating from
leakage and infiltration in the drydocks. Chloride content is of con-
cern only if effluent is disposed to land or fresh water, or sewage
sludges to agricultural land.
III-2
-------
9000+
8000- •
7000"
6000- •
2000
1000-
ASSUMED UNIT WASTE PRODUCTION
BOD5
SOLIDS
NITROGEN
PHOSPHOROUS
COMMERCIAL
TRIDENT-- Boo5
(IN 1983) ss
N
P
0.20 LBS/CAPITA/DAY
0.15 LBS/CAPITA/DAY
0.03 LBS/CAPITA/DAY
0.01 LBS/CAPITA/DAY
50% STRENGTH OF RESIDENTIAL
3340 LBS/DAY
3340 LBS/DAY
500 LBS/DAY
500 LBS/DAY
NITROGEN,
PHOSPHOROUS
1970 1975 I960
Source: Reference 1.
1985
YEAR
1990
1995
2000
Figure III-l. Estimated untreated waste loads
III-3
-------
Table III-l. TRIDENT SUPPORT SITE WASTEWATER SOURCES
Source a Flow, gpd
Training facility 158,500
Commissary, PX 383,100
BEQ, BOQ 238,500
Public Works (machine shops) 128,100
Waterfront 94,300
Naval torpedo station 34,800
Refit facility 114,600
Weapons facility 140,100
Housing 504,000
Utility plants 4,000
Ship wastes 100,000
Infiltration 100,000
a.
Approximately 200,000 gallons per day to industrial wastewater pre-
treatment facility.
Source: OICC Trident letter of 16 April 1976 to EPA.
III-4
-------
The Trident Base wil-1 have to treat their industrial wastes to a
level compatible with a domestic sewerage system according to federal
regulations. The County will specify in their contract with the Navy
what constituents of the wastes will be allowed. This contract will
be drawn up after the recommendation in the Final Facilities Plan is
considered. Table III-2 contains the recommended concentration of
wastewater pollutants for Trident Support Site effluent (Reference 61).
The U.S. Navy intends to Collect and treat separately for local
discharge all storm water runoff occurring at the Trident Support Site.
Title 40 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 1, Subchapter D. Part 128 specifies
that industrial dischargers to publicly owned treatment works must use
best practicable control technology to remove, before discharging to
the sewer system, pollutants incompatible with the treatment processes.
INTERACTION WITH OTHER PLANS
The development of potential wastewater treatment service areas
beyond the boudaries of the study area, as defined by the Washington
State Department of Ecology, requires coordination of planning with the
facilities plans of the affected sub-basins. The proposed plan would
involve the collection of untreated wastewaters from the towns of
Poulsbo and Lemolo and their incorporation into the disposal scheme.
The citizens of Keyport and the Keyport Torpedo Station can, if they
wish, also join the regional system. At the time of this writing,
Poulsbo's decision on joining the regional system has not been final-
ized.
Poulsbo and Lemolo
The Poulsbo Facilities Plan, originally prepared in June 1974
(Reference 48) is currently undergoing revision and reevaluation of
alternatives, with the inclusion of possible joint treatment or dis-
posal with study area wastewaters. Wastewater flow estimate for the
Poulsbo service area is approximately 1.0 mgd of average daily dry-
weather sewage flow, with no industrial components. The facilities
plan for the Poulsbo planning area estimates that this includes 0.15
mgd of infiltration flow. In view of the size of the service area
(2,889 acres), the length of the existing sewerage system (58,070
lineal feet) and the EPA requirements for correcting faulty sewers
(Reference 49), this is a reasonable estimate.
The development of the proposed plan, with its involvement in the
treatment of Poulsbo's and Lemolo's wastewaters, has been coordinated
with the citizens and facilities planning consultant for the area.
Although the Poulsbo Facilities Plan has not yet reached the stage of
III-5
-------
Table III-2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLLUTANT LIMITS
FROM TRIDENT SUPPORT SITE
Constituent
Copper
Zinc
Total chromium
Nickel
Lead
Boron
Cadmium
Silver
Vanadium
Mercury
Iron
Magnesium
Aluminum
Manganese
Sulfides
Sulfates
Ammonia (un- ionized)
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Arsenic
Free cyanide
Phenolic compounds
Chlorinated hydrocarbons
Oil and grease (petroleum based)
Total phosphorus
Total nitrogen
BOD5
Suspended solids
Temperature
Ph
Average
concentrat ion ,
mg/1
0.7
0.5
0.5
0
0.1
1.0
0.003
0.03
10.0
0
0.6
1,000.0
2.7
0.3
1.4
500.0
0.08
3,500.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
0.1
0.2
20.0
0.02
50.0
10.0
35.0
240.0
300.0
90°F
60 - 9.0
Daily load,
Ib/day
11.7
8.3
8.3
0
1.7
16.7
0.05
0.5
167.0
0
10.0
16,680.0
45.0
5.0
23.4
8,340.0
1.3
58,380.0
41,700.0
41,700.0
1.7
3.3
334.0
0.3
834.0
167.0
584.0
4,005.0
5,005.0
Source: Reference 61
III-6
-------
selection of a preferred alternative, the planning consultant has been
notified by letter of the proposed system, which would receive raw
sewage from Poulsbo for treatment at the regional facility (Reference
57). Similarly, the Lemolo Citizens Club has been notified of the
proposed plans and their comments solicited (Reference 59). Although
Lemolo is not currently sewered, this situation may change with time
and the availability of a wastewater treatment system. If Poulsbo
should choose not to join the regional facility, this EIS will not be
invalidated. The resulting systems would be essentially that of
alternative No. 5.
Keyport
With a design wastewater capacity of 4.8 mgd, provision can easily
be made to accomodate the 0.2 mgd flow anticipated from the City of Key-
port and the Keyport Naval Torpedo Station. Both entities have been noti-
fied of the willingness of a regional facility to accept their wastewater.
PROPOSED SYSTEM
A regional wastewater treatment facility would be located north
of Brownsville. This facility would receive 3.8 mgd of raw wastewater
from the study area and the Trident Support Site and 1.0 mgd of raw
wastewater from Poulsbo and Lemolo. Provisions will be made to
accomodate an additional 0.1 mgd of raw sewage each from Keyport and
the Keyport Naval Torpedo Station.
Raw sewage from sub-basins 9 and 10 would be pumped to the north
Brownsville site from Bucklin Hill Road along County Road 13 and Old
Military Road right-of-ways. Poulsbo's wastewater would be pumped
through sewers placed along State Highway 305 to Lemolo and then across
Liberty Bay to the Keyport Sewage Treatment Plant site. From Keyport
the wastewater would go southwest to State Highway 303 where it would
join sewage that will have been pumped from the Trident Support Site
along Luoto Road and State Highway 303. The combined wastewaters would
then go south along State Highway 303 to the north Brownsville treat-
ment plant site.
The proposed Brownsville facility would provide secondary level
wastewater treatment with an appropriate level of disinfection for
discharge to Port Orchard. The treated effluent outfall would be
buried in a county drainage easement eastward to the shoreline and
then be placed underwater to the discharge site. Figure III-2 shows
the locations of major elements of this alternative plan.
III-7
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
PORT MADISON ..../ ::'X-;; V !:;: V:"|.?:i9
O\Foy 8oinbndg*.,y.:;\x:;
Source: Reference §1,
Figure III-2. Alternative plan no. 11.
III-8
-------
Project Features
Western Shore of Dyes Inlet
The western shore of Dyes Inlet would be served by a combination
of gravity sewer and force main, starting from just north of the com-
munity of Chico and continuing to and including the town of Silverdale.
The sewer lines, ranging from 10 to 12 in. in diameter, would be placed
along the rights-of-way of Old State Route 3 and local streets. A con-
nection would be provided between Silverdale and pumping station No. 10
through a sewer line located on Clear Creek Road.
Brownsville Community
The community of Brownsville would be provided with sewerage ser-
vice through a force main placed along State Route 303 and leading to
an intersection with the Bucklin Hill Road interceptor. At that
location, the combined sewage will be pumped on to the treatment plant
location.
Meadowdale Area
Communities and new developments in the vicinity of Meadowdale
along the southern study area boundary and east of Dyes Inlet would
receive sewerage service. General pipeline locations are presented
with the description of the proposed plan.
Sewage Sludge Disposal
The treatment of wastewaters results in the production and
separation of organic and inorganic solids, principally biological
matter with some greases and large particulates. These solids are
initially biologically active; that is, they undergo decomposition and
exert an oxygen demand. The typical new wastewater treatment facility
would stabilize these solids by anaerobic digestion, and they would sub-
sequently be dewatered by vacuum filters to approximately 25 percent
solids and 75 percent water. Properly digested sewage sludges are
characterized by a reduction in mass from raw sludges and a general
lack of offensive odor; in other words, the available biological food
has mostly been used up.
It is estimated that a wastewater flow of 4.8 mgd would result in
III-9
-------
a treated sewage sludge production rate of 17,000 pounds (wet) daily.
This sewage sludge would be trucked to the Hansville Road Solid Waste
Disposal site (Reference 50). In order to protect the receiving
environment from many of the pollutants that are still present in
sewage sludges, a proper sanitary landfill site will be utilized.
Principal characteristics of such a site are a daily earth cover and,
for wastes that may leach pollutants, a leachate collection and treat-
ment system (similar to a wastewater treatment facility).
The Hansville Road sanitary landfill site has a 20-year design
capacity of 517,000 tons and an ultimate capacity of 608,000 tons. It
thus appears that the Hansville Road site could accomodate an estimated
62,000 to 114,000 tons of sewage sludge over a 20-year period without
exceeding its total capacity but this could reduce the total landfill
life by 3 to 5 years. Poulsbo's waste sludge is included in this
estimate and would probably be trucked to the landfill site even if
Poulsbo were to develop a separate wastewater treatment system.
Project Costs
Table III-2 presents the current estimates made by the facilities
planner for total project costs of each alternative. It also shows
project costs after reimbursement by the U.S. Navy for their share of
construction and operating costs and the final cost to Kitsap County,
after receiving subsidies from the Federal and State governments. Of
the total costs of alternative No. 11, the Poulsbo planning area would
contribute $3,802,000 capital and $130,000 annually for operating
maintenance.
111-10
-------
CO
H
CO
s
H
O
W
<-)
cu
S
CO
o
1
PU
*
en
I
i— i
H
H
a)
l~l
J3
cd
H
4-1
,-H CU
cd 6
3 cu
d to a
C -H to
cd 3 ci
CTH
t-l CO H
cd n c
4-* ^
0 ,C
H CO
cd
o
4-1
co co
r-i o n
cd u cd
3 H
g g H
C O
B
CO CO
o
a
rH
cd
4J Cd
•H
ft r-\ rH
cd cd cd
U -I-1 -I-1
O -H
H a
td
o
4-1
CO
0
o
M-I
o
cu
a
!>•
H
O
0
o
to
ft
rH
cd
4->
o
H
o
o
CO
f>
oo
CO
»
4-J Cd
a 23
cu
•n • 4J
OCOC!
M • a)
CM !=) e
o
o
^t
M
r^
oo
CO
o
o
CO
A
CTl
r^
CO
O
o
I— 1
M
oo
o
o
o
A
t^
CM
CN
•V
•-<
>,
4J •< 1
G P-I a)
3 W cfl
O M
u ^^
etc? -3
CO |S CU
4-J M
•H •
W co cu
• 4J
o n ed
4-J 4->
M CO CO
4J 0) 4-J
CO 4J T) f3
O 4-1 f5 CU
cj cd cd 0
•
co
M
J
i-i
o
T3
m
t-»
CTi
1-1
CU
4
c
M
cd
•
c
. 0
• -rt
CO 4J
to ed
cd p.
<1) -H
!>> 0
•H
O 4J
CM to
cd
to o.
0
«4-l CO
•y "°
fi ja
CO CO
CJ i— 1
to 3
CU O
Cu Oi
CO (0
^^ CO
7 1
m r— i
a
4-1 fl
-------
COW-OPERATED ,
\
CMSTTOCMST
STORES
Illllllllllllflillllllllllllll
-------
CHAPTER IV
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental impacts of the proposed facilities plan alter-
native are presented in this section. Environmental impacts of nine
other feasible alternatives were presented in great detail in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and in the Supplement to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and will not be repeated here.
Responses to public comments on the impacts of all alternatives will
be presented in Chapter IX of this Final Environmental Impact State-
ment.
The environmental impacts of the proposed facilities plan (alter-
native No. 11) are presented on special project summary sheets which
facilitate numerical evaluation of impacts. These sheets provide not
only a discussion of the related impact but also the category and sub-
category of classification, the definition of the environmental impact
category, the boundary or extent of analysis and the method by which
the analysis was conducted. A basic reference source for background
information is presented along with the name of the individual pro-
viding the assessment. The rating for any particular impact is gen-
erally the subjective judgment of an evaluator technically qualified
and experienced in that impact category.
The following impacts are grouped by physical, resource, economic
and socio-cultural categories. Where it was felt that impact cate-
gories could be relevant to the proposed project, those factors were
evaluated and, where the impact was not trivial, rated. Irrelevant
impact topics, such as airport noise, are not even addressed. The
ratings developed for each impact were determined by an expert in that
field. The numbers developed are used in Appendix A where they are
multiplied by weighting factors which represent their relative value.
Weighting factors are selected to reflect community opinion, and their
derivation is explained in Appendix A. Weighted scores for each im-
pact category were combined for individual alternatives and the re-
sulting numerical values have been presented in Chapter I.
IV-1
-------
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
The assessments of physical impacts have been divided into the
following sub-categories and criteria to separate significant vari-
ables:
Air Quality
Noise
Odors
Terrestrial Environment
Vegetation Communities
Clear Creek
Overall study area less Clear Creek
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
Rare and Endangered Species
Freshwater Ecology
Clear Creek
All freshwater bodies except Clear Creek
Marine Biological Environment
Benthic
Water Column
Surface
Soils
Water Quality
Surface Water
Clear Creek
Burkes Creek
All streams other than Clear Creek and Burkes Creek
Lakes
Groundwater
Quality
Quantity
Marine Water Quality
IV-2
-------
Socio-Ecohomic Systems
SES Project No.
Category:_
Sub-Category:
Phvsical Impacts
Air Quality
Lj Criterion:_
j_J Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The'degree to which the proposed project pro-
duces air pollution emissions under current
regulations in the project area.
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area and treatment facility
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of known air emissions from similar
sewage treatment facilities
DISCUSSION:
Properly operated sewage treatment facilities generally
do not emit measurable quantities of air pollutants.
It was estimated that daily, one to two truckloads
totalling 8.5 tons of dewatered, digested sewage sludge
would be taken to a sanitary landfill' The
exhaust emissions of the truck would be neg-
ligible in comparison to the vehicle emissions
from the Study Area population.
Dust'and particulates raised during construction activ-
ities can be reduced by following EPA published guide-
lines for minimizing fugitive dust from construction
sources. It will be shown in a subsequent section that
project induced population growth will be insignificant.
^Secondary impact air contaminants produced by such a
population would also be insignificant.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
M. Dean High, Senior Air Quality Engineer
EIR Form til 016/
Copyright 1973
+50
+2',
+10 -
-10
-25
-SO —
-75 —
-100—1
RATING: 0
Reduces ambient pollution
by 50%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 25%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 15Z.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 10%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 5%.
No change from ambient
levels.
Increase ambient pollution
by 5%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 10%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 15%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 25%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 50%.
IV-3
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
n Category :_
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Noise
Criterion:^
Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The affect of ambient noise level upon resi-
dences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic
areas.
| RATING: -
+100
+7S
+50
+26
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Major roads and pipeline routes in
Study Area and sewage treatment plant
site
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Comparison of existing noise levels with estimated
increases due to project. Scale based upon EPA
guidelines.
DISCUSSION:
Sewage treatment facilities are relatively quiet and do
not produce substantial noise outside facility location
but some motor noise may be detected.
Since traffic increase is not attributable to project
and major noisy roadways will remain so due to other
growth factors, only slight noise levels may be attri-
buted to trucks transporting sewage sludges to land-
fills once or twice daily.
Construction noise for the facility or the placement of
major pipelines could be substantial and over 10 dBA
but would be of short, temporary duration at any specific
location.
+10 -
-50-
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form #1016 /
Copyright 1973
M. Dean High, Sr. Air Quality Eng.
EPA NTID 300.3 "Community Noise";
EPA Region X Guidelines
Over 10 dBA
L50 ambient.
decrease of
10 dBA decrease of
ambient.
5 dBA decrease of
ambient.
0 dBA increase of
ambient.
5 dBA increase of 1.50
ambient, few complaints if
gradual.
10 dBA Increase of LSQ
ambient, more complaints,
especially during sleeping
hours.
Over 10 dBA increase of 1.50
ambient, substantial number
of complaints.
V-4
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category :m
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Odors
Q Criterion:_
LJ Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project
creates odors in the project area.
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area and treatment facility site
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of known odor generation from
similar sewage treatment facilities.
DISCUSSION:
Properly operated sewage treatment facilities of the
proposed design generally do not produce noticeable
objectionable odors. Due to the small size of the ser-
vice area, it is expected that fresh, rather than sep-
tic, sewages would arrive at the plant. Some local
odor may be noticed at the plant when (1) tank trucks
deliver septic tank sludges to the treatment facility;
(2) a malfunction in the sewage system delays flow to
the plant; and (3) an unforeseen upset in plant process
occurs.
Dewatered, well-digested sewage is relatively odor free
and transport of this sludge to a sanitary landfill would
would not result in odors at the landfill or during
transport. A reduction in odors will be noticed in
areas of septic tank failure when these areas are con-
-jiected to a sewage system. This benefit would outweigh
possible plant odors.
+50
+25
+10 -
-10
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
M. Dean High, Senior Air Quality Engineer
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
-50 —
-75 —
-10Cf—>
RATING: 0
Reduces ambient odors by 50Z.
Reduces ambient odors by 25Z.
. Reduces ambient odors by 15Z.
Reduces ambient odors by 10Z.
Reduces ambient odors by 5Z.
No change from ambient
levels.
Increases ambient odors
by 5Z.
Increases ambient odors
by 10Z.
Increases ambient odors
by 15Z.
Increases ambient odors
by 25Z.
Increases ambient odors
by 50Z.
IV-5
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
..... - o . » T . o j_j Categora. physical Impacts _
Sub-Category:
Terrestrial Environment
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Vegetation Community
clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
RATING: 0
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Clear Creek Pipeline Corridor
+100
+76
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection.
DISCUSSION:
This alternative does not require a pipeline corridor
down the lower Clear Creek drainage. Only 2 stream
crossings are involved at Bucklin Hill Road and
Mountain View Road. Both crossings are on established
roads and thus should have negligible impact on the
creek or environs.
Upper Clear Creek Valley will retain the present rural
designation under the Kitsap County Master Plan.
+50
+25
-10
-25
-50
-75 -
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting
Botanists
-100*—*
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat and food chain.
«
Aquatic productivity and
complexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved or
stabilized in local areas.
No changes reflected within
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productivity
promoting temporary instabil-
ity within system.
Significantly degrades or
removes aquatic habitat and
productivity.
IV-6
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES proJec* No-
|~] Category: Physical Impacts _
Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
f~| Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Vegetation Communities
Overall Study Area less Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
vegetation as a soil stabilizer. Site charac-
teristics (topography, riparian location) de-
termine degree to which vegetation prevents
erosion.
RATING:
- 20
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation of existing
conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+26
The majority of the pipe alignments will be within local
roadway right-of-ways. Within Central Valley, approximately
2 miles of the alignment must pass through established
vegetation. Pipeline construction will cause minor land +20
disruptions during vegetation clearing, trenching, and
burying of pipes. The open pasturelands and short seg-
ments of woodlots should recover within 6-12 months. 0
Marsh areas may require a longer'time.
The last section of the pipe alignment from South Keyport -10
Road to Port Orchard may suffer long-term effects. The
steep ravine leading down to the beach is a sensitive area
due to the poor soils and slope instability. Construction
without proper mitigation methods could affect the vege- _•}£
tation community in that localized area.
-50
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1975
-75
-lOff
Project increases soil
stability by introduction
of vegetation (planting,
seeding, fertilizing).
Project will not induce
erosion, i.e., no or neg-
ligible effects on soil
stability.
Erosion hazard reduced by
less severe site character-
istics.
Vegetation removal will
cause serious erosion and
sedimentation because of
site characteristics (topo-
graphy, riparian location).
IV-7
-------
Physical Impacts
Socio-Economic Systems
D Category:
Ij Sub-Category: __
[3 Criterion: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
j~j Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Terrestrial Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
wildlife numbers, complexity and habitat.
RATING:
- 15
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation.
DISCUSSION:
+75
+50
+25
Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility will
remove 5-10 acres of wildlife habitat and displace wildlife
presently utilizing the area. The proposed site is generally
in areas previously disturbed by human actions. The
small size and proximity to major thoroughfares also limits
the disruption of wildlife and habitats.
0
All proposed pipeline routes except for small portions
north of Brownsville will be within road right-of-ways and
should cause negligible impact to wildlife and habitats _j(
in adjacent areas.
Construction within the Steel Creek (North Fork) drainage
will cause a temporary disruption of habitat. Sensitive _g,
areas are the freshwater marsh and swamp adjacent to the
treatment plant site. These areas provide a seasonal wild-
life habitat. Disruption or reduction of the marsh could
lead to a reduction in wildlife associated with this
ecosystem. _g^
The construction route of the final pipeline segment leading
to the marine outfall will diverge from the road easements
and traverse a wooded area to reach the shoreline. Wildlife
-7;
will be temporarily disrupted during this segment of pipe-
line construction. The ravine descending to the Port
Orchard outfall is unstable with sparse veg'etation and thus
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
EIR Form #1016'/
Copyright 1973
-lOff
—. Significantly improves wild-
life habitats and wildlife
number.
Increased wildlife numbers
provide more "niches"J
Improves or expends wildlife
habitat in localities.
No changes reflected within
system.
Degrades or reduces wildlife
habitat in localities.
Decreases wildlife numbers
or leads to unstable popula-
tion.
Significantly degrades wild-
life habitats and reduces
wildlife number and complex-
ity.
IV-8
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
I! Ca t eciori); Physical Impact-a
C] Sub-Category: Terrestrial FnvlrnnrnPTH-
0 Criterion: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
IJ Sub-Criterion: ^
represents the disturbance of only a marginal wildlife habitat.
Operation of facility or pipelines will not affect terrestrial wildlife. Relocation
of population near available sewer lines will disturb, if not eliminate, most wildlife.
Since it is assumed that population growth in the Study Area will occur with or without
the project and that presently built-up areas would not increase substantially in
density, this increase in population, wherever it occurs, would disturb wildlife for a
negligible impact difference between project and no-project.
IV-9
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Catefjorg: Physical Impacts
Pi Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
Lxj Criterion: • Rare and Endangered Species
LI Sub-Criterion: '
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affecti
the viability of habitat for the rare or en-
dangered species.
ASSESSED BUT
NOT BATED
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing information
DISCUSSION:
No rare or endangered plant species will be affected within the study area. Of the
rare mammals, the sea otter will not be affected. The mountain lion and fisher
which might occur in the area and which are wide-ranging animals, may temporarily
be disturbed by construction activities and perhaps slight loss in habitat. The
western gray squirrel appears in the oak-prairie association and will probably not
be affected by the projects.
No long-range negative impacts are associated directly with the project itself.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form flOlS/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
References 19 and 20
IV-10
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject No-
|~1 Category: Physical Impacts
11 Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
|| Criterion: Freshwater Ecology
fx] Sub-Criterion: Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
+100r-,
+75
+50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Clear Creek Pipeline Corridor
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection
DISCUSSION:
This alternative does not require a pipeline corridor
down the lower Clear Creek drainage. Only 2 stream
crossings are involved at Bucklin Hill Road and Mountain
View Road. Both crossings are on established roads and +10
thus should have negligible impact on the creek.
Upper Clear Creek Valley will retain the present rural
environment as designated in the Kitsap County Master
Plan.
-10
-50-1
-75-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. chan, Environmental Analyst,
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
EIR Form H01B/
Copyright 1973
<
RATING: 0
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat and food chain.
Aquatic productivity and
complexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved or
st-oilized in local areas.
No changes reflected within
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productiv-
ity promoting temporary in-
stability within system.
Significantly degrades or
removes aquatic habitat and
productivity.
IV-11
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Freshwater Ecology
All freshwater bodies except Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
RATING: +10
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Island Lake, Barker, Steel and Burke
Creeks and all other tributaries
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing conditions
DISCUSSION:
Pipeline construction will cause n.inor land disruptions
during vegetation clearing, trenching and burying of
pipes. In limited areas, some erosion may occur which
can damage stream beds during the first rainy season.
These would be limited impacts and should not last more
than 6 months. More significantly, runoff from septic
fields and leaking septic tanks will be removed from
tributaries to Burke Bay and lower portions of Barker's
Creek. This will reduce organic loading and lead to
an overall improvement in the freshwater environment.
This is most significant during the summer when flows
are low and aquatic organisms are more sensitive to
external influence.
The crossing of all creeks by new sewage pipelines
should be made after the salmonid spawning season and
with proper construction techniques; these crossings
are expected to affect only very small sections of
the streams at present roadway crossings.
The freshwater marsh zone at the head of the North Fork
of Steel Creek will be temporarily disrupted. Pipeline
construction will remove marsh vegetation and enclose
sections of the marsh. This effect is greatly reduced
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
-50
-75
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst; Earnshaw and Richman,
EIR Form #1016'
Copyright 1973
Consulting Botanists
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat and food chain
Aquatic productivity and com-
plexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved and
stabilized in local areas due
to improvement in water
quality.
No changes reflected with
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productiv-
ity promoting temporary itr-
stability within system.
Significantly degrades or re-
moves aquatic habitat and
productivity.
IV-12
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject NO.
Q Category: Physical Impacts _
n Sub-Category: _ Terrestrial Environment
Criterion: _ Freshwater Ecology
p] Sub-Criterion: A11 freshwater bodies except Clear Creek
if construction occurs during the late summer when the ground is comparatively drier.
The disruption and possible loss of small segments of marsh offsets to a small degree
the overall benefit to Freshwater ecosystems accrued by the proposed project.
IV-13
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category:
n Sub-Category:
1x1 Criterion: Benthic Community
I Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
arln£ Bi.ol.nff"teal PTwiiror
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
[RATING: + 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Port Orchard, Liberty Bay
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Water circulation within these areas will provide
adequate dilution of wastewater and lead to negligible
effects on the benthic community.
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes Inlet
should provide a marked benefit to the lower strata
of the marine environment. The removal of sources
of organic pollution, heavy metal contaminants and
public health hazards from these restricted inlets
should provide an environmental improvement from
the present conditions.
+50
+25
+10-
-10
Construction and laying of the outfall pipe will have a
short-term negative impact on the benthic community.
Disruption of the substrate, increase in turbidity,
and displacement of marine organisms, particularly
clam beds, is unavoidable during construction. Along
the eastern shore of the Port Orchard channel may
occur some short-term disruption of populations of
littleneck, butter, gaper and bentnose clams, mussels
and barnacles. Marginally, some pea crabs (Pinnixia sp.)
and brittles stars (Ophiodphus sp.) along with some sea
lettuce, Laminaria and eel grass will be disturbed. The
presence of adjacent benthic communities should lead -7
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-100-*
Significantly enhances benthic
productivity and promotes
•table bottom community.
Benthic conditions Improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
«
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces benthic
productivity and degrades
bottom environment.
IV-14
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject NO.
PI Category: Physical Impacts
II Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
flj Criterion: Benthic Community
j | Sub-Criterion: ___________________________________________________
to substantial repopulation within 2 years.
A raw sewage pipeline would cross Liberty Bay from Lemolo to Keyport. Disruption
of local beach and sublittoral communities by underwater pipeline construction
would be a short-term impact. Elimination of sessile invertebrates and limited
marine flora in the path of construction would be a significant but localized
impact.
Adequate dilution and mixing at Port Orchard as calculated in Chapter III should
greatly reduce potential adverse impacts of wastewater discharge through the outfall
system. A long multiport diffuser system would promote fast mixing. The diluted
effluent thus have minor direct impact on the benthic community, although some
cumulative effects of effluent material concentrations, as mentioned in Alternative 1,
may occur. Avoidance of the central plume area by salmonids and pelagic fish may
occur as a reaction to salinity and temperature changes.
IV-15
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
["} Category:
I"") Sub-Category: ___
0 Criterion: Water Column Community
\\ Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment within the Water Column Zone
(beginning at the henthic community and extend-
ing up to two feet below the water surface).
RATING:
20
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Port Orchard, Liberty Bay, Dyes Inlet
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Construction of a pipeline crossing at the mouth of
Liberty Bay will have a noticeable short-term impact.
Disruption of the substrate would lead to a temporary
increase in turbidity at the mouth of the poorly cir-
culating Liberty Bay. The sediment load in the water
could have a short-term effect on photosynthetic plants
and filter-feeding animals. These effects should be
limited to the construction period plus a few months to
half-a-year for the bio-regeneration lag time.
Wastewater effluent entering Port Orchard will con-
tribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Within small shallow bays and inlets, nutrient en-
richment can trigger algal blooms which block light
transmittance to benthlc plants, and rob dissolved
oxygen from the water when they decompose.
A daily input of 4.8 million gallons of freshwater
may have small effects on salinity and temperature
directly in the mixing zone. Some mortality will
occur as plankton and more sensitive marine organ-
isms become entrained in the freshwater/seawater
outfall plume, but this impact is expected to be
minor.
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
-SO
-7;
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIP Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-10Cf—i
Enhances and maximizes use of
intermediate water column for
fish and other marine organ-
isms.
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to im-
proved water conditions.
Mo or negligible changes to
present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
tosynthesis capability of
plants and reduce productiv-
ity.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water column
for fish and other marine
organisms.
IV-16
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject N°-
Q Category: Physical Impacts
n Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
[x] Criterion: Water Column Community
|~] Sub-Criterion: __
Wastewater discharge into open-ended passages•with good mixing will minimize these
effects or entirely eliminate them.
Elimination of effluent discharge to Dyes Inlet will improve water quality in that
area and help to reduce the frequency of algal blooms.
It is thus felt that this net improvemert caused by the removal of a poor quality
discharge from Dyes Inlet will outweigh the slight, possible negative impacts of
a discharge into North Port Orchard channel.
IV-17
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category :
Sub-Category: _
Physical Impacts
Marino Biological Environment
tc| Criterion:
|J Sub-Criterion:
Surface Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
[RATING : +
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Liberty Bay, Port Orchard an'.
Puget Sound
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes Inlet
and Poulsbo should provide a marked benefit to the
upper strata of the marine environment. The reduction
of nutrient loadings would decrease the frequency of
algal blooms in these restricted inlets. The cessa-
tion of primary sewage flows and septic tank seepages
should provide an overall improvement to the present
conditions.
Construction of a pipeline crossing at the mouth of
Liberty Bay will have a noticeable short-term impact.
Disruption of the substrate would lead to a temporary
increase in turbidity at the mouth of the poorly cir-
culating Liberty Bay. The sediment load in the water
could have a short-term effect on photosynthetic plants
and filter-feeding animals. Liberty Bay normally has
high algal biomass in the upper layers in the spring
runoff season. The shallow Bay depths also sustain
large shellfish populations. These effects should be
• limited to the construction period plus a few months
to half-a-year for the bio-regeneration lag time.
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
-50
Wastewater effluent entering local areas can contribute
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Within small_7£
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-100*-*
Enhances and maximizes use
of surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
No or negligible changes
to present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality lead-
ing to simplification and
reduction of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
T.V-18
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°J'ect No-
I""] Category: Physical Impacts
[~] Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
IJ Criterion: Surface Community
LJ Sub-Criterion:
shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment can trigger algal blooms which
block light transmittance to benthic plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the
water when they decompose.
Adequate mixing of effluent through a well-designed outfall will greatly dilute
these effects, especially in areas of good circulation.
IV-19
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
I""! Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Soils
jx] Criterion:
L_J Sub-Criterion:
Long-Term Soil Fertility
DEFINITION:
The extent of change in yield of native and/or
cropped vegetation brought about by the proposed
alternative.
RATING: 0
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Portion of Kitsap County within Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
+100
+75
+50
Examination of soil and geologic reports prepared by the
USDA Soil Conservation Service and the State of Washington
DISCUSSION:
+25
Extent of change of yield is estimated from a series of
existing soil-vegetative associations, climatic conditions
and the available information on effects of increased ir-
rigation, fertilization and toxic element additions as +10
a result of effluent discharges upon soil surfaces.
Disruptions in soil properties along pipeline
routes are assumed to involve the destruction
of soil A and B horizons and their replacement
with mineral aggregates of low fertility; however,
these effects are minor and generally involve road -
right-of-ways.
-25
-SO
-71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
B. Sheikh, Ph. D., Soil Scientist;
References 6 and 7
-109—I
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by more than 50
percent.
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 30 percent.
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 20 percent.
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 10 percent.
Soil Properties Remain Un-
changed.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 10 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 20 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 30 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by more than 50
percent.
IV-20
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category:
Sub-Category: _
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Surface Water
Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING: + 50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Clear Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures
have occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading
to the stream.
DISCUSSION:
Bacteriological standards in the lower reached of
Clear Creek are violated 90 percent of the time. In-
stallation of sewers, although it may cause some
temporary construction related degradation, will
Improve water quality over the long-term after
presently contaminated groundwater and construction
related disturbances have been flushed out. Im-
provement will be confined to the lower reaches,
where the urban concentration is located. Although.
upper Clear Creek Valley is sparsely populated,
runoff and seepage from those residences could
affect water quality. The proposed system would in
no way protect water quality or improve it in that
area. Due to a lack of a data base for upper Clear
Creek, a rating of + 50 is appropriate.
+100
+75
+50
+10-
-10
-25
-50
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus., Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-100—*
Substantially upgrades
presently degraded stream
to meet standards through-
out its length.
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in
selected reaches.
No or negligible effect.
Degrades selected reaches of
stream.
Substantially degrades a
stream that presently meets
the standards throughout
its length.
IV-21
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
fi Category .•
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Surface Water
Burkes Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING:
+ 50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Burkes Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures
have occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading
to the stream.
DISCUSSION:
Bacteriological standards for Burkes Creek are ex-
ceeded over 80 percent of the time in the lower
reaches. Installation of sewers will improve long-
term water quality after the polluted groundwater
presently being discharged from failing septic tank
drainfields is flushed out. Improvement will be con-
fined to the lower reaches, hence a rating of + 50
is appropriate.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: «• 0. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
EIB Form #1016 /
Copyright 1973
+100
+75
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
-50-
Substantially upgrades a
presently degraded stream
to meet standards throughout
its length.
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in
selected reaches.
No or negligible effects.
Degrades selected reaches
of stream.
Substantially degrades a
stream that presently meets
the standards throughout its
length.
IV-22
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
[ Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Criterion:
Surface Water
Sub-Criterion: All streams other than Clear Creek and Burkes Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING:
+ 40
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
All streams other than Clear Creek
and Burkes Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures have
occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading to
the stream.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+7.
+50
+25
There are at least six major septic tank drainfield
failure areas located within a number of small tributary
streams of Dyes Inlet and Port Orchard channel. Although
no water quality data exists for these streams, except
for Silverdale Creek, it can be assumed that Class A
standards are not being met. The impact of sewage col-
lection will be less than in Clear Creek and Burkes
Creek because not all of the other stream basins will
be sewered so it can not be assumed that the effect
is equally beneficial. A lower positive rating of
+ 40 has been established.
+10
-10
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.
Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
EZff Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
-10&-*
Substantially upgrades
presently degraded streams
to meet standards throughout
their length.
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in selec-
ted read-as.
No or neglegible effect.
Degrades selected reaches of
selected streams.
Degrades all streams through-
out their length.
IV-2 3
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
(~| Category:
Sub-Category: >
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
I"") Criterion:
x1 Sub-Criterion:
Surface Water
Lakes
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
I RATING: + 10
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 11
Island Lake
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Review Draft Facilities Plan
DISCUSSION:
Alternative plan No. 11 presently does not include
an interceptor sewer to the Island Lake area.
An EPA grant condition would ensure that the Trident
interceptor had capacity for future connection by
Island Lake residents; however, this connection is
not part of the proposed project, and after the pro-
posed project is constructed Island Lake might still
be polluted. A rating of + 10 is given for the pro-
vision of future connections.
+100
+75
+60
+25
-10
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 1; State Health Department Data
BIP Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-10&
Substantially upgrades a
presently degraded lake to
consistently meet Lake Class
Standards.
Upgrades a presently degraded
lake and reduces, the fre-
quency of violating Lake
Class Standards.
No or negligible effect.
Degrades a lake so that there
is some frequency of violat-
ing the standards.
Degrades a lake so that Lake
Class Standards are consis-
tently not met.
IV-24
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCOH'O'llATtO .
Lj Category:_
I1 Sub-Category: _
I] Criterion: Ground Water
[x| Sub-Critc.rion; Quality
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which alternatives affect the
quality of the principal aquifers in the
Study'Area.
RATING: + 50
+100 Substantially increases
groundwater quality through-
out Study Area, all aquifers.
BOUNDARY-: Alternative 11
Proposed Sewered Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
+50
Evaluation of existing water quality, septic tank
failures, location of wells
DISCUSSION:
«
The installation of sewers w.11 alleviate the
recently observed pollution of shallow wells in areas of
septic tank malfunctions. This will help in the Silver-f70
dale area and particularly the Meadowdale and Browns-
ville area where dug wells predominate. Pollution of
wells would grow worse in the future if septic tank i
disposal is continued to be used in areas of suburban
density land use. Groundwater quality is excellent in all
deep aquifers not subject to septic tank infiltration -10
and the installation of sewers will not change this.
-2.
-SO
-75—I
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; References 1 and 5
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright. 2973
Groundwater quality increases
in localized areas or in se-
lected aquifers.
No or negligible effect.
Groundwater quality reduced
in localized areas or selec-
ted aquifers.
Substantially reduces ground
water quality throughout
Study Area.
IV-25
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
LI Category:^
LJ Sub-Category:
C3 Criterion: Ground Water
LX| Sub-Criterion: Quantity
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of groundwater
in the Study Area.
RATING: - 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will he required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +10\~-
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particularly
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adversely -10
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-SO
-71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-100-*
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
IV-26 -
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
I j Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
IxJ Criterion:
I I Sub-Criterion:
Marine Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated waste-
waters discharged to marine waters.
RATING:
+ 50
BOUNDARV: Alternative 11
north Port Orchard channel
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Since the proposed discharge meets water quality
standards, calculation is made of degree of mixing
and dispersion.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+7,
+50
+25
Based upon model studies, discharges to north Port
Orchard would receive good mixing and dispersion and fair
initial dispersion. For explanation see Chapter 2. Pres-
ent contamination of Dyes Inlet would be reduced. +j
It is unlikely that noticeable increases in background
concentrations of nutrients would be detected after
dispersion of the effluent from this site.
-10
-50
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concen-
trations of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone
(plume). Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential
problem by extending the biological treatment period to
nitrify the effluent.
Properly operated secondary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent
with total coliform levels as low as 23MPN per 100 ml.
After dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be
negligible in the receiving water.
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would
reduce pollutant concentrations to at least water
quality standards levels. Ultimate dilution is roughly
estimated at 5000:1. ~7'
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: J- A- Davis, Water Quality Engineer;
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area.
EJR Form H1016/ -10CH-*
Copyright 1973
Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water quality
standards; would maintain
present water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water quality
standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-2 7
-------
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The impacts of the proposed alternative plans upon natural,
social and utility resources in the study area are assessed and
rated by the following sub-categories:
Natural Resources
Surface Water Resources
Potable supply
Groundwater
Quality of potable supplies
Quantity of potable supplies
Flora
Fauna
Terrestrial
Marine
Utilities Service Systems
Electrical
Gas
Water
Municipal Services
Environmental Health
Parks and Recreation
Flood Control and Storm Drains
Sanitary Sewer System
Streets and Lighting
IV-28
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
O Category: Resource Impacts
Sub-Category: Natural Resources
O Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Water ^sources - Surface
Potable supply
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects the quality and quantity of potable
water obtained from surfaces in the impact area
RATING:
+5
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study area.
+100 r—t Significantly enhances the
quality and quantity of
potable surface water
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
engineer's report.
Staff review of consulting
+50
DISCUSSION: Sub-standard and overtaxed septic tanks and
dr a infields permit raw sewage to flow into surface waters'''25
in the planning area.
The proposed project, by carrying the sew-
erage to a treatment plant, will reduce
or prevent further pollution of surface
water supplies and will enhance the quality
of surface waters.
The use of surface waters as potable water supply in the
Study Area is insignificant.
+10
-10
-25
-SO -
-71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
BIB Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Feffer, Senior Environmental
Analyst
Enhances the quality and
quantity of potable surface
water
<
No or negligible effect
Diminishes quality and
quantity of potable surface
water
.J00LJ Significantly diminishes
quality and quantity of
prtable surface water
IV-29-
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
C3 Category:
["") Sub-Category: _
I] Criterion: Groundwater
|x| Sub-Criterion: Quality of potable supplies
SES Project No. \?o
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
DEFINITION: The degree to which alternatives
affect the quality of the principle potable water
supplies in the Study Area.
RATING:
+ 50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed Sewered Area
+100 Substantially increases
1>roundwater quality throughout
Jtudy Area, all aquifers
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Evaluation of existing water quality,
septic tank failures, location of wells. +50
DISCUSSION: The installation of sewers will alleviate
the recently observed pollution of shallow wells in +25
areas of septic tank malfunctions. This will help in the
Silverdale area and particularly t'ne Meadowdale and Browns-
ville area where dug wells predominate. Pollution of wells
would grow worse in the future if septic tank disposal +10\—
is continued to be used in areas of surburban density
land use. Groundwater quality is excellent in all deep
aquifers not subject to septic tank infiltration and the 0
installation of sewers will not change this.
-10
-25
-SO
-75
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W.O. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 and 5
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
^JGroundwater quality increase in
^localized areas or in selected
(aquifers.
No or negligible effect.
Groundwater quality reduced
in localized areas or selected
aquifers.
Substantially reduces ground-
water quality throughout Study
Area.
IV-30
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Criterion:
Ix] Sub-Criterion:
O Category :m
Sub-Category:
Groundwater
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
Quantity of Potable supplies
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of potable ground-
water in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
+100
Substantially increases
groundwater availability
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
+75
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +10
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particularly
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adversely -10
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-2!
-SO
-75-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form if 2 016/
Copyright 1973
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.
Reference 5
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
Water levels increase in
some existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
(Water levels decline in
Isome existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
IV-33
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
[3 Category:^
II Sub-Category:
QJ Criterion: Flora
I [ Sub-Criterion: ________^__^
SES Project No.
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
vegetation as an economic resource.
RATING: 0
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
+100
+75
+50
DISCUSSION:
Proposed treatment plant sites and pipeline routes
require only small amounts of land area. This limited
land utilization should have a minimal effect or no
effect at all on any type of vegetation as an economic
resource.
+25
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst;
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
EIR Form #10167
Copyright 1973
-10
-25
-SO -
-7;
-100*—*
Increases significantly
amount of vegetation for
economic production.
No or negligible effect.
Removes significant amount
of vegetation from economic
production.
IV-32
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
|~] Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Category :m
Sub-Category:
Fauna
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
Terrestrial
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
terrestrial game species and abundance.
RATING: 0
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of available data
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
Proposed treatment plant sites and pipeline routes
require minimal land utilization, some of which passes
through areas of human usage and traffic. The project
will probably have a negligible effect on game species +10
and abundance.
Natural population growth in the study area, not asso-
ciated with the proposed project, will have a negative
effect on the abundance of game species.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-10
-25
-50
~7S
-10 ff
Provides attractive and
stable habitat for many
species.
Improvement or extension of
favored game habitats in
local areas.
No or negligible effects on
present condition.
Destruction of habitat de-
creases animal abundance in
localized areas.
Significantly decreases types
of game species and number
through loss of habitat.
IV-33
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
F"J Category :m
Pi Sub-Category:
Q Criterion: Fauna _
j_J Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
Marine
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
commercial and sport fisheries, including effects
on mollusc abundance.
RATING: + 20
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Fort Orchard to Illahee State Park,
Rich Passage and Puget Sound
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of present condition
DISCUSSION:
Overall marine biological resources will not be greatly
affected in the Poulsbo or Port Madison/Kingston regions.
+50
The Fletcher Bay region which has large harvests of Geo-
ducks is slightly more sensitive. However, large sections'
of the shorelines in the Study Area are presently
legally restricted from commercial harvest.
At the present time, geoduck harvest is greatly in-
fluenced by the Washington Fish and Game legal require- _j
ment that no harvest occur withii. 1/4 mile of shore. If
this requirement were removed at some time in the future,
significant additional stocks would be available.
+25-
+10 —
Overall benefits would be achieved from reduced
bacteriological pollution of marine waters.
-25
-50 —
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: K' L' Chew' ^riae Biologist, E. Chan,
Environmental Analyst
Reference 5
EIS Form #1016 /
Copyright 197S
Promotes and enhances con-
1 tinuation of shellfish beds
and marine fish resources.
Attracts and sustains addi-
tional fish populations.
No or negligible effects on
present condition.
Reduction in range of shell-
fish harvesting.
Impaired productivity and
decline in fish populations.
Degradation or deterioration
of shellfish beds and signi-
ficant reduction in marine
fish resources.
IV-34
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Q Criterion:
LJ Sub-Criterion:
Category .\
Sub-Category: m
Electrical
Resource Impacts
Utilities Service Systems
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on the local electrical
power supply system.
RATING:
- 1
+100r-l
BOUNDARY: Planning Area, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of
the Kitsap County Public Works Dept., Puget Sound
Power and Light Co.
DISCUSSION: The planning area, excluding the Trident
base itself, will be serviced by the Puget Sound Power
and Light Co. , the western division of the Bonneville
Power Administration. The U.S. Naval Base at Bangor,
where Trident will be located has, and will continue to
have its electrical needs served separately by the
Bonneville Power and Light Company.
+SO
+25
+10\—
Although the project engineers cannot yet provide an esti- 0
mate of the power demand of the proposed project, the
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. indicates that electrical
power resources in the area are adequate to meet the -10\—
increased demand of Trident related growth, and expressed
confidence that the additional demand that this project
will impose can be met.
-25H
-SO -
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Suzanne Yuen, Environmental Analyst-
References 1, 35, 36 and 38
EIR Form #101G/
Copyright 1973
Continuously supplies
significant power.
Supplies power at peak
demand times.
Supplies stand-by^power.
Supplies emergency power.
'
No power demand.
Approaches limits of current
service capacity.
Requires augmenting existing
transmission lines.
Requires enlarging existing
transmission facilities
Requires new substation.
_J00LJ Requires increases generating
IV-35
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES p">ject NO.
n Category: Resource Impacts
O Sub-Category: Utilities Service Systems
E5| Criterion: Gas
I j Sitfc-Criterion: _
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject imposes demands on the local natural gas systei
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel from the Cascade Natural Gas Co., URS
DISCUSSION: The Cascade Natural Gas Company does not yet supply natural gas to the plan-
ning area, but does service the Bremerton and Port Orchard areas which are located just
outside of the planning area. The gas company anticipates that there will be ample gas
available for all of Kitsap County even with the increased demands due to Trident related
growth. Although the service capacity will be more than adequate for future demands there
exists the problem of transporting the gas to the area. The Gas Company says that this
problem has yet to be worked out.
The proposed project will probably not use any significant amount of gas since electricity
will be readily available and the preferred source of power. The project will therefore
have only negligible impact on the gas supply system.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Suzanne Yuen, . Environmental Analyst References 26, 36
SIR Form t(1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-36 -
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Pr°Ject No-
" ijj Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Category:
Sub-Category:
Water
Resource Impacts
Utilities Service System
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demsnds on the local water
supply system.
RATING:
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County, Alternative 11
+100r-l
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of the
Kitsap Cpunty Public Works Dept., URS; Examination of
Kitsap County planning policies.
+50
DISCUSSION: Although the project engineers are not yet
able to estimate the water n.^eds of the proposed pro-
ject, demand in this resource is e::pected to be small.
No supply problem is anticipated, as "productive aquifers
known to exist....will provide supplies of ground water to
meet anticipated 1990 requirements" (Draft Facilities
Plan).
The impact on this resource can be considered insignifi- 0
cant.
-10
-25
«
-50-
-75
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Suzanne Yuen, , Environmental Analyst
References 1, 35 and 36
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
Continuously supplies potable
water.
Continuously supplies non-
potable water.
Supplies emergency potable
water
Supplies emergency clean, non-
potable water.
No water demand.
Approaches limits of current
service capacity.
Requires increase in local
pressure to increase volume
delivered.
Requires installing larger
lines.
Requires augmenting storage
capacity.
-100 — Requires maj°r addition to
water distribution system.
IV-37
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
I | Category:
Sub-Category:
Resource Impacts
Municipal Services
J3C| Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Environmental Health
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on the environmental
health division of the local health district.
RATING:
+ 25
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with Kitsap County
Department of Public Health Staff, review of Project
plans.
+100 -Greatly augments service
on a continuous basis
+75
+50
DISCUSSION: There is an existing potential health hazard
in Kitsap County resulting from the over-loaded con- +25
dition of septic tanks and the inadequate sewage treat-
ment facilities now in use. The demand for environmental
health services, vector control, etc. can be expected to
rise as Trident-induced growth, combined with natural +10\—
population increases and use of inadequate disposal
systems impact on the area.
Centralized, effective treatment facilities will reduce
sewage-related health hazards and comolaints. The pro-
posed project will thus enable the local health dis-
trict to monitor fecally transmitted infectious agents
mote efficiently and with greater assurance that the
public health is protected.
-10
-25
-50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Bill Ulwelling, Environmental
Scientist; Reference 38
-100—•
Significantly augments
services
<
Slightly augments service
capacity
Neither supplies nor
demands services
Approaches limits of
service capacity
Requires minor increase in
services
Destroys existing facilities
and places major new demands
or services and facilities
IV-38
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
j j Category: Resource. Impacts
|I Sub-Category: Municipal Services
[xj Criterion: Parks and Recreation
[ j Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 180
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on local parks and
recreation facilities and services (services
include personnel and equipment).
RATING:
0
BOUNDARY:
Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of County recreation
resources, proposed project plans.
+100
+75
+50
DISCUSSION: There is currently a deficiency in public
recreational areas in the planning area as well as all +25
of Kitsap County which was indicated by the October 1974
ORB study. ORB reported that the present total demand
for all recreational areas in Central Kitsap County (in
which most of the planning area falls) is 814 acres,
calculated by totaling the various demands for each
type of recreational area based on the individual standards
(No. acres/1000 population) e.g., neighborhood parks
(2.25 acres), community parks (2.5 acres), large urban
parks without shoreline (1.5 acres), large urban parks
with freshwater shoreline (1.5 acres), and large urban -10
parks with saltwater shoreline (2.0 acres). The present
supply is 481 acres with only 43 acres actually occuring
in the planning area. There are no shoreline parks in
the planning area. —25
The demand for, hence the shortage of recreational areas
will be greater when the full impact of Trident related
growth is felt. The recreation consultant (ORB) estimates
that 1,013 acres of recreational land will be needed at —SO
that time, based on an assumed Trident related increase
of 24,000 people by 1981.
Alternative 11 is not expected to have any significant
impact upon parks of recreation facilities.
-75 —
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Analyst; Reference 25
EIR form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Suzanne Yuen, Environmental
Hakes available major
new facilities
Substantially increases
available facilities.
Slightly increases available
facilities
Neither supplies nor
demands facilities
Approaches limits of
current service capacity
Requires minor increase
in services
Requires major increase in
services
Required increase in
services and expansion of
facilities
Requires construction of
major new facilities.
IV-39
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
[3 Category:^
II Sub-Category:
No-
Rgqnnrre
Municipal Services
Q Criterion:
I | Sub-Criterion:
Parks and Recreation
COOT/INUED:
The'shortage of recreational land will not be affected by the proposed project.
V^ry little-more probably no-recreational land will be used by the project
itself. The employment potential of the project is small (20-40 employees), and
will not significantly affect the population and thus the demand for recreational
facilities. To the extent that the proposed project reduces the rush of contamination
of local surface and marine waters, it may even beneficially affect this resource
slightly.
Regardless of the alternative selected, the net effect with respect to recreational
resources in Kitsap County is considered insignificant.
IV-40
-------
SociQ-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
I | Category.- Resource Impacts
["") Sub-Category: Municipal Services
[j Criterion: Flood Control and Storm Drains
LJ Sub-Criterion: ______^____—__—_^^___________
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project im-
poses demands for drainage and flood control
on surrounding properties and local flood
control systems.
ASSESSED BUT NOT SATED
BOUNDARY: St"«iy Area
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with Mr. Bullard, Kitsap County Engineer.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project alternative will not significantly interfere with normal
runoff or affect existing or planned storm drains.
The present and growing hazard of raw sewage from failing septic tanks being washed
into storm drains is discussed elsewhere (See "Environmental Health," "Sanitary
Sewer System," "Health & Safety").
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: William Ulwelling, Environmental Scientist; Lauryn Jones,
Environmental Planner; References 1 and 69
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 19?3
IV-41
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
LJ Category:^
Sub-Category:
Resource Impacts
Municipal Services
§3 Criterion: Sanitary Sewer System
I""] Sub-Criterion: ___^___________
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project imposes
demands on the local sanitary sewer system.
RATING: + 50
BOUNDARY: Study Area
Alternative 11
•+JOO
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with Department of Public Works and review
of. Central Kitsap County Interim Facilities Flan.
DISCUSSION:
+50
+25
+10
The goal of the proposed project is to provide transport
and treatment capacity for sewage in an area with seriously
inadequate existing capacity, and to prepare for a sharp
increase in demand for this service in the near future
resulting from the construction of the Trident Support
Site.
The Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department lists numer- 0
ous areas which have failing drainage, transport, and
treatment systems. Approximately 902 of the planning area
is classified as having severe limitations for drainage. -10
The existing sewer system in the county, serving Silverdale,
is inadequate to meet legal requirements for secondary
treatment. The need for an adequate sewer system to serve
the growing population of Kitsap County is evident. -25
Alternative 11 will significantly augment existing sewage
disposal capacity. Thus it is given a strongly positive
rating, as are the other alternatives.
-SO
-7B
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: William Ulwelling, Environmental
Analyst; Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner; References
1 and 61.
EIK Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-lOff
<
Creates a new system with
capacity significantly
greater than current de-
mand
Creates a new system pro-
viding adequate treatment
at current demand projec-
tions
Significantly augments
existing system on a
continuous basis
Augments existing system
for overload demand
Slightly upgrades treatment
Neither supplies nor de-
mands service
Slightly increases demand
for service
Reduces adequacy of
existing service
Requires major expansion
of exisitng facilities
Requires major expansion
of existing facilities
and construction of over-
load capacity facilities
IV-42
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
i| Category: Resource Impacts
il Sub-Category: Municipal Services
PC] Criterion: Streets and Lighting
I | Sub-Criterion: __^^____^___________^^^_____
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposed demands on local street and
lighting service.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study area, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Analysis of project plans.
DISCUSSION: The demand for street and lighting service created by the proposed project is
expected to be negligible, regard .ess of the project alternative selected.
Existing sites will be served by existing access roads, which at most may require limited
widening or repair.
New sites may require the construction of short access roads and possible lighting, if the
sites are not served by existing roads, and if the extensive development required to support
Trident-induced growth does not provide the necessary access.
The demand for service to support the small operational staff (20-40 employees) of the facility
will not impact measurably on this resource.
In the context of projected growth resulting from the Trident Support Site development, the
potential increase in demand on local resource for streets and lighting due to the proposed
project is deemed too minor to rate.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Amnon Feffer, Senior Analyst; Reference 34
MR Torn #1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-43
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The economic impacts of the proposed alternative plans are
assessed and rated in this section. The sub-categories are divided
as follows:
Direct Effects
Employment Potential
Municipal Service Costs
Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
Loans (Bonds)
Subsidies
Property Tax Base
Changes in Property Tax Rates
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
Indirect Effects
Property Values
Existing Local Businesses
New Business Formation
New Construction
IV-44
-------
Socio-Economic "Systems
(~) Category:
j 1 Sub-Category: ^
C~| Criterion: Employment Potential
LJ Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 180
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
DEFINITION; The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects the employment potential of the local
area by creating or eliminating employment..
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY:
KitsaP
Alternative 1J-
HETHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination Of
Dept. of Commerce data.
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will employ between 20 and 40 people, depending
on the alternative selected and the operational procedure established. Kitsap County
had in 1973, a work force totaling over 36,000. The project will thus have an in-
significant effect on the local job market, in its operational phase.
There will be a temporary increase in available employment during the construction
phase. The project engineers are not yet able to estimate the size of the increase,
nor its duration.
Because the proposed project will not have a meaningful impact on local employment
potential regardless of the alternative selected, no rating is given. If the con-
struction force will be large and needed for an extended period, a rating should
be given when the facts are established or can be estimated.
While employment opportunities will expand in the study area due to Trident related
growth, the proposed project will affect the location of jobs (by attracting residents
to its service area) rather than the number of jobs.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryri Jones, Environmental Planner
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 197S
IV-45
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
LJ Category; Economic Impacts
I~l Sub-Category: Direct Effects
Q Criterion: Municipal Services Cost3
Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the cost of providing municipal services to the
agencies and consumers..
RATING:
BOUNDARY: Central Kitsap County
Alternative 11
+100 Community income exceeds
expenditures by more than 50Z.
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
See individual criterion sheets.
DISCUSSION:
The following table indicates the estimated annual cash
requirements to Kitsap County for project alternative
No. 11 and new sewer hookups needed to pay for the cash
requirements.
+50
+25
+10
Alter-
native
Total
Annual
Cost(a)
Annual New
Hookups
Needed (b)
Hookup Requirements
Beyond Projected
Population Increase(c)
11
318,500
192
(28)
-10 -
(a) From Table III-4
(b) Based on a value of $1,660 per new hookup:
$8/front foot - $ 640
25Z of 2.5$/SF . $ 60
$8/mo. x 12 mo. x 20 yrs/2 - $ 960
-25
$1,660
(c) Based on planning area projected 20-year population -5t
increase of 11,017 (Reference 61) and an index of 1 hookup
per 2.5 people (220 hookups per year).
The population of the planning area will increase by
11,017 according to A. D. Little. Using a faction of -74—
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: George Johnson, Economic Analyst,
References 56 and 70
EIR form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Community income exceeds ex-
penditures by more than 25%.
Community income exceeds ex-
penditures by more than 10Z.
«
No change.
Community expenditures in-
crease by 10Z.
Community expenditures in-
crease by 25Z.
IV-46
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject No-
'" * Q Catnioru: Economic Impacts
Sub-Category: -Direct Effects .
Q Criterion: Municipal Services Costs
[""] Sub-Criterion:
one new sewer hookup per 2.5 people, 4,407 new hookups will be generated, or 220 per year.
There are currently three one-time hookup charges In Central Kltsap County, as follows:
(1) $150 for stub and line to street. This applies only where the county actually
installs a side sewer, and is hence not applicable here.
(2) 2.5$ per square foot area charge for new customers. This applies only where
there is currently no adjacent collection system and will be charged to only
about 25% of all new hookups. Consequently, this was only given a 25% weight
in the average new hookup in the above table. At an average lot size of 80
feet x 120 feet (9,600 square feet), this amounts to $60 per average hookup.
(3) $8 per front foot for all properties. This applies to all new users, since all
benefit by sewage systems. At the average lot frontage of 80 feet noted above,
this amounts to $640 per hookup.
In addition, current users are charged approximately $8 per month service charge.
Assuming a straight-line increase in new hookups to 1995, the average customer will
pay exactly 10 years of service charges to 1995, or $960 per average new hookup (1975
dollars).
These charges added together give the $1,660 total revenue per average hookup used in
the above table.
This assumes a straight line population increase, which is conservative. Total Kitsap
County population is projected to increase by 56,509 by 1995. Of this total, 31,529
(55.8%) will occur in the first five years. Assuming a proportional increase for the
planning area, over half the new hookups will occur in the first five years yet will
contribute monthly service charges for most of the 20-year period. This will increase
average hookup revenues substantially.
Further, this analysis assumes that the entire construction cost to Kitsap County will
be financed by a bond issue, which may not necessarily be the case.
The cost of other municipal services necessary to serve the 20-40 facility employees
is considered to be negligible and was not considered.
IV-47
-------
Economic Impacts
Socio-Economic Systems
II Category:_
II Sub-Category: _
Lj Criterion: Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
Sub-Criterion: Loans (Bonds')
SES Project No.
Direct Effects
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the funding of the proposed
project tends to increase or decrease the
financial burdens of the community.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Kitsap County
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with major bank bond specialist and project
engineers.
DISCUSSION: Kitsap County's share of financing the proposed project will be borne
through the issuance of rev.nue bonds. There is no legal limit on the amount of
revenue bonds that may be issued; however, from a practical standpoint, and in order
to make the bonds saleable, the principal amount of bonds so issued should be suf-
ficiently small that the required annual principal and interest payments are less
than the revenues available for bond service. Estimated revenues should be in the
range of 30 percent to 50 percent in excess of projected requirements to allow for
possible errors in forecasts. In addition, a bond reserve fund equal to about one
year's bond service requirements is usually created from the initial proceeds of
their sale and is maintained over the life of the issue to further secure their
payment. Interest rates on revenue bonds are generally one-fourth to one-half
percent higher than the rates applicable to comparable general obligation Oond
issues.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner; References 45 and 60.
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-48
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project No- -^fi
Q Category: Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Sub-Category:
Q Criterion: Loans (Bonds) arid Subsidies
Sub-Criterion:
Subsidies
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project attracts
outside funding.
RATING:
+ 90
+100i—1 Project totally subsidized
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Kitsap County
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with project engineers and Washington
State Department of Ecology.
+75
+50
DISCUSSION:
Ninety percent of the project cost will be subsidized by
State and Federal grants. The Federal Government is
assuming 75% of the project cost and Washington State is
assuming an additional 15% of the cost.
+2,
+10
-10
-Si
The policy of the Environmental Protection Agency (Region
X) regarding Federal funding for wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal systems is that 75% of the funding
for the needed system is federally provided. Treatment
facilities and regional interceptors are generally con-
sidered of higher priority for fundi.g.
Presently, local collection systems are not being funded
until the State's criteria for priority listings for re-
quired local collectors is acceptable to EPA. The faci-
lities to be funded must be sized to be cost-effective,
in harmony with the local land use and planning goals, and
based upon realistic population projections.
These subsidies and Kitsap County's remaining cost apply
to the net project construction cost after 40% reimburse-^g
ment by the Navy. (Navy reimbursement is of the total
project cost before EPA and Washington State subsidies.)
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Norm Siebertson, Water Operations
Branch, EPA, Region X; Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner;
Reference 1; Richard Thiel, Chief,Environmental Impact
EIR Form #1016/ Section, EPA.
Copyright 1973
80:20 subsidy to local
funds
70:30 subsidy to local
funds
60:40 subsidy to local
funds
50:50 subsidy to local
funds
No subsidy
Subsidy partially
forfeited
Subsidy entirely
forfeited
IV-4 9
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
| | Category: Economic Impacts
(""} Sub-Category: Direct Effects
Criterion: Property Tax
II Sub-Criterion: Change in Property Tax Rates
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
property tax rates in the local area.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County Tax Districts
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with County Planning Personnel, County Appraiser and Engineering
Consultant.
DISCUSSION:
According to Washington State law, property tax revenue may not be used to pay for
sewage district construction or 0 & M costs. Therefore, Kitsap County property tax
rates will be unaffected.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: George Johnson, Environmental Planning Analyst; References 56 and 70
EIR Form 81016/
Copyright 1973
IV-50 -
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
D Category :_
[~| Sub-Category:
Q Criterion:
Txl Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 18°
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Property Tax Base
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project tends to increase or decrease local
property tax revenues in the local area.
RATING: +5
BOUNDARY: Service area
Alternative 11
+200r—i Significantly increases
property tax revenues
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of the
Kitsap County Assessors Office and staff review of "1974 +50
Assessed Valuation with Levies and Taxes for 1975"
DISCUSSION: The project will have hoth direct and indirect
impacts on property tax revenues by increasing the pro- +25
perty values within the project service area.
Direct Impacts: The amount of property tax revenue
collected from a parcel is a function of the parcel's +10
assessed value and the tax rate for that tax district.
In Kitsap County the assessment ratio is 100.00 (which
means the assessed value is 100%. of the market value) .
Assuming the tax rate remains constant, property values
in the planning area will rise even without the project
in response to demand for housing caused by Trident. —20
The location of the proposed project will help define
the specific areas that will rise in value and will
cause a somewhat greater rise in property value in the
service area. —25
The additional increase in property values, hence re-
venues beyond the rise expected due to Trident-induced
demand and which is attributable to the proposed pro-
ject is estimated at 5%. This is a favorable impact and -50
so rated.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Amnon Feffer, Senior Environmental
Analyst; Reference 45
EIS Form #1016/
Copyright 2972
Increases property tax
revenues
No or negligible effect
Decreases property tax
revenues
-75
-200* Significantly decreases
property tax revenues
IV-51
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
la Criterion:
If Sub-Criterion:
Category :m
Sub-Category:
SES Project No.
Economic Impacts
Indirect Effects
Property Values
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects the property value in the
local area.
[RATING: +10
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
+100
+7S
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Staff assessment of local economic
pressures for residential and commercial areas.
+50
DISCUSSION: Property values in the planning area will rise
as a result of the large Trident-induced population +25
influx. The proposed project will serve to increase
further the property values in its service area, because
the availability of adequate sewerage is limited else-
where in Central Kitsap County. This additional in- +1
crease due to sewerage expansion is not likely to be
extreme, since factors other than sewerage also enter
into the decision to buy, rent or build a home. 0
-10-
-25
-50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Taft, Building Contractor
SIB Form K1016/
Copyright 1973
Significantly augments
property values
Slightly augments property
values
No or negligible effect
Slightly degrades property
values
-1001—I significantly degrades
property values
IV-52
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
180
13 Criterion:_
| [ Sub-Criterion:
O Category :m
Sub-Category:
Existing Local Businesses
Economic Impacts
Indirect Effects
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project effects the volume of trade in local
businesses
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Examination of project alternatives
DISCUSSION: The pr0posed project will minimally stimulate local business activities,
with Trident-induced growth fueling a significant increase in population and hence,
a growth in trade for local suppliers of goods and services. The additional in-
.crease resulting from this project will be relatively small, both during the con-
construction and the operational phases.
The impact with respect to this criterion will not change regardless of the al-
ternative selected and will be too small to rate.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-53
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES project No- -^-
|""| Category: Economic Impacts
£] Sub-Category: Indirect Effects
0 Criterion: New Business Formation
Si
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pro^ect No-
11 Category.' Economic Impacts
["I Sub-Category: Indirect Effects
Ix j Criterion: New Construction
I I Sub-Criterion: _____________^_^______
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects future construction outside
of the project area.
ASSESSED BUT
NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study area, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Assessment of project plans
DISCUSSION: The proposed project is not expected to stimulate new construction in the
area beyond the small amount needed to h'-use the 20 to 40 employees of the facility, and
even that assumes that all employees will be newcomers to the area. This level of con-
struction activity will be submerged in the much larger effort to house the Trident-in-
duced growth in the area.
The impact with respect to this criterion will be the same regardless of the alternative
selected, and is considered too small to rate. The proposed project will permit multiple
unit housing development in it's service area, which is not possible presently because of
the lack of adequate service capacity to receive the concentrated volumes associated with
multiple unit housing. The number of units required will not be affected.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-55
-------
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
The category of socio-cultural Impacts has been subdivided into
sub-categories of unique, identifiable subjects as follows:
Social Impacts
Compatibility with Planned Land Use Patterns
Health and Safety
Population Size and Density
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
Archaeological and Historical Sites
Entertainment and Recreational Facilities
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
Traffic Effects
IV-56
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category:
Sub-Category:
SES Project No- -i§2_
Soclo-Cultural Impacts _
Social Impacts
EC"! Criterion: Compatibility with Planned Land Use Patterns
| ] Sub~Cri.teri.on: ^_______________________________
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project conforms to planned land use in the
project area.
RATING:
+ 25
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with Kitsap County Planning Department
staff; examination of Kitsap County Planning policies.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
Alternative 11 is preferable to the other alternatives,
which serve Navy Trident development with an interceptor
running along Clear Creek. Almost all the land bounding
Clear Creek is designated as rural (Kitsap County Compre- +^
hensive Plan, Proposed Planning Map). An interceptor
traversing this rural area will tend to induce development
which might not otherwise occur. In fact, it was in large
part due to these concerns, expressed by the public, that
this alternative was put forward. Alternative 11's routing
of the pipeline from Trident will avoid the Clear Creek _^
area and thus obviate any potential growth-indueing im-
pacts along the creek. There are no foreseeable growth
pressures along this alternative pipeline route.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn L. Jones, Environmental and
Planning Analyst; References 53 and 71.
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
-50
-7,
-100—1
Project of a scale that
essentially achieves
ultimate planned land
use for the regions.
Promotes planned land use
development on a regional
scale.
Promotes planned land use
in local area.
Site'is compatible with
planned land use.
No or negligible effect on
ultimate planned land use.
Projected land use slightly
different from planned use.
Substantially different from
planned use.
Thoroughly incompatible with
planned land use.
IV-5 7
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category:
LJ Sub-Category: Social Impacts
Hal Criterion: Health and Safety
IJ Sub-Criterion: __________________i___i__
SES Pr°Ject No- —
Socio-Cultural Impacts
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects health and safety in the local area
and within the project itself.
RATING; +50
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
+100
+7S
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of existing conditions, pro-
ject plans, Trident Report, consultation with Bremerton-•
Kitsap County Health Dept., PACE Corp. Report.
DISCUSSION: Tne existing health hazard in the area has
been documented by the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health +ZS
Department. Projected growth resulting from the Tri-
dent Base work force will overload existing sewage treat-
ment capacity at the existing Navy facility at Bangor
and will induce substantial growth in the planning area, +10
increasing the existing hazard.
The hazard results from (a) hydraulic overloading of the
existing sewage systems, and (b) the generally poor
soil suitability for drainfields in the area. A further
complication results from the high grouudwater table, -10
which can lead to contamination of subsurface water
from failing drainfields. In addition, surface waters also
show excessive levels of contaminants, for example at
Island Lake, Port of Brownsville, Dyes Inlet, Port _gj
Washington Narrows, Clear Creek and Silverdale Creek,
among others.
The proposed project will substantially reduce the
existing and potential health hazard by reducing
pressure on the overloaded systems, thereby reducing
the risk of contamination from failing septic tanks
and inadequate treatment facilities such as the
existing system at Silverdale.
The impact rating is thus significantly positive.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones,
Environmental Planner ; References A and 42
William Ulwelling, Environmental Scientist
SIR form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-SO-
-71 -
-100-*
Creates ideal health
and safety conditions.
Greatly improves health
and safety conditions.
Sifcificantly improves health
and safety conditions.
Promotes health and safety
conditions.
No or negligible net
effect.
Health and safety conditions
barely :,
-------
bocio-Economic Systems SES Project No-
|""j CateJory: Socio-Cultuial Impacts
[[] Sub-Category: Social Impacts
[xj Criterion:Population Size and Density
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project promotes
desired (General Plan, Zoning Laws) local popula-
tion size and density without overtaxing the local
infrastructure.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of "Amendment to Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan,"
"Planning Policies Outline for the Future Growth of Kitsap County, Washington—
An Element of the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan," Planning Policies, Project
Plan, Staff Analysis.
DISCUSSION: The "Amendment" document referred to above outlines the planning
policies with respect to intensity of development of rural, transitional, urban
and redevelopment areas. The plan outlines an approach to the management of
growth which will encourage higher densities in and around urban centers (urban
and transitional areas), while maintaining the rural character of other areas.
In addition to preserving existing attractive qualities of rural and semirurai
areas, the control of urban growth will promote more efficient delivery of public
services to the present and expected population.
The proposed project gives county planners the opportunity to channel growth
toward selected areas in conformity with local goals. The growth itself has
become inevitable as a result of the :ecision to proceed with the Trident Base.
Assuming that access to the sewer lines will only be permitted in designated
growth areas, and that the project selected alternative will provide service
in those areas, population size and density should conform to planning goals.
While local infrastructure will be taxed (and perhaps overtaxed) by expected
growth, the proposed project, rather than causing this situation, will be a
major component of the effort to enable the infrastructure to cope with the
growth.
One characteristic of alternative 11 which makes it preferable to the others is
that it does not include the Clear Creek corridor in its pipeline route. This
relieves the corridor of development pressure. Population growth in this area,
which is generally designated "Rural" in the Kitsap County Proposed Planning
Policy Map, is not encouraged by present county policy.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Arrie Bachrach, Environmental.Analyst
SIR Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
IV-59
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
fl Category:
LJ Sub-Category:
0 Criterion: Population Size and Density
LJ Sub-Criterion: _____________________
SES Project No.
Socio-Cultural Impacts
Social Impacts
Population size will be minimally increased by the proposed project, regardless of
alternative, since it will employ between 20 and 40 people.
Population density will be increased by the proposed project, inducing concentration in
.those areas served by the facility that will be greater than the more random dispersal
that could be expected if no sewage collection service is available in the planning
area. This will be compatible with local planning if the service, hence the increase
it. density, is available in the urban and transitional areas designated for growth, and
if actual development is not permitted to violate zoning restrictions affecting density.
A small positive rating is therefore given to each alternative. However, until sewered
areas are better defined, no rating will be shown.
IV-60
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 18°
f") Category :
Sub-Category:
Socio-Cultural
Cultural and Aesthetic
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Archaeological and Historical Sites
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects local archaeological and paleon-
tological sites.
RATING:
+100
~\ Preserves and enhances
archaeological and
paleontological remains.
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Project planning area
+76
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination of the archaeological
reconnaisance report. +snl—
DISCUSSION: A literature survey (National Register of
Historic Places, Site Survey Records for Kitsap County +2
at the University of Washington) i-. dicated that there were
no known sites of archaeological or historical significance
within the project planning area. An archaeological survey
of the planning area in December, 1974, revealed only +1
one archaeological site, a shell midden near the Brownsville
Marina on Burke Bay. The midden has essentially been de-
stroyed by historic and modern activities (e.g., dredging 0
operations, road construction) and the investigating
archaeologist has judged that the cultural information
coming from further investigation of this site would be -10
of dubious value. The proposed project would therefore
have little or no impact upon the midden. No other
historical or archaeological sites have been identified
in the planning area.
-SO -
-7t -
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Analyst ; Reference 43
SIB Form #1016V
Copyright 1973
Suzanne Yuen, t Environmental
-100—*
<
No or negligible effect on
archaeological or paleonto-
logical remains.
Destroys paleontological or
archaeological remains.
IV-61
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
0 Criterion:
IJ Sub-Criterion:
SES Pr°Ject N°-
P**^
I | Category: Socio-Cultural
Sub-Category: Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
Entertainment and Recreational Facilities
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project supplies
or demands entertainment and recreational facili-
ties.
RATING:
+ 5
+100
+75
+50
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Examination of the alternative plans for the
proposed project.
DISCUSSION:
+26
The proposed project will have a beneficial impact on the
recreational resources of the area. Outfall sites releasing
sewage after primary treatment will either be upgraded or
replaced, reducing the level of coastal pollution to +10
acceptable levels. The most significant improvements will
be noted in such areas as Liberty Bay and Dyes Inlet, which
receives the outfall from the Silverdale plant and which 0
suffers from inadequate flushing. The beneficial Impact
will result regardless of the alternative selected because -
no outfall will be permitted after oily primary treatment*-10
The pipeline rights-of-way offer potential recreational
resources. Once the pipeline is installBd, the corridor
may—at the county's discretion—be developed as nature -25
trails, bike trails and recreational access to shoreline.
However, these options have not as yet been included with
the facilities design.
-SO
-76 —
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
William Ulwelling, Environmental
Scientist
Provides major new
facilities.
Significantly augments
existing facility inventory.
No or negligible effects.
Overloads existing facilities.
Destroys existing facilities
without replacement.
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
fl Category: Socio-Cultural
Sub-Category: Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
|""| Criterion- Visual and Aesthetic Environment
Sub-Criteri:*::
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Sewage treatment facility location
Pipeline routes
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visitled
proposed sites.
+100f—| Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
+7,
+50
DISCUSSION:
The north Brownsville site is well screened from view """
from adjacent roadways and property. Its location on a
major route through the Study Area precludes any use of
the site as a "natural or serene" preserve. Its present
condition of overgrown farmland contains little aesthetic^ 0
value.
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline placement
along existing roads.
-10
-2k
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-50-
-76-
-100—*
Promotes aesthetic
quality in localized areas.
No changes, in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic qualities
in some local areas
Substantially degrades
aesthetic qualities.
IV-63
-------
Socio-Economic -Systems SES Pr°Ject "°-l~
j_j Category;, Socio-Cultural
[x] Sub-Category: Traffic Effects
r~| Criterion:
|j Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject impacts traffic flows and patterns.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study Area
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with Traffic Engineer and the Engineering Consultant
DISCUSSION: Tne l°ading imposed by project-related traffic generated by the approximately
20-40 employees of a sewage treatment facility is negligible when compared with baseline
traffic loads. Additionally, these 20-40 employees will work in three shifts.
In the context of projected growth resulting from the Trident Support Site development,
traffic increases due to the proposed project are deemed too minor too rate.
Preliminary estimates of construction related traffic, provided by the engineering
consultant are intended to show an order of magnitude. For an initial 12 to 18 month
period, approximately 12 truck trips/day can be expected, for the final 2-3 month period,
an estimated 18 truck trips/day can be expected. The construction crew will add
approximately 22 trips/day. In the ev>_.it of an urgent request to reduce the construction.
period, related traffic can be expected to rise to 21/day (12 to 18 months), 20/day
(2-3 months), 44/day (work force).
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: William Ulwelling, Environmental Analyst.
EIR Form til 016/
Copyright 1973
IV-64
-------
V ADVERSE IMPACTS &
MITIGATIVE MEASURED
FOODLINER
WIT W»A$T K>»
MOW POUTOCS
•HI* O6«i. 6««
-------
CHAPTER V
ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
This chapter presents adverse impacts and mitigative measures for
the proposed wastewater facilities plan.
Impacts which received ratings between -10 and +10 are considered
to be of negligible importance. In some instances these impacts would
have rated higher scores except that mitigative measures were automat-
ically built into the system. As an example, odors from a poorly oper-
ated sewage treatment facility could be very unpleasant and far ranging.
It must be assumed that the facility would be designed, constructed and
operated with reasonable care and diligence. Under such conditions,
odors are very rarely a problem.
This chapter specifically identifies substantially negative envi-
ronmental, social and cultural impacts and states special mitigative
measures that should be taken to lessen those impacts. The discussion
is separated into categories of physical, resource, economic and socio-
cultural impacts. Only impacts with ratings lower than -10 are con-
sidered sufficiently substantial to warrant a discussion.
PHYSICAL IMPACT MITIGATION
The following are physical impacts identified as being of sub-
stantially negative nature within the study area and/or as a result of
implementation of project alternatives.
V-l
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES
f~| Category: Physical Impacts
r~j Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
[""[ Criterion: Vegetrr.ion Communities
Hi? Sub-Criterion: _ Overall Study Area less Clear Creek
NO.
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
vegetation as a soil stabilizer. Site charac-
teristics (topography, riparian location) de-
termine degree to which vegetation prevents
erosion.
RATING:
- 20
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation of existing
conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
The majority of the pipe alignments will be within local
roadway right-of-ways. Within Central Valley, approximately
2 miles of the alignment must pass through vegetated sections
Pipeline construction will cause minor land disruptions +10
during vegetation clearing, trenching, and burying of pipes
The open pasturelands and short segments of woodlots
should recover within 6-12 months. Marsh areas may re- 0
quire a longer time.
The last section of the pipe alignmen'- from South Keyport -10
Road to Port Orchard may suffer long-term effects. The
steep ravine leading down to the beach is a sensitive area
due to the poor soils and slope instability. Construction
without proper mitigation methods could affect the vege- _
tation community in that localized area.
-SO —
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
EIR Form #1016 /
Copyright 1973
-lOCf
Project increases soil
stability by introduction
of vegetation (planting,
seeding, fertilizing).
Project will not induce
erosion, i.e., no or neg-
ligible effects on soil
stability.
Erosion hazard reduced by
less severe site character-
istics.
Vegetation removal will
cause serious erosion and
sedimentation because of
site characteristics (topo-
graphy, riparian location).
V-2
-------
Physical Impacts
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category:_
\\ Sub-Category: __
Q Criterion: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
|_J Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Terrestrial Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
wildlife numbers, complexity and habitat.
RATING:
- 15
. Significantly improves wild-
life habitats and wildlife
numb er.
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation.
DISCUSSION:
+50
+25
Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility will
remove 5-10 acres of wildlife habitat and displace wildlife
presently utilizing the area. The proposed site is generally
in areas previously disturbed by human actions. The
small size and proximity to major thoroughfares also limits
the disruption of wildlife and habitats.
0
All proposed pipeline routes except for small portions
north of Brownsville will be within road right-of-ways and .
should cause negligible impact to wi",llife and habitats _j(
in adjacent areas.
Construction within the Steel Creek (North Fork) drainage
will cause a temporary disruption of habitat. Sensitive _g/
areas are the freshwater marsh and swamp adjacent to the
treatment plant site. These areas provide a seasonal wild-
life habitat. Disruption or reduction of the marsh could
lead to a reduction in wildlife associated with this
ecosystem. _r,
The construction route of the final pipeline segment leading
to the marine outfall will diverge from the road easements
and traverse a wooded area to reach the shoreline. Wildlife
will be temporarily disrupted during this segment of pipe-
line construction. The ravine descending to the Port
Orchard outfall is unstable with sparse vegetation and thus
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
EIR Form #1016/ -100*-J
Copyright 1973
-7.
Increased wildlife numbers
provide more "niches".
Improves or expands wildlife
habitat in localities.
No changes reflected within
system.
Degrades or reduces wildlife
habitat in localities.
Decreases wildlife numbers
or leads to unstable popula-
tion.
Significantly degrades wild-
life habitats and reduces
wildlife number and complex-
ity.
V-3
-------
Socio-Economic Systems' SES Project No-
Q Catenary: Physical Impacts _
[j Sub-Category: , Terrestrial Env1ro™nPT.f
E3 Criterion: _ Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
(""] Sub-Criterion: ^
represents the disturbance of only a marginal wildlife habitat.
Operation of facility or pipelines will not affect terrestrial wildlife. Relocation
of population near available sewer lines will disturb, if not eliminate, most wildlife.
Since it is assumed that population growth in the Study Area will occur with or without
the project and that presently built-up areas would not increase substantially in
density, this increase in population, wherever it occurs, would disturb wildlife for a
negligible impact difference between project and no-project.
V-4
-------
Mitigative Measures to Protect Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats
The destruction of vegetation along the pipeline route is un-
avoidable. The severity of the effects of this destruction and its
duration can be shortened. Appropriate measures would include re-
seeding and replanting disturbed areas with native vegetation and
short-term stabilization of the soil surface with organic mulches.
Straw has been successfully used as a mulch and soil stabilizer for
sloping embankments along new highway construction.
A chipper should be used to shred the brush and slash, with the
resulting mulch being used with the soil to fill in the trench. Be-
sides serving to check erosion, this activity would facilitate re-
seeding by native vegetation and reduce the availability of dry brush
feed for wild fires.
Seeding and fertilizing should be carried out, particularly in
pasture and meadow areas where natural reseeding would be expected to
be difficult. Additionally, reseeding would assure the growth of de-
sired plant species. Fertilization within forested areas would also
enhance revegetation of bare areas.
Separate storage during construction and replacement of the upper
natural soil layers over the backfill material would provide an im-
proved environment for the growth of new plants.
These mitigative measures should be applied at all locations
where the sewers would deviate from roadside cuts.
Secondary effects due to population growth can be minimized if
the County officials implement measures to protect the rural/agri-
cultural planning area designation north of Bucklin Hill Road.
The facilities planner is designing a tunnel for the placement
of this outfall through the shoreline ridge and steep bank. This
will greatly alleviate the problem of trenching through unstable
soil on a steep bank.
V-5
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category:_
|I Sub-Category:
[~j Criterion: Ground Vater
[xl Sub-Criterion: Quantity
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of groundwater
in the Study Area.
RATING: - 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
+100r—i Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
+75
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +10
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particularly 0
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
•leadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basi:' will be adversely -10
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-50
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form 81016/
Copyright 1973
-75
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
-100
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
«
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
V-6
-------
Mitigative Measures to Protect Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats
The destruction of vegetation along the pipeline route is un-
avoidable. The severity of the effects of this destruction and its
duration can be shortened. Appropriate measures would include re-
seeding and replanting disturbed areas with native vegetation and
short-term stabilization of the soil surface with organic mulches.
Straw has been successfully used as a mulch and soil stabilizer for
sloping embankments along new highway construction.
A chipper should be used to shred the brush and slash, with the
resulting mulch being used with the soil to fill in the trench. Be-
sides serving to check erosion, this activity would facilitate re-
seeding by native vegetation and reduce the availability of dry brush
feed for wild fires.
Seeding and fertilizing should be carried out, particularly in
pasture and meadow areas where natural reseeding would be expected to
be difficult. Additionally, reseeding would assure the growth of de-
sired plant species. Fertilization within forested areas would also
enhance revegetation of bare areas.
Separate storage during construction and replacement of the upper
natural soil layers over the backfill material would provide an im-
proved environment for the growth of new plants.
These mitigative measures should be applied at all locations
where the sewers would deviate from roadside cuts.
Secondary effects due to population growth can be minimized if
the County officials implement measures to protect the rural/agri-
cultural planning area designation north of Bucklin Hill Road.
The facilities planner is designing a tunnel for the placement
of this outfall through the shoreline ridge and steep bank. This
will greatly alleviate the problem of trenching through unstable
soil on a steep bank.
V-5
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
Q] Category :f
f"l Sub-Category:
[~] Criterion: Ground 'fater
|~x] Sub-Criterion: Quantity
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of groundwater
in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +10
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particularly 0
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
•leadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basi-.' will be adversely -10
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-50
-75 —
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 197 Z
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
-10$
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
V-6
-------
Mitigative Measures to Protect Groundwater Quantity
The reduction of local availability of groundwater from the upper-
most water bearing strata will come about primarily due to the place-
ment of sewerage systems. Groundwater tables above the elevations of
gravity flow sewers will cause the infiltration of groundwater into the
sewers. This effect is somewhat minor and can be greatly minimized by
using neoprene or plastic gaskets or seals at sewer pipe joints. Of
greater impact would be the drainage of local groundwaters along the
bed of the sewer pipe. The beds upon which sewer pipe are placed and
the backfill material are usually more porous than surrounding undis-
turbed soils and will act as drains. All available groundwaters in
the vicinity of such drains and above the sewer pipe elevation would
be drained to the sewer pipe elevations. This impact can be very sub-
stantially mitigated by the careful placement of impermeable clay dams
at regular intervals along the sewers. These dams would act as a stop
to the drainage of groundwaters.
Water levels in shallow dug wells would still decline and may de-
cline in slightly deeper drilled wells in spite of these measures. The
current practice of using septic tank disposal fields in most of the
study area provides a natural, albeit impure, recharge to the local
groundwater. The proposed plans to extract waters from the ground, use
them and then transport them out of the local recharge areas will re-
duce the natural recharge but gain improved water quality.
Mitigative Measures to Protect Island Lake
The proposed plan has no impact upon lake waters in the study area
and receives an appropriate rating of zero. However, all other alter-
natives under consideration have a provision to sewer the residences,
existing and proposed, in the vicinity of Island Lake, with a connec-
tion to the Clear Creek interceptor. These alternatives would sub-
stantially reduce a documented bacteriological health hazard in Island
Lake.
Due to the relocation of the Trident Support Site interceptor
sewer onto State Highway 303, the interceptor sewer serving Island Lake
was dropped from consideration. It is recommended that an obvious,
existing bacterial pollution problem be addressed in the proposed plan
through the inclusion of an interceptor sewer from the existing resi-
dences at Island Lake to the proposed interceptor route along State
Highway 303.
V-7
-------
Mitigative Measures to Protect Marine Water Quality
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 person-
nel will further safeguard the environment. However, at this time the
facility planner recognizes that the wastewater to be discharged from
the Trident Support Site has poorly defined characteristics. Although
the U.S. Navy is obligated to provide appropriate wastewater pretreat-
ment before discharging to the regional system, the facility planner
felt that the following recommendations would help ensure a consistent-
ly high quality effluent:
1. Kitsap County should stipulate the maximum levels of pollu-
tants it will accept from the U.S. Navy as part of the con-
tracts for sewerage services. Table III-2 showed recommenda-
tions for pollutants that had been anticipated at this time.
The list would be modified when appropriate.
2. The Trident Support Site effluent should be monitored not
only for the listed pollutants but also for pH, temperature,
oil and grease, heavy metals and cyanide. A monitoring
program would help in identifying problems before they
become substantial and would serve as a record of the
presence or absence of pollutants in the event the effects
of treated effluent discharge upon the environment are
questioned.
As a further precaution for the protection of marine water quality
it is recommended that a 6-month study be undertaken at the proposed
North Port Orchard disposal site. During this study continuously
recording current meters would verify the direction, strength and
frequency of currents at the disposal site. Additional drogue or
drifter studies and measurement of seasonal changes in water column
density structure are recommended. It has already been concluded that
the North Port Orchard site is acceptable. These studies would serve
to further define the local marine condition so that an outfall and
diffuser could be designed to absolutely minimize any environmental
impact.
V-8
-------
RESOURCE IMPACT MITIGATION
Mitigative Measures to Protect Quantity of Potable Water Supplies
The preceding discussion on groundwater is applicable to this
topic.
ECONOMIC IMPACT MITIGATION
There are no substantial negative economic impacts associated
with the implementation of the proposed facilities plan.
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACT MITIGATION
There are no substantial negative social or cultural impacts
associated with the implementation of the proposed facilities plan.
IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Table V-l lists the special mitigative measures recommended in
this chapter and provides the responses from Kitsap County and the
EPA construction grants division on recommended implementation of
those measures. In general, the implementation of most of the
measures will become mandated by the acceptance by Kitsap County
of a construction grant from EPA.
The County currently expresses intent to maintain zoning desig-
nations within the study area. It cannot constrain future adminis-
trations from changing this zoning.
The contract between the U.S. Navy and Kitsap County for the
treatment of Trident Support Site wastes will stipulate maximum
allowable levels of pollutants.
V-9
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Criterion:
| x| Sub-Criter-lzr.:
l\ Category:
Sub-Category:
Groundwater
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
Quantity of Potable supplies
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of potable ground-
water in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
+100
+75
+50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +10
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particularly 0
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Headowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adversely -10
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
Oi
—&»
-50
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
-J001—I
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
flater levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
Water levels increase in
some existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
1 Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
V-10
-------
c/>
§
5
en
i
W
I-H
[i-l
^
O
M
H
H
S
O
a
o
H
H
•
00 -H
4J
c
cd
rl
60
0 0
4J iH
4J
CO -H
Vl fi
60 0
S
rt
CO -H
TJ <0 fi
H > iH
3 rH fi
O O fi
,e > cd
CO fi rH
•H ft
rl >> CO
C rH CO
CO CO 3
•33TJ
4-1 4-1 C
•H O Cd
U Cd rH
'O
fi CO rl
O -H 0
J3 C° C°
•H -rl
CO fi TJ
0 0 C
C N -H
Cd wO rH
rl 00 Cd
3 fi >> 0
0) i-l r-4 «rl
CO 4-1 rH 4J
cd co cd o
-rl 00 Cd
O X . o
Cd 4J
TJ cd
fi rH
0 3
0 ft
CO O
C/> ft
c
0
•H
4-1
•rl
"8
o
CJ
4-1
fi
cd
rl
60
CO
co
P
i
C
o
o
4-1
fi
cd
rl
00
O
4-1
C
CO O
CO -H
rl 4->
00 -H
^ti *&
\ CO
CO CO
4-1 TJ 4->
C fi
cd MH cd
rl VH rl
00 00
fi
O O PS
4-> >H rO
CO 'rl TJ
CO TJ CO
rl fi M
00 O -H
<3 CJ CO
CO
00
cd
fi
•H CO
Cd Vl
rl CO
TJ 4J
cd
op £
C *T3
•H C
4-J ^
C 0
CO Vi
> 00
co
VI 4H
PM o
O 1
4J LJ
CO
CO 4J
C fi
0 -H
•H
4-1 >-.
•H >
O
CJ 4J
cd
C 4J
cd
Vi CO
60 Vi
co ca
ca fi
;=> co
TJ Vi
C CO
Cd 4-1
rH Cd
CO rH
M
^"8
0 fi
fi
60 Cd
fi rH
•H ft
M
CO CO
co cd
C/) |J
co fi
Vi a)
CO rH
0
o !>,
4-1
CO -H
pQ ,_|
*H
TJ O
rH Cd
3 <4H
O
.fi fi
W -H
1
3
rH
rH
0
ft CO
Cd r£l
tJ O
Vi
^j fx
c
cd C
rH 0
CO -H
H 4J
rl I
0 fi
<4H O
CJ
4-1 CO
•^ l^j
cj cd
Cd r]
ft
cd TJ
o fi
cd
CO rH
cd ca
J3 H
fi
Vi CO O
O Vi iH
ft 4-1 CJ
CO 3 CO
0 >4H fi
1
4J
co
CO
cd
t)
CO CO
TJ fi
CO -H
CO <4H
fi CO
*T3
c
CO Vi
^3 CO
C
•H
^
|Cj ^
4-1 Cd
00 >3
co fi
VI CO
4J CO
en U
4J
CO CO
4-> ,JQ
CO
Cd 4J
cd
4J VI
"rl O
»J O
fi
o
•H 1
cd cd
•H
4J rH
O rH
00 -H
CO >
fi
4J >
CJ Cd
cd 3
4-1 ,C
fi 4J
O -H
o &
1
0) -H
4J TJ
cd G
•rl 0
Vi U
ft
0 4J
Vi G
ft CD
ft Vl
cd oo
4-) Vt
o o
CO
4-1
CO
cd
^»
^
cd fi
p^ Q
•rl
C 4-1
O 3
CO -H
•rl 4-1
6 G
•H O
iJ a
KN
4J
fi
3
O
U
TJ
fi
cd
I
cd
4-1
•rl
H
rH
CO
4-1
CO
cd
ca co
ca fi
CO O
Vl iH
TJ 4J
fi
o
•H
4-1
fi
4J
•H
•3
O
O
4J
fi
cd
rl
00
CO
CO
0
CO
co
Vl
00
fi cd
•H
CO 4-1
Vi cj
•H cd
3 H
CO fi
Vl O
CJ
TJ
"3 £
O CD
u z
4-1
fi
cd
00 CO
fi
0 0
4-1 -rl
4J
CO tH
CO TJ
Vl fi
00 O
CO
•rl 4J
fi CO
O Cd
S is
(3
O
•rl
4-1
•H
TJ
O
O
4-1
fi
Cfl
V4
00
o
4J
c
o
•H
4J
•H
"g
O
CJ
4-1
c
cd
VI
00
CO
ca
p
CO
H
,£1
g
CO
cd
CO
Vl
TJ
CO
Vl
co
•iH
co
c
o
0
4-1
c
cd
VI
00
c
o o
4-1 "H
4-1
CO tH
CO TJ
00 O
0 C
3
4J CO
VI
0 CO
fn fi
-H
fi Vl
00 g
co
CO TJ
co cd
Vl .fi
PM O
V-ll
-------
;VERSIBLE & IRRETRIEVABLE
SOURCE COMMITMENTS
**£**&& • s-f 4-** T£
£• Ji>af* •"» ^t **"••-• »_ **lk£!^r"- •** i ^SS> «Jfr|t^2* •*'. *« ** , («*, f
'» -= ••%&&
'^tS*
-------
CHAPTER VI
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
The proposed facility plan will have negligible resource commit-
ments. The treatment facility site will occupy on the order of 15
acres of land within a 40-acre parcel, which will be removed from con-
sideration for other uses during the life of the treatment facility.
Small amounts of land will be committed to easements for the sewerage
system. Construction of the sewerage system will temporarily destroy
some flora, but this is not a permanent commitment, and regrowth of
vegetation will occur. With regard to other physical parameters, such
as water quality, fauna and marine resources, the effects of the pro-
posed alternative plans would be, if not negligible, at least rela-
tively minor and reversible.
The creation and construction of a regional sewerage system for
sub-basins 9 and 10, for the Trident Support Site and the Poulsbo ser-
vice area will impose on future generations the necessity for a strong
commitment to the maintenance, expansion and continuation of the waste-
water management systems now being developed. The selection of future
alternatives for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal will, to
a large extent, be limited by implementation of the selected plan.
A secondary—and desirable—effect is the population concentration
induced by the interceptor location. By providing service in appropri-
ately zoned areas designated in the General Plan (Reference 41), the
interceptor location could stimulate development according to County
planning goals. This will result in an irreversible environmental
change with respect to the applicable properties by committing them
to use for residential and commercial development purposes. By
permitting relatively high-density development in areas so designated,
the project will reduce the potential throughout the area for urban
sprawl and strip development in contravention of the General Plan.
The proposed plan will also protect the ecological resources of the
rural areas along Clear Creek by locating the Trident Support Site
interceptor sewer along highway rights-of-way and away from the
corridor.
The proposed project will require permanent commitments of
construction materials and a l-i year commitment of construction
workers for a combined value of $18 million. The materials would
consist of concrete, steel, fabricated machinery, electrical
VI-1
-------
components, wood forms and 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.
The employment of construction workers for the regional facility
would draw on a large labor pool at a time of high national unem-
ployment. It cannot be predicted from where the workers might come,
but their employment would be of national and state benefit, and they
would reinvest some portion of their earnings in Kitsap County.
Any wastewater treatment system requires a commitment of energy
resources for its operation. Electricity is used to power equipment
and produce chlorine. This commitment is permanent for any energy
expended but can be terminated when public health protection is no
longer of prime importance.
VI-2
-------
VII SHORT TERM USES & LONG TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
>- >*
• « v.»^ •,
, *.* -.1 " •, ~~ "V* *•>' *- ••>.>•** C-< " i "»"• n,
-•x, v v " - * V > "^-" "?b*i JL > •"*• ->fc
i - » -"*" »',*"%,. ** ^ „_;'<*** », ; K ,
-------
CHAPTER VII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section develops the relationships between basically nega-
tive, short-term impacts upon the environment and the ultimate bene-
fits to be accrued from the proposed facility plan.
Physical Impacts
The negative, short-term physical impacts of the proposed project
will be more than offset by the future benefits. Negative impacts can
be reduced to: temporary (one to ten year) disruption of present types
and quantities of vegetation along pipeline routes; temporary and lo-
calized disturbance of stream ecologies during construction; temporary
(one to three year) disruption of marine benthic communities due to
outfall construction; and a decrease in aesthetic appeal of the site
selected for the treatment facility. There will also be construction
impacts, which will include some traffic impacts due to construction
workers and material hauling, construction noises and—along the inter-
ceptor route—temporary impacting of traffic where the pipeline follows
highways and streets. For alternative plan No. 11, there would also be
some very small and reversible damage to clam beds in Liberty Bay
caused by the construction of the Poulsbo interceptor sewer.
Benefits to the physical environment would occur in varying de-
grees. Failure of septic tank drain fields will no longer occur in
sewered areas connected to the treatment facility. As a consequence,
existing pollution of streams and local groundwaters, which are used
extensively for potable water supply, will diminish. Pollution of Dyes
Inlet, Liberty Bay and Port Orchard channel will, in general, be dimin-
ished, and Health Department restrictions on shellfish harvesting in
presently highly polluted areas probably could be lifted. Health haz-
ards within the study area would be substantially reduced.
VII-1
-------
Adoption of the proposed facility plan would provide sewerage
service and wastewater treatment to wastes originating at the Trident
Support Site.
Resource Impacts
Construction of a treated effluent outfall will temporarily elim-
inate benthic organisms in a small area, and there would be some
small temporary damage to clam beds in Liberty Bay.
Balancing these negative impacts, a substantial reduction in bac-
terial pollution of clam beds is expected, beginning with the elimina-
tion of septic tank drainage and primary level treated sewage dis-
charges. Health Department restrictions upon certain clam harvesting
areas might be lifted, particularly if Poulsbo, Keyport and the Naval
Torpedo Station (Keyport) were to join the regional system.
Socio-Cultural Impacts
Development of a new major wastewater interceptor and treatment
system in an area largely lacking these services provides to Kitsap
County planners and officials a unique opportunity and mechanism by
which growth may be controlled in a well-planned and orderly manner.
The interceptor sewer routings and service areas generally correspond
to areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan (Reference 41) for
maximum urban development.
Placement of sewer interceptors in areas zoned for residential
use will tend to fulfill the goals of the Comprehensive Plan (Refer-
ence 41). Urban sprawl and strip development will tend to be
minimized, thereby maintaining agricultural and open space in areas
so designated in the Plan. The routing of the Trident Support Site
interceptor sewer away from the Clear Creek corridor will protect
the rural designation of that area.
Growth-Inducing Impacts
Growth-inducing impacts are secondary effects of a project which
either lead directly to growth (for example, by attracting large
numbers of workers to an area) or which remove an obstacle to growth
(for example, the construction of a highway which opens a new area
for development).
The growth-inducing impacts of a service facility are related
VII-2
-------
to a number of factors, including: other service facilities, labor
force, capital, transportation network and markets. In Kitsap
County there is another unique factor: the Trident Support Site.
Growth in Kitsap County between 1975 and 1995 will be induced
primarily by the development of the Trident Support Site. According
to the A.D. Little study, the county's population will rise from
its current 114,480 (1975) to 170,989 by 1995. An estimated 31,702
persons, or 54% of the total increase, will be drawn into the county
by the development of Trident. Since the proposed facility can
accommodate only 18,000 people in the service area (exclusive of the
populations of Poulsbo and Lemolo) in addition to the Trident Support
Site flow, no excess service capacity will become available to stimu-
late additional growth until after 1995 (Reference 72). Instead, the
facility will serve some of the additional population resulting
from the Trident development and will channel Trident-induced
growth along interceptor lines other than the interceptor serving
the Trident Support Site. Current planning restricts access to
the Trident interceptor as well as its size.
The rapid rise in local population will hit full stride in 1983,
when the Trident Support Site is scheduled to become operational. The
pressure on housing, schools and all other facilities and services
required by a residential population will be severe, and the area
will not be attractive to newcomers other than those employed at
Trident, their dependents and those associated with public and private
services that the area will need.
The existence of the proposed project will thus not have a sig-
nificant growth-inducing impact in the area; for the foreseeable
future, the entire growth capacity of the area will be strained to
the limit, and beyond, in coping with a growth stimulus already
under construction. When Trident is operating at its planned
level, and associated growth has already taken place, the service
capacity of the proposed facility will be utilized at or near its
limits, thereby effectively eliminating itself as a source of future
growth.
Rather than inducing growth, the proposed project will serve to
channel growth toward its service area, as it mitigates a serious
existing problem: the substandard treatment of sewage. Such an
outcome is clearly desirable because the service area conforms to
planning goals by providing service in urban and transitorial areas
designated for growth.
There will be small indirect impacts attributable to the proposed
project, stemming from the slight increase in jobs (20-40 is the
preliminary estimate) necessary to operate the treatment system,
VII-3
-------
sewer lines and pump stations and to manage the treatment system staff.
There will thus be a minor increase in population, with attendant
needs for housing and supplies, generating a small amount of business
activity. In the context of Trident, this small increase will not
measurably increase the growth pressure in Kitsap County and is
probably substantially less than the precision of estimating popula-
tion growth.
VII-4
-------
wu
•m
i0Mi£ J
-------
CHAPTER VIII
REFERENCES
1. The URS Company. Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities:
Draft Facilities Plan, Seattle, Washington, July 1975.
2. Horsely, John. Kitsap County Trident Coordinator, Personal Com-
munication, 13 August 1975.
3. U.S. Department of the Navy. Trident Support Site Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement, July 1974.
4. Pace Corporation. Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan for
Drainage Basin 15, rough draft, Seattle, Washington,
July 1973.
5. State of Washington Department of Conservation, Division of Water
Resources. Water Resources and Geology of the Kitsap
Peninsula and Certain Adjacent Islands, Water Supply
Bulletin No. 18, 1965.
6. USDA Soil Conservation Service and Washington Agricultural Experi-
ment Station. Soil Survey, Kitsap County, Washington,
1934.
7. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Interpretations of Soils for Land
Use Planning, Supplement to Soil Survey of Kitsap
County, Washington, January 1972.
8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Environmental Re-
sources Section. Washington Environmental Atlas, Jan-
uary 1972.
9. USDA Forest Service. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington,
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW-8,
1973.
10. Kingsbury, John. State of Washington Department of Natural Re-
sources, South Puget Sound Area. Personal Communica-
tion, 9 July 1975.
11. State Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species of
VIII-1
-------
the Continental United States, Federal Register, Vol.
40, No. 237, 1 July 1975.
12. Ingles, Lloyd G. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford Univer-
sity Press, Stanford, California, 1965.
13. Larrison, E.J. and Sonnenberg, K.G. Washington Birds, Their Lo-
cation and Identification, Seattle Audubon Society,
1968.
14. Yocom, Charles and Dasmann, Ray. The Pacific Coastal Wildlife
Region, Naturegraph Company, Healdsburg, California,
1965.
15. Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Am-
phibians, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachu-
setts, 1966.
16. Peterson, Roger Tory. A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1961.
17. Larrison, Earl J. Field Guide to Birds of Puget Sound, Seattle
Audubon Society, 1952.
18. Lyons, C.P. Trees, Shrubs and Flowers to Know in Washington,
J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., Toronto, Canada, 1956.
19. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. United
States List of Endangered Fauna, May 1974.
20. State of Washington Department of Game. Rare Mammals of Washing-
ton, 1 June 1973.
21. Lincoln, John H. Model Studies of the Port Orchard System and
Adjacent Areas, Interim Report No. 2, University of
Washington, Seattle, June 1975.
22. Kitsap County Planning Department. Basic Data and Related Sources
to Shorelines, Port Orchard, Washington, February 1973.
23. Water Resources Engineers. Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound and
Adjacent Waters, prepared for EPA, Contract No. 14-31-
001-3385, April 1975.
24. Census of Agriculture - Kitsap County, Washington. U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September 1971.
25. Kitsap County Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan, by
the ORB Company, October 1974.
VIII-2
-------
26. Munton, John, Vice President, Industrial Departments, Cascade
Natural Gas Company. Personal Communication, 15 July
1975.
27. Harstad Associates, Inc. Central Kitsap Study Area Comprehensive
Plan. Seattle, Washington, June 1969.
28. Linder, Paul G., Superintendent of Central Kitsap School District
No. 401. Letter of 22 July 1975.
29. Rutherford, F.C., County Assessor, Kitsap County. Assessed Valua-
tions with Levies and Taxes for 1975. Port Orchard,
Washington, 1975.
30. State of Washington Employment Security Department. Employment
and Payrolls in Washington State by County and by
Industry, No. 112, 3rd Quarter, 1974.
31. U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Manpower Pro-
file, Kitsap County, Washington, September 1972.
32. Porterfield, Robert, Planner, Kitsap County Planning Department.
Personal Communications, 11 and 15 July 1975.
33. Puget Sound Council of Governments. Data Transmittal from Jan
Pilskog, PSCG, July 1975.
34. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Preliminary Allocations of Population and
Households to Subareas Under Alternative Policy Models,
to Central Puget Sound Economic Development District,
7 May 1975.
35. Sanderson, John, Superintendent of Public Works, Kitsap County
Public Works Department. Personal Communication, 11
July 1975.
36. Williams, Richard, Environmental Planner, URS Company. Personal
Communications, 8, 10 and 14 July 1975.
37. Brincken, Glen, Assistant Manager of Customer Service in Marketing,
Puget Sound Power and Light Company. Personal Communi-
cation, 16 July 1975.
38. Benham, Shirley, M.D., Department of Public Health, Kitsap County.
Personal Communication, 11 July 1975.
39. Loop, Enzo, Kitsap County Traffic Engineer. Personal Communica-
tions, July 1975.
VIII-3
-------
40. Kitsap County, Washington. Kitsap County Planning Policies: Out-
line for the Future Growth of Kitsap County, Washing-
ton: An Element of the Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan. Approved 24 February 1970.
41. Kitsap County, Washington. Amendment to Kitsap County Planning
Policies: Outline for the Future Growth of Kitsap
County, Washington: An Element of the Kitsap County
Comprehensive Plan. Approved 24 June 1975.
42. Weigle, Joseph and Brown, Eleanor, Kitsap County Health Department.
Personal Communications, 11 July 1975.
43. Benson, Charlotte L. Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Clear
Creek Drainage, Eastern Kitsap Peninsula, University
of Washington, Office of Public Archaeology Reconnais-
sance Report No. 3, 3 February 1975.
44. Shobert, Cheryl, Office Administrator, Kitsap County Assessor's
Office. Personal Communication, 22 July 1975.
45. Savoie, Gordon, Manager of Bond Investments, Security National
Bank. Personal Communication, March 1974.
46. Hill, Ingman, Chase and Company. Comprehensive Water and Sewerage
Plans for Central Kitsap County, Seattle, Washington,
January 1970.
47. Engineering-Science, Inc. Pollutional Effects of Drydock Dis-
charges, a report to the Department of the Navy, Con-
tract No. N62474-73-C-5275, October 1973.
48. Li, Richard C.T. City of Poulsbo Facilities Plan for Proposed
Sewerage Facilities, Seattle, Washington, June 1974.
49. Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc. A Comprehensive Sewerage System Im-
provement Plan for the City of Bremerton, Washington,
March 1974.
50. The URS Company. Environmental Impact Statement for the Hansville
Road Solid Waste Disposal Site, Seattle, Washington,
March 1974.
51. Sopper, W.E. and Kardos, L.T. Recycling Treated Municipal Waste-
water and Sludge through Forest and Cropland, Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, University Park, 1973.
52. Stetson, John, State of Washington Department of Ecology. Personal
Communication, 16 July 1975.
VIII-4
-------
53. Lincoln, John H. and Collias, Eugene E. An Oceanographic Study of
the Port Orchard System, Final Report, University of
Washington, Seattle, 1975.
54. Yearsley, John R. Application of an Ecological Model to Port
Orchard, Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet and Liberty Bay
Subsystem of Puget Sound, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region X, Surveillance and Analysis,
December 1975.
55. Peck, Craig G., et al. Mathematical Model of Three Proposed Port
Orchard System Outfall Sites, Parametrix, Inc.,
Seattle, Washington, November 1975.
56. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Analysis of Selected Impacts of Trident
Related Population Growth in Kitsap County, San Fran-
cisco, September 1975.
57. Fusco, Steve. Letter to Herb Armstrong of Roots Engineering, 28
November 1975.
58. Kitsap County, Washington. Kitsap County Planning Policies: Out-
line for the Future Growth of Kitsap County, Washing-
ton. Approved by Board of Kitsap County Commissioners,
28 July 1975.
59. Lemolo Citizen's Club. Letter of 19 December 1975 to Steve Fusco
of URS Company.
60. Sanderson, John, Superintendent of Public Works, Kitsap County.
Personal Communication, 16 December 1975.
61. The URS Company. Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities:
Facilities Plan, Draft Supplement CDecember 1975);
Final Plan (March 1976), Seattle, Washington,
62. Northwest Environmental Consultants. Biological Baseline Studies
and Impact Assessment, Central Kitsap Facilities Plan,
Bainbridge Island, Washington, September 1975.
63. Armstrong, Herbert, Poulsbo City Engineer. Personal Communication,
17 December 1975.
64. Cox, Thomas, Keyport Public Works Department. Personal Communica-
tion, 18 December 1975.
65. Smith, John, Commissioner, Kitsap County Sewerage District No. 4.
Personal Communication, 18 December 1975.
VIII-5
-------
66. Fusco, Steve, URS Company. Personal Communication, 24 November
1975.
67. Voglantz, Lawrence, Kitsap County Department of Public Works.
Personal Communication, 16 December 1975.
68. Loop, Enzo, Kitsap County Engineering Department. Personal Com-
munication, 16 December 1975.
69. Bullard, L., Kitsap County Engineering Department. Personal Com-
munication, 23 December 1975.
70. Sullivan, Larry, Project Director, URS Company. Personal Communi-
cations, 29 December 1975.
71. Hollenbeck, Peggy, Associate Planner, Kitsap County Planning De-
partment. Personal Communication, 24 December 1975.
72. Fusco, Steve, URS Company. Personal Communication, 8 January 1976.
VIII-6
-------
.
J
-------
CHAPTER IX
COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS AND RESPONSES
The Environmental Protection Agency held a public hearing on
the Central Kitsap County Draft Environmental Impact Statement on
October 29, 1975 at Central Kitsap County High School in Silver-
dale, Washington. The hearing was attended by approximately 75
people of which four presented testimony for the record on the
statement. 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 Re-
gional Library in Bremerton, Washington, and in branch libraries
at Silverdale and Wins low, Washington, and at EPA's Region X Office,
Seattle, Washington.
A brief summarization of major concerns voiced at the hearing
includes:
1. David Heiser of the Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission stated that the Commission was not in favor of outfalls
at Manchester or near Fay Bainbridge State Park because of impact
on tidelands owned by the State and which are utilized by the public
for swimming, clam digging and other recreational activities.
2. Mr. Robert Gedney, a Bainbridge Island resident, stated
that the Draft EIS does not focus on environmental matters to the
degree needed. He expressed concern about the total capacity of
Puget Sound for receiving effluent discharges; necessary precautions
that should be taken to maintain water quality in Puget Sound; and
location of the selected outfall alternative. Mr. Gedney pointed
out that tracer studies would show that tides were often of diverse
nature in the water at proposed outfall sites on windy days and
suggested use of radioisotopes for study of dispersion characteristics
of alternative sites. He questioned whether Kitsap County has the
capability to handle many small sewerage treatment plants, and
stressed the advantages of regional treatment. In addition, the
nature of the Navy's industrial wastes and the pre-treatment that
is given to effluent discharged by the Navy were also presented as
concerns to be considered.
3. Mike Krieger, a Bainbridge Island resident, asked why the
Port Orchard site was shown as a better outfall site and received
higher rating relative to water quality than was the main Puget
Sound, east of Bainbridge Island, and requested further explanation
and re-evaluation of the alternative outfall sites.
4. Joel Haggard, attorney representing C. A. Ross, made re-
ference to comments he had formally presented to EPA by mail (see
Comments Section). He listed several matters to be considered,
such as: what further environmental analyses are required and who
will do them; definition of land use policies by the County and
IX-1
-------
evaluation by EPA in the Final EIS; regarding Trident: will con-
struction people reside on or off the base? What are final pop-
ulation projections? What would be the cost impact and who would
pay taxes if the Navy moved out of the area? What is the per capita
cost, using realistic bond rates? Since alternatives are totally
inadequate in his client's view, why is service to Trident assumed
and why can't the Navy treat wastes on the base and recycle? If a
regional system is selected as the best alternative, will Bremerton
cooperate?
Following these presentations, a question and answer period was
conducted to enable attendees to clarify issues of interest or con-
cern. Issues raised during the discussion period at the public hearing
have been covered in the Supplement to the Draft EIS and in this Final
EIS.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region X wishes to express
its appreciation to all commenting agencies, groups and individuals
for the time and effort spent in reviewing the Draft EIS. All
comments were presented to the Regional Administrator and were con-
sidered by him in EPA's preparation of the Final EIS.
IX-2
-------
H3H10
AOHOd 1Vb3Q3d
Ainvnb
HIV
ivsodsia 39anis
S3cJnSV3W 3AI1V9I1IW
S31SVM iviuisnaNi
siovdwi NOiionyisNOo
S3AIIVNH3nV
S3iy3HSIJ
AlITVnb rJ31VM
• sisoo
MOIlVZnVMOI93M
SNIMNVld '3Sn QNV1
AilOVdVO SS3DX3
Himyg-Moiiospoyd'dOd
COMMENTS RECEIVED
KITSAP COUNTY, WA DRAFT EIS
• CD
C C
cu o
CJ3 1—
OO
1 — 1
UJ
cu
CD •
res O
o_ •^»
o
U.
R
en
CU T3
"to o
X
Support.
UD
X
i — i
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
00
en
Tertiary treatment;
Format
X
X
X
S-
CJ
o
X
1 — 1
>,
cu
T3
CU
i.
cu
-Q
r?
CO
CM
CTl
O)
•r—
•i—
3
X
>j.
General 1
Support.
CM
CM
X
i— t
Washington State'
Department of Game
CM
CTl
4->
CU
a.
o
c
o
o
CU
00
i.
0
Q.
CL
OO
— crr
co
r—
1
X
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Cn
o
201 Coordination
X
X
X
•r—
i.
X
Puget Sound
Council of Governments
o
CD
X
X
•1 —
i.
CJ
ro
i
X
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
to
o
to
o
00
i.
o
o.
Q.
13
c/1
1
X
1 — 1
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
0
CM
O
X
40
i-
8.
Q.
CO
r —
CO
i
X
1 — 1
c
o
•r—
13
"o
Q- >>
•i- £.
> 0
CU C£
i. .
40
=t O
CM
O
X
X
X
0 •
> to
c c:
lit i
oo
LO
X
JD
r—
O
to
C
cu
S- N
O-r-
4-4->
•r—
>lO
CU
C 0
11
CM
CM
O
X
•r-
i.
CM
1
X
i — i
Washington State
Parks & Recreation Commission
CO
CM
O
X
X
0
o.
Q.
13
in
O
X
Washington State
Department of Ecology
co
CM
O
to
•u
c
to
03
U.
X
H
i — CO
1 I
X X
en
•i —
5>
T3
(O
to "O
r- UJ
-o
^3 *
t! S-
Q. s:
o
40 •
1 r—
Farmlands
X
•1 —
CV1
1
X
cu
en
O
•1—
UJ
0
CO
1
X
I — 1
-------
\i*3 LJ t r\
QJj |1 ,*m\*
AOHOd !Vy3Q3d
Aii-WTb m
ivsodsia 39ams
S3>JnSV3W 3AI1V9I1IW
S31SVM IVIrdiSnONI
SlOVdWI NOHOnyiSNOD
S3AIiVNM3nV
S3iy3HSId
Ainvnb y3i\/M
SiSOO
NOI1VZI1VNOI931I
SNINNVId '3Sn QNV1
AHOVdVO SS30X3
HiHOyg-NOIlOHTOild-dOd
/
COMMENTS RECEIVED
KITSAP COUNTY, WA DRAFT El!
c c
Ol O
C£S 1—
O)
CO CD •
t— i rO O
Ul CL. Z
a
u.
LO|O> ~°
-a
rO
rO
U.
X
+J
i-
1 —
I
X
Ol
c
o
o
CO
1
CO
oS
s:
•*-
X
X
+J
S-
CM
LO
1
X
Northwest Steel headers Counci
of Trout Unlimited . '
--
Farmlands
X
-u
S-
un
r--
i
X
-o
ro
"oi
d.
O
0
Ol
o
1
ra
CO
--
Farmlands
X
+J
^
r^
i
X
CO
T3
rO
-i
Ul
•o
•r-
rd
a
CO
S-
s:
^
Farml ands
X
+->
s-
Ol
r--
I
X
Mrs. Lorraine Anderson 1
--
Farmlands
X
4->
i.
oo
1
X
Gerald Peterson 1
^
X
X
X
X
•u
S-
1
X
Clear Creek Community
Improvement Club *
CO
••>•
•
X
X
-!->
s-
co
1
X
1— I
Washington State
Commissioner of Public Lands
^t-
--
Historic sites;
Parks irprrpat.inn
X
X
X
4J
s_
o
CM
X
U.S. Department of Interior 1
«j-
--
Historical-Archae-
oloaical Clearance
5-
O
Q.
Q
CO
co
1
X
1 — 1
Arthur M. Skolnik
I?;
S-
c
i-
01
CO
c
c
a
re
V.
C
c
c
CO
re
c\
IX-4
•
-------
cGHIO
AOIlOd 1Vy3Q3J
Ainvno mv
ivsodsia 39ams
S3cinSV3W 3AI1V9I1IW
ssisvM ivicUsnaNi
siovdwi NoiionaisNOo
S3AIiVNcJ3nV
S3iy3HSId
Ainvnb y3iw
S1SOO
NOIiVZnVNOI93M
9NIMNV1d '3Sfl ON VI
AlIOVdVD SS33X3
lMOH9-NOI133POMd'dOd
COMMENTS RECEIVED
KITSAP COUNTY, WA SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS
• |CU T3
£|o
-h«
+j
c
ii
0
o
en
X
State of Washington
Off. of Community Development
Cn
CM
X
•
-P
•r-
i.
o
CO
un
i
X
.a
:s
0
S
•r—
c
3
o
o
0
o
0)
1
en
c5
4->
C
CU
O E
0
o
5
1
X
Department of Housing and
Urban Development I
r~~
CM
CM
Army permit
requirements
Support.
- ™io
CO
1
X
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers :
oo
oo
•r-
l/>
la
(/)
o
Q.
(/I
•r—
Q
X
X
X
-p
i.
o
00
IO
X
... -p^
c
to
5
i.
ro
3:
S-
o
Q.
Q.
3
oo
un
CM
I
X
4->
Q.
CU
Q
cr
E
c
c
fO
^
>,
4->
c
3
0
C_)
n
n3
V)
+J
•r—
^
'S-
CM
CO
Secondary wild-
life imnart.<;
4->
•r-
i.
o
in
CM
X
i — i
Department of Game
*t
CM
CO
Sinclair Inlet
sewerage plan
X
4J
•i —
i.
C_J
LO
LO
1
X
•r—
s:
CM
m
o
en
CM
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4->
£
<-J
en
o
1 —
1
X
s- ,
o
M- 10
10
>> 0
CU C£
c
o =c
4->
4-> •
=c o
CTl
CM
CO
-4->
c
O)
iO E
Z E
O
t-J
en
i
X
i — i
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
en
CM
00
-p
c:
eu
o E
iz. E
0
C->
CO
oo
i
X
l^t
Washington State
Parks & Recreation Commission
en
CM
co
•
un
i
X
•
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201
September 16, 1975
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
-Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Sir:
Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft environmental impact
statement on the Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities, Washington,
EPA Project C-530494-01. It would appear the items of concern to the
Soil Conservation Service have been adequately covered.
Our only comment for your consideration would be in regard to Chapter V,
Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures. We would suggest that wording
of mitigative measures be strengthened to indicate positive action rather
than recommendations. Words such as "could", "should", and "can be" do
not indicate that the mitigative measures will be achieved. Wording that
includes "shall", "will", etc., would strengthen these portions of
Chapter V.
If we can be of further service to you on this or other projects, please
do not hesitate to let us know.
Sincerely,
TJaIen^>. Bridge
State Conservationist
RECEIVED
IX-6
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201
October 16, 1975
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
The environmental impact statement draft for Central Kitsap County Wastewater
facilities has been reviewed by this office. A notable effort has been made
to provide a clear understanding of the complex features of the proposal.
In the discussion of soils (P. II-4), reference is made in the second sentence
to the Alderwood and Edmonds series being underlain with hardpan or bedrock.
The reference to bedrock should be deleted from the sentence as the soils
mentioned are only associated with the cemented hardpan condition.
Drainage basin numbers 9 and 10 are frequently noted in the statement. It
is suggested that the delineation system to which these numbers apply be
footnoted. Several delineation systems are utilized in the state and clarity
would be served if the system was identified.
The opportunity to review the statement for this project has been appreciated.
Sincerely,
Galen S. Bridge
State Conservationist
RECEIVED
, i 20 1S75
IX-7
-------
Response to letters from U.S. Department of Agriculture
1. With regard to the mitigative measures recommended for the pre-
ferred alternative, most will be handled by Kitsap County through
construction specifications of the pipelines and facility or by
the NPDES permit issued by EPA. The County has expressed interest
in maintaining current zoning designations. Any mitigative mea-
sures not enforced locally will be included as conditions for
grant approval by EPA. See specific discussion in Chapter V.
2. The correction has been made.
3. The drainage basin numbers designated for the study area were ob-
tained from the "Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan for
Drainage Basin 15," prepared by the Pace Corporation of Seattle,
Washington. This report was identified as Reference 4 in the
draft EIS.
IX-8
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201
March 24, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed your supplement to the draft environmental impact statement
for the Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities (EPA Project No. C-530494-01)
and find we have nothing further to add to our letter of September 16, 1975
relative to this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your supplement.
Sincerely,
Galen S. Bridge
State Conservationist
RECEIVED
f.;AR 2 9 liJ/6
IX-9
-------
ROBERT H. GEDNEY
ROUTE 7, BOX 7851
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON 981 1O
TEL. (206) 842-5353
September 22, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thiel Reference: Your M/S 443
Chief, Environmental Impact Section Aug. 25
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Wash. 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for your above referenced acknowl-
edgement and the Draft E.I.S. of the Central Zitsap County
Wastewater Facilities, which I subsequently received. In
accordance with your invitation, I am pleased to submit here-
with my attached comments on the E.I.S. and related matters.
The very recent public announcement of the
reported high level of mercury pollution in Liberty Bay is a
most tangible demonstration of the two major concerns about
the Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities which I expressed in
my letter of Aug. 8 to Director Biggs, namely:
i) studies are needed to fill the gap of information about the
effects of wastewater discharges into the main channels of the
Sound on the bays and inlets of the Sound shoreline£ and
ii) the nature and characteristics of the proposed waste eff-
luents need further evaluation with respect to toxicants,
particularly from the Trident facility.
Likewise the overall capability of the Sound to receive toxi-
cants at present and projected levels needs immediate evalua-
tion.
Although the forgoing matters are noted casually
in the E.I.S., the signifigance is submerged in the imposing
aggregation of verbiage and computerized presentation of the
text. In reading the Statement one has the feeling the authors
are ritually conforming to a prescribed format and do not wish
to delve deeply into basic environmental concerns.
I am aware that E.P.A. has, in preliminary
form,data on mercury and PCB levels in Puget Sound. The
question should be asked as to the capability of the Sound
to accept further loadings of existing waste systems, as well
as projected loads, with respect to marine life systems.
RECEIVED
P 2, 31975
IX'10
-------
Gedney
Sept. 22,1975
The matter of Tertiary treatment requirements
needs some further discussion. What might be its goals and
what might it consist of? In Puget Sound the Tertiary treat-
ment requirements might be significantly different from those
of freshwater environments.
Another matter of signifigance is the prolifer-
ation of treatment systems in Kitsap County. Is it reasonable
that each municipality such as Poulsbo, Bremerton and Silver-
dale should have its own system. The administration and opera-
tion of these separate systems may well become so costly and
complex that the separate municipalities simply will not be
able to support these costs* In the matter of laboratory con-
trol alone, the costs of complex routine tests which should be
made may well be beyond the budgeted funds available, let alone
the provision of skilled personnel for their undertaking and
evaluation. Shouldn't some thought be given to at least a
county organization and operation.
I appreciate the opportunity of submitting
these comments and I would like to be further informed about
these matters.
Encl,/Comments Sincerely yours,
^ J
*fje0Uu*^
Robert H. G-edney /I
cc Mr. John Biggs
IX-11
-------
September 22, 1975
COMMENTS BY ROBERT H. GEDNEY
ON THE DRAFT E.I.3.
CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Dated Aug. 1975
1. Page xii, 5th par.
The statement is made that, "Development of a sewer interceptor
system will tend to promote growth along corridors of sewerage
availability."
This premise is open to serious question as such lands will
have higher costs and taxes and thus new housing may continue to
seek lowcost lands unless the County exercises zoning and positive
control measures to restrict or limit land development to sewered
areas.
2. Pg. 1-3, Fig. 1-1
Sub-basins 9 and 10 should be shown on the figure.
3. Pg. 1-4, under SUMMARY
The major issues noted include an item on "marine water quality".
However, there is no mention of marine ecology which should be a
major environmental concern.
4. Pg» 1-8, under Alternative Plan No. 9
It appears that the matter of the esthetics of the Manchester
Site visibility are overemphasized... perhaps a better statement
would merely emphasize the need for appropriate screening and land-
scaping.
5. Pg. 1-11, Table 1-1
The table would be enchanced by addition of a column on compara-
tive costs.
6. Pg. 11-32, under the Section, MARINE WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS
AND STANDARDS
The standards cited are only primary physical and biologic
standards. There is a real need to discuss toxicants, heavy metals,
chlorinated hydrocarbons and other hazards to the marine environ-
ment.
IX-12
-------
7. Pg. 11-33, under Physical Marine environment
No mention or concern is expressed about the possible buildup
of waste loadings in the many small bays and inlets which could
result from effluent discharges into the main channels of Puget
Sound.
8. Pg. 11-55, last par. under MARINE WATER QUALITY
No discusion is presented with respect to whether there is
an adequate data base to evaluate presence or absence of toxicants
in the Sound.
9. Pg. 11-36, 4th paragraph
The discussion of the effects of wasteload nutrients is very
lightly treated. Do competent authorities consider that nutrient
removal is a significant factor with respect to ecologic conditions
in the Sound? I-Jy preliminary and informal advice is that they do
not.
10. Pg. 11-37, Discussion of model limitations and their implications
Again there is no mention about possible effects of main channel
discharges on bays and inlets... nor is there any mention as to how
the shortcomings of the model should be remedied, i.e. through proto-
type measurements.
11. Pg. 11-39, last par.
There is no mention as to how a Pt. Monroe Outfall might affect
Port Madison, Eagle Harbor and Suquamish Bay locations.
12. Pg. 11-42, under BIOLOGICAL MRE3E MfiriBOflMBNT
This entire section is merely descriptive in terms of the
animal life and fauna in the Sound» There is nothing suggestive
of evaluations of present and projected waste loads on the environ-
ment... in other words a waste loading evaluation.
13.Pg III-4, 4th and 5th par's.
These paragraphs leave many important questions unasked, for
examp e - ^^ hydrocarbons
In the reported occurrence of various metals/from the existing
facility as wastes, were measurements made to determine whether
other toxicants were present such as mercury, PCBs, etc,.
Why hasn't the Navy taken steps to end these discharges? What is
their zone of influence?
Why isn't it vitally important that the Navy go on record as to the
kinds of toxicants expected from Trident, the estimated loadings,
the kind of treatment proposed and an evaluation furnished by the
Consultant as to the effectivety of such treatment and dependability
of special treatment measures.
Should a closed system of waste discharge and reuse be considered
for Trident to avoid hazards to the Sound?
In par. 4 it is stated that industrialization is virtually non-
IX-13
-------
existant in the tri/butary area and is expected, to remain so.
With a projected population increase of about 40,000 to year
1990, it can certainly be expected that at the least,fringe
commercial-industrial development will occur and that correspondingly
precautionary measures will be necessary to avoid toxicant waste
loadings«
14. Pg III-7, under Bremerton
Were analyses performed to determine presence of toxicants
in the domestic sewage, or were the analyses limited to routine
parameters?
15. Pg. 111-28, under Project Costs
There is no information as to how the Study Area's share of the
costs were determined. There is no presentation of costs to the
user, at least in some simplified form. The presentation of Annual
Costs in the E.I.S. is obscure with respect to the user who will
support the system. There is also lacking any discussion of cost
efficiency/of combining the various systems.
fand benefits)
l6« General
%ere is no discussion as to what might be involved in ultimate
tertiary treatment, although under E.P.A. guide lines this might be
an imminent requirement.
IX-14
-------
Response to letter from Mr. Robert H. Gedney
1. An evaluation of the effect of wastewater discharges upon Puget Sound
is a worthwhile project but totally beyond the scope of this EIS. Our
analysis indicates that land disposal is infeasible; therefore, some
form of discharge to the Sound is all that remains. The EIS studies
on the Sound waters adjacent to the study area do estimate effects,
and on the basis of these studies Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet and
Port Orchard channel at Enetai were unfavorably rated.
2. Waste effluents from domestic or typical municipal sources have been
studied nationwide. Because of this we are able to say with confi-
dence that, with proper secondary level treatment, chlorination and
de-chlorination, any domestic wastewater would be acceptable under
the preferred alternative. Admittedly, we do not know specifically
what toxic matter may be discharged by the Trident facility. How-
ever, any toxic material that cannot be removed by the regional
facility will have to be removed by the U.S. Navy in a pretreatment
process, as required by 40 CFR Part 128.
3. Unfortunately this is far beyond the scope of this study. Our re-
sults indicate that, for the preferred alternative, local effects
will be insignificant, but this does in part depend upon flushing
of diluted effluent into the main body of Puget Sound.
4. It is agreed that tertiary treatment requirements may differ for
fresh and saline waters. There is no specific tertiary treatment
level or process that is defined by law or by the engineering pro-
fession. In effect, tertiary treatment means any major processes
that must be added to standard secondary treatment processes in
order to achieve or maintain receiving water quality standards.
The recommended alternative will not require a tertiary add-on-pro-
cess to meet water quality standards at this time, and we have no
information concerning the upgrading of receiving water quality
standards.
5. We agree and firmly believe that a regional treatment system, barring
large transport costs, is the most cost-effective solution. For
this reason, we are recommending regionalization with Poulsbo, Silver-
dale and all major wastewater sources in the study area. Inclusion
of Bremerton did not turn out to be as cost-effective, not is it
considered institutionally feasible (See earlier comments of CH2M
and City of Bremerton).
Response to comments:
1. It is understood from Mr. Gedney?s statement that the physical
presence of sewerage will raise the costs and taxes on land, making
development on that land more expensive. It is recognized that
sewerage systems, no matter how they are implemented, will result
in increased property values. However, Kitsap County does have the
IX-15
-------
option, through judicious zoning, of forcing new growth to concen-
trate in areas of sewerage availability. It is hoped that the
County will implement a planning policy that will designate, and
make coincident, areas for sewerage and growth. In terms of addi-
tional cost, most housing developments under construction in un-
sewered areas of the county are already installing dry sewer sys-
tems, temporarily leading to local septic fields, in anticipation
of a future sewerage system.
2. The relationship between the study area and drainage sub-basins 9
and 10 is appropriately described in Chapter II, Figure II-l.
3. Marine ecology as an issue is secondary to marine water quality in
that any substantial effects upon marine ecology would come about
as a result of changes in water quality due to effluent discharges.
Since marine water quality is the controlling factor, it was singled
out as a major issue. However, the environmental assessments were
made with careful attention to possible impacts upon marine organ-
isms, and these were identified in the appropriate statements. Most
effects upon marine ecology should be negligible.
4. Within the rigid limits of an evaluation of aesthetics for each al-
ternative, the Manchester site is appropriately treated. The rela-
tive concern or weight of aesthetics as an issue is resolved in the
EVAL system by multiplying each category score by a weight factor,
indicating its importance to local citizenry in the overall envi-
ronmental scheme.
5. Comparative costs are presented elsewhere in the Draft EIS and have
been integrated into the overall ratings of each alternative.
6. Additional water quality standards are presented in Appendix F. It
is unreasonable to expect every proposed discharger to marine waters
to question the adequacy of criteria set by law, in an environmental
impact statement. Existing criteria have been promulgated with the
intent of protecting the environment within the boundaries of proven
or probable damage and the technical feasibility of correction.
7. Our study results, and those of the facilities planner, indicate
that there is a net flow of water from bays and inlets into the
main body of Puget Sound. With this net flow, and the high dilu-
tion anticipated for any Puget Sound discharge, waste buildup
should be negligible and temporary in small bays and inlets.
8. This is beyond the scope of our study. We have only evaluated the
water quality criteria at our points of discharge.
9. Our estimates of the effects of waste nutrients are presented in
the final EIS. A much more detailed discussion of a computerized
modeling of nutrient loadings is presented in the final Facilities
IX-16
-------
Plan document which was one of the bases for our studies.
10. The shortcomings of the hydraulic simulation model, which was real-
istically evaluated in the draft EIS, could be overcome only by
reassessment of model parameters through field measurement of cur-
rents in Puget Sound. This was the purpose of the Phase II oceano-
graphic studies, the results of which are presented in Chapter II
of the draft supplemental and final EIS. In general, we felt that
our independently used continuity equations produced answers com-
parable to the modeling reported in the final Facilities Plan docu-
ment.
11. In view of the excellent dilution expected at the Point Monroe site,
it is estimated that effects of the discharge upon other areas would
be very minor if not undetectable.
12. A quantitative evaluation with any assurance of accuracy is virtu-
ally impossible at the present state-of-the-art. Please see the
responses to the letter from the Washington State Parks and Recre-
ation Commission.
13. Mr. Gedney has misread the paragraphs in question. Measurements of
shipyard wastes were not made at the Trident site but at other dry-
docks along the West Coast. Various metals and toxicants were mea-
sured, but EPA's consultant is not free to disclose the information.
Presumably the U.S. Navy will use this information internally to
develop estimated waste characteristics for the Trident site. The
referenced study also found that commonly available treatment pro-
cesses could remove the pollutants from these wastewaters.
The final EIS contains the facilities planning consultant's esti-
mate of Trident waste characteristics. The U.S. Navy has not re-
leased their estimates of waste characteristics, but Title 40 of
the U.S. Code, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Part 128, ensures that in-
dustrial wastewaters will be pretreated for compatibility with mu-
nicipal treatment works. This means that the combined processes
must meet desired effluent and receiving water quality criteria.
With regard to fringe industrial development, future growth has not
yet been predicted. If it should occur within the context of a
publicly owned sewerage and treatment system, pretreatment require-
ments will ensure a safe and acceptable treated effluent. If fringe
industrial development should happen with no sewerage systems avail-
able, the industries would be forced to treat their own wastewaters
but would still discharge to the waters of Puget Sound. This would
be a less acceptable course of action.
14. The wastewater characteristics for Bremerton were assumed by the
facilities consultant to be typical of municipal wastewaters. No
analyses were conducted on Bremerton's wastes. Standard wastewater
IX-17
-------
treatment processes envisioned in the economic analysis of alter-
natives are adequate to remove typical municipal wastewater toxi-
cants to a harmless level. Any unusually resistant or persistent
toxicants would be dealt with accordingly, in order to maintain
receiving water standards.
15. The discussion of project costs has been expanded in Chapters I
and III of the final EIS.
16. EPA defines Best Practicable Waste Treatment in its publication
No. 430/9-75-013 of October, 1975 as secondary treatment, or
higher if required to meet water quality standards, for treat-
ment and discharge to surface waters. Again, we feel that water
quality criteria can be met with only secondary level treatment
for a discharge to north Port Orchard channel.
IX-18
-------
DANIEL. J. EVANS
GOVERNOR
RICHARD W. HEM8TAD
DIRECTOR
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Office of the Governor
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 088O4
108/791.1200
February 5, 1976
File No. 1236
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
This letter will acknoxjledge receipt of the Supplement to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the Central Kitsap County Wastewater
Facilities EPA Project No. C-530494-01.
If you have not received a response from this Office by the end of the
review period, you can assume that we have no comments on this project.
Sincerely,
Lois E. Dufresne
A-95/EIS Coordination Section
Community Planning Division
LEDrl
RECEIVED
IX-19
-------
October 27, 1975 ^v^shin-T.,,,
i >t-i MruiK iii
Mr. Richard R. TMel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities
Dear Mr. Thlel:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. It 1s apparent
that you have compiled a relatively complete document covering your project.
This draft reflects an example of a well prepared statement which contributes
to the better understanding of the areas of the proposal.
Review by our regional and headquarters staff members has produced these points:
1. Possibly some Information addressing how and to what extent the I ,
Industrial waste of Trident could have with regards to the proposal. |
2. Some mention of the cost of a non-regional plant could be added to I
assist 1n the comparison of regional vs. non-regional alternative. I '
We appreciate the opportunity to have reviewed your statement. If we can be
of futher service to you, please contact me at 753-6892.
Sincerely
D. R. Thompson, fc.T., P.E.
Environmental Review Section
RECEIVED
DRT;JW OCT281975
cc: Larry Lewis, N.W. Region v-p*_<-'~
IX-20
-------
Response to letter from State of Washington, Department of Ecology
1. A discussion of Trident Support Site wastes is presented on pages
2 and 3 of Chapter 3 of the final EIS. At this point, it is not
known exactly what the Trident wastes will contain, and the accept-
ability of these wastes for treatment in the County's facility lies
with the intent of the U.S. Navy to provide pretreatment and the
wording of the County's contract accepting these wastes.
2. The cost of a nonregional facility vs. the cost of the regional
facility is best explained in Chapter 1 of the final EIS where
Poulsbo's option to join the regional facility system is evaluated.
Readers are also directed to Kitsap County's Final Facilities Plan
for this cost information.
IX-21
-------
CXF1
600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504
Game Commission
Claude Bekins, Seattle, Chairman
Glenn Galbraith, Wellptnit
Frank L. Cassidy. Jr., Vancouver
Arthur S. Coffin, Yakima
Elizabeth W. Meadou-croft, Tacorna
Archie U. Mills, Wenatchee
Director / Carl N, Grouse
Assistant Directors / Ralph W. Larson
lack S. Wayland
September 19, 1975
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Mike Mills, Office of Program Planning and
Fiscal Management, State of Washington
Dear Mr. Thiel:
The draft environmental impact statement Central Kitsap County
Wastewater Facilities, EPA project number C-530494-01, was reviewed by our
staff as requested. Our comments follow the format of your report.
Your statement seems quite extensive and well done. It is obviously
a sincere and objective effort to assess effects of the proposed action.
Our main concern is maintenance and enhancement of sport fish and wildlife
in the State of Washington.
Environmental Impacts:
The word "displace" is used to describe what the construction of a new
wastewater treatment facility will do to wildlife (page IV-9). We must object
to such usage of the word "displace", on principle. It suggests that the
wildlife will successfully relocate elsewhere. Loss of wildlife habitat,
however small, means a proportional reduction in wildlife numbers. Use of
space which is now wildlife habitat for a sewage plant will not simply cause
wildlife to relocate, but will act to significantly reduce wildlife numbers
at the site at least for the lifetime of the project.
We noted that alternatives three and four necessitate saltwater
crossings of the pipeline (page IV-18). In considering the full potential
impacts of this measure, should not the possible effects of pipeline rupture
be examined?
RECEIVED
IX-22
cp v
-------
Mr. Thiel -2- September 19, 1975
Adverse Impacts and Mitigative Measures:
The indication that you will seek recommendations from the Soil
Conservation Service and the Department of Fisheries concerning construction
of sewer lines through creeks (page V-6) is certainly commendable. A joint
hydraulics permit is required from our department and the Department of
Fisheries for work to be done within the wetted perimeter of streams.
The statement, "Assessment of the effects of wastewater discharge
upon the benthic community is expected to be minimal." (page V-1Q), is
somewhat confusing. Does this mean that examination of benthic communities
will be cursory? Or, does this mean that wastewater outfall will only effect
benthic communities in a limited manner. Clarification of this point in your
final statement seems desirable.
Appendix D:
This section seems to be rather academic, but well done, and appreciated.
We believe that herb Epilobium angustifolium is fireweed. We are quite surprised
that you did not find any Taxus brevifolia, or various species of the Genus
Mimulus (monkey flowers) (Scrophulariaceae family) in the study area.
References:
It was of interest to note that one of your references is the Washington
Environmental Atlas, by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. We recognize this
as a valuable tool for many types of natural resource work. There may be some
areas of your report where more extensive use of it could be advantageous.
You do not mention that the Atlas indicates the study area to be a critical
wildlife habitat (page 37 of the Atlas). In describing existing conditions
it may be helpful to mention the life zone in which the study area exists
(Humid Transitional Timbered, page 16 and "Life Zone Overlay" of the Atlas).
It may also be beneficial to indicate in Appendix D those birds on the National
Audubon Society's Blue List (page 40 of the Atlas).
Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on your draft. We
trust our comments will be given consideration during preparation of your final
statement.
Sincerely,
THE-DEPARTMENT OF GAME
fEugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief
Environmental Management Division
ESDrjb
cc: Fred Hosea IX-23
Agencies
-------
Response to letter from State of Washington, Department of Game
1. Current design plans for the Keyport crossing include a trench to
bury the pipeline and shield it from external damage. Pipeline
construction materials under consideration include high-pressure
PVC, a material that resists the corrosive effects of salt water
and sewage constituents.
2. This was a typographical error. It was intended to say that the
effects upon benthic communities from an ocean outfall would be
minimal, given the level of treatment and dispersion characteris-
tics estimated for the study area.
3. The plants have been added to the species list at your suggestion!
we simply did not notice any during our .survey.
IX-24
-------
OF
600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504
Game Commiritvn
Claude Be/tins, Seattle. Chairman
Glt'nn Galhratth. Wellpmit
Vrank L Catsidy. Jr. \'jnnnii\-r
Arthur S Coffin, Yaliwa
Klizaheth \f>. Miadou cro/i 'ljii,ii
Archie I' Millt. Vt'cnatihti
Director / Carl N. Crouse
4trt\taat Dimtnrt Ralph It" /..//>•//;
J.tit .S IT./)/,,;;,/
March 22, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA. 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
RECEIVED
2 4 1976
pp A_r--~
Your supplement to the draft environmental impact statement- -Central Kitsap
County, Washington, Wastewater Facilities, EPA Project C-530494-01— was
reviewed by our staff as requested. Comments follow.
Your efforts to fully evaluate alternatives, as reflected by this supplement,
are notable. As in our review of the original draft statement (correspondence
of 9/19/75 to Richard R. Thiel), we found this supplement thorough and objective.
Attention is given to the indirect and oftentimes elusive effects associated
with wastewater facility improvements as well as the more primary impacts of
construction and operation.
The discussion of growth-inducing impacts warrants comment. You seem to say
that this project would respond to service needs brought about by growth induced
by other causes (principally the Trident Project). This growth is expected
in any case. Adverse impacts on wildlife resources associated with that
growth will occur whether this proposal is implemented. While this may be
so, we hasten to point out that a need still exists for full evaluation of
wildlife impacts connected with population growth resulting from the Trident
Project. To our knowledge, such secondary impacts have never been fully
analyzed. For some time we have been participating in negotiations with the
Navy. These negotiations are aimed toward finding means to accomplish full
analysis of secondary wildlife impacts associated with the overall Trident
Project and appropriate mitigation. To date, no settlement has yet been
reached. We are concerned that wildlife needs not be forgotten as facilities
(such as the proposed project) come on-line to meet other needs partially or
wholly created by the Trident Project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your supplement.
will be helpful.
Sincerely,
We hope our comments
THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME
/.f.
ESDrjt
cc: Hosea
Agencies
Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief
Environmental Management Division
IX-25
-------
MMIEL J. EVANS
GOVERNOR
ROOM 115, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING •
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 985O4
PHONE 753-66OO
DONALD W. MOOS
DIRECTOR
October 20, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Your Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Kitsap County Waste
sideration ***" rev1ewed' We have a few comments to offer for your con-
in thpnn, in. the. development of Kitsap County's wastewater facilities lie
*n Sron V P°tent1al lr"Pact on fisheries resources. Your statement has done
ClJr cllTS J2bt;n Presentln9 existing conditions and in anticipating impact on
Clear Creek and the marine receiving waters. Since we had the opportunity to con-
tribute data in areas of concern during the development of the Draft Facilities
Plan, there are only a few additional points we wish to cover.
u j J* n! stated that timing of the work that would disrupt the Clear Creek stream
tr^'hPd aV°TH Pe,T?S °f ? lm°n Cation. we would add" that damage to he
stream bed or the addition of sediment during the periods of egg and fry incubation
95 l flsh Potion. While the same statement regarding
Facilities Plan, it was overlooked in our response to
We also note that the recommended mitigative measures to protect Clear Creek
]ow foLp3 rS P^?11^ Crossings at locations where the creek is narrow and shal-
chaiin,,9 '' I uh! Str?am 9^dient of much of Clear Creek is moderately
shallow, an area of such description might provide some of the better spawning
bed material within the stream. A Hydraulic Projects Approval, jointly issued bv
the Departments of Game and Fisheries, should be obtained for this work and stream
crossing sites should be specifically identified and evaluated at that time.
We are encouraged to learn that the water quality of Dyes Inlet should be
improved with whichever alternate is selected. It should also be pointed out that
a much greater improvement in Dyes Inlet water quality would b* realized if thP
effluent is discharged into any of the other water bodies being considered. '
earl1est communications relative to development of this wastewater
plan, we favored effluent discharge in the more open areas! such as near
IX-26
RECEdVFO
f;CT 21
-------
-2-
Point Monroe or Manchester, and avoidance of the more confined inland bodies of
water. Since that time, however, we have discovered some of the best beds of sub-
tidal geoducks in Puget Sound located between Skiff Point and Point Monroe. These
beds will support a substantial regulated geoduck harvest and we anticipate leases
will be given in the near future. Therefore, we are very concerned about any impact
that a discharge within this area, such as proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4, would
have on this resource. Alternative 9, discharge at Manchester, appears to offer the
most favorable circumstances for preserving the quality of the marine receiving
waters.
In summarizing the discharge of treated effluent into Sinclair Inlet (Alter-
natives 6 and 7, pages 1-7 and -8), it is stated that dilution is good and dispersion
is fair. However, the model results cited on page 11-41 state that there will be
poor dispersal and mixing due to low current velocities. Some clarification would
be helpful.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your well prepared draft statement.
We hope these comments will be useful to you in preparation of the final EIS.
Sincerely,
^?C
Ray CJohnon, Acting
Fisheries Environmental Coordinator
cc: Mike Mills, OPP&FM
D. L. Lundblad - Dept. of Ecology
E. S. Dztedzic - Dept. of Game
IX-27
-------
Response to letter from State of Washington, Department of Fisheries
1. A Hydraulic Projects Approval will be sought from the Department
of Game and Fisheries along with additional recommended mitigative
measures for all water crossings. It should be noted that the rec-
commended plan does not involve placement of an interceptor sewer
along Clear Creek.
2. A greater improvement may not necesarily occur unless Bremerton
ceases discharge into Port Washington Narrows. The recommended
plan routes all study area sewage away from Dyes Inlet and would
discharge the treated effluent into North Port Orchard channel,
where flushing characteristics are far superior.
3. Preliminary unpublished results from the Bremerton Facilities Plan
study indicate that a Manchester outfall could result in a greater
return of diluted effluent to Port Orchard than had been expected.
However, the recommended alternative would not discharge at
Manchester or Point Monroe but in North Port Orchard channel. Pro-
tection of the commercial geoduck beds would have occurred by ex-
tending the outfall beyond the beds, but consideration of the beds
and the potential aquatic park preserve at Fay Bainbridge helped
lead to selection of the recommended plan.
4. Initial modeling results were subject to some variation in inter-
pretation subject to the context of the statement. The field
studies conducted by the University of Washington were designed to
dispell some of the initial uncertainties, and the results are pre-
sented in Chapter 2 of the final EIS.
IX-28
-------
GOVERNOR
DANIEL J. EVANS
COMMISSIONERS:
JEFF D. DOMASKIN
THOMAS C. 6ARRETT
KAY GREEN
BEN HAYES
RALPH E. MACKEY
EUSTACE VYNNE
WILFRED R. WOODS
DIRECTOR:
CHARLES H. OOEGAARD
WASHINGTON STATE
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
LOCATION: THURSTON AIROUSTRIAL CENTER
P. O. BOX 1128
PHONE 753-5755
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504
October 21, 1975
IN REPLY REFER TO:
35-2650-1820
Draft EIS -
Central Kitsap
County Wastewater
Facilities
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the above-
noted document and has the following comments:
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission had previously reviewed
the Draft Facilities Plan. A letter was written to Mr. Steve Fusco of the URS
Company expressing our concerns with the Draft Facilities Plan. Our concerns
remain after reading the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The following is essentially what the letter to URS from the Washington State
Parks and Recreation Commission said:
"Plan No. 3P proposes an outfall somewhere in the vicinity of Fay Bainbridge
State Park. State Parks would oppose an outfall on the tidelands owned by the
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission which front Fay Bainbridge
State Park. Further, State Parks would oppose an outfall that would impact
tidelands owned by the Commission. These tidelands are utilized by the public
for swimming, clam digging and scuba diving. There is a proposal to create
an artificial reef in front of Fay Bainbridge State Park to provide a fish
habitat and point of interest for scuba divers.
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission requests that the interests
of the recreating public be seriously considered when siting an outfall in
this vicinity."
RECEIVED
IX-29
-------
Mr. Thiel -2- October 21, 1975
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If we can be of further assistance
please let us know.
Sincerely,
sg
David W. Heiser, Chief
Environmental Coordination
Arthur M. Skolnik
State Conservator
IX-30
-------
Response to letter from State of Washington, Parks and Recreation
Commission.
1. The outfall proposed in alternative 3P would be located several
hundred yards south of the State Park. The depth of the outfall,
at least 165 feet, and distance from the shoreline would make any
travel of effluent back to the shoreline minimal. Secondary level
treated effluent, after initial dilution within the mixing zone,
would have a very negligible impact upon water quality and thus
the Commission-owned tidelands.
With regard to the proposal to create an artificial reef for fish
habitat in that area, the diluted effluent would rise to the sur-
face and have no noticeable effect upon submerged reefs. As a
point of interest, fish have been frequently observed residing at
the ocean outfall for primary effluent from the Seattle West Point
facility. This situation does indicate that negative impacts
should not necessarily be associated with outfalls.
Finally, principally because of cost-effectiveness and, in some
measure, the opposition by your agency, this alternative is not
recommended.
Following is an excerpt from "West Point Environmental Planning
Study, Interim Report," by Metropolitan Engineers for Seattle
Metro, April 1973. The excerpt refers to the discharge of primary
level effluent and digested sewage sludge through an outfall into
Puget Sound from the West Point treatment plant.
"Studies were conducted by METRO from 1966 (prior to
startup of the West Point treatment plant) to 1968 to
determine the effects of the West Point discharge on
benthic organisms (bottom dwellers) and the extent of
possible buildup of sludge materials in the vicinity of
the outfall. Visual inspections of conditions in the
vicinity of the outfall were conducted in 1968 and 1971.
Further investigations of the benthic sediments and
organisms in this vicinity will be conducted in 1973.
"No measurable deposition of digested sludge was ob-
served in the vicinity of the outfall in the studies
conducted. Core samples of bottom sediments collected
in 1966 through 1968 indicated no layering of materials
and no definable buildup of organic material.
"Comparisons of the abudnance of certain benthic fauna
between 1966 and 1968 (preplant to postplant comparison)
after two years of plant operations indicated minor vari-
ations in numbers. The numbers and areas involved were
sporadic, however, and both positive and negative varia-
tions were observed, making interpretation difficult. In
IX-31
-------
any event no substantial change in benthic populations
was observed. The aquatic fauna visually observed in
the immediate vicinity of the outfall in both the 1968
and 1971 inspections appeared normal in both numbers
and reaction to effluent from the treatment plant. In
the 1971 inspection, sea anemone were observed attached
to the ballast rock and diffuser itself, and three spe-
cies of fish - ratfish, lingcod and copper rock fish -
appeared to have taken up residence in the ballast rock
surrounding the outfall."
IX-32
-------
GOVERNOR
DANIEL J. EVANS
COMMISSIONERS:
JEFF D. DOM ASK IN
THOMAS C. GARRETT
KAY GREEN
BEN HAYES
RALPH E. MACKEY
EUSTACE VYNNE
WILFRED R. WOODS
DIRECTOR:
CHARLES H. ODEGAARD
WASHINGTON STATE
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
LOCATION: THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER
P. O. BOX 1128
March 25, 1976
PHONE 7S3-S755
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504
IN REPLY REFER TO:
35-2650-1820
Supplement to
Dr. EIS -
Central Kitsap
County, Washington,
Wastewater Facilities,
EPA Project C-530494-01
(E-502)
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has reviewed the
above-noted document and does not wish to make any comment.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely
Environmental Coordination
\
U^Arfhur M. Skolnik
\ State Conservator
IX-33
RECEIVED
MAR 2
0 1376
-------
GOVERNOR
DANIEL J. EVANS
COMMISSIONERS:
IEFF D. DOMASKIN
THOMAS C. GARRETT
KAY GREEN
BEN HAYES
RALPH E. MACKEY
EUSTACE VYNNE
WILFRED R. WOODS
DIRECTOR:
CHAR1ES H. ODEGAARD
WASHINOTON STATE
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
LOCATION: THURSTON AIRDUSTRIAL CENTER
P. O. BOX 1128
January 22, 1976
PHONE 753-5755
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, P.E.
Chief, Environmental Impact Section
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the proposed wastewater facilities project in your
Central Kitsap County EIS and find that it does not affect any properties
on the State or National Registers of Historic Places nor are there pro-
perties in the project area that have been inventoried for their cultural
value.
We have also reviewed the report of the Archaeological Reconnaissance
in the Clear Creek Drainage, Eastern Kitsap Peninsula and concur with
the conclusions reached by the investigating archaeologist that imple-
mentation of the proposed sewer line will have no negative effects on
cultural resources in the project area. We suggest that the recommen-
dation contained in the report, that if artifactual material is encountered
during the course of construction, personnel should contact the Office
of Public Archaeology and, in addition, the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, be included in your final EIS.
Sincerely,
Arthur M. Skolnik
State Conservator
kb
IX-34
-------
WASHINGTON STATE
HIGHWAY COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Highway Administration Building
Olympia. Washington 985O4 (2OB) 753-BOOS
Daniel }. Evans -Goverm
G.H. Andrews - Directoi
October 20, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: 10A
Environmental Protection Agency
Central Kitsap County Waste-Water
Facilities
Draft Environmental Statement
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Reference is made to your letter of September 5 requesting our review of the
draft environmental statement for the above project.
We have completed our review and offer the following comments:
In conjunction with the Trident Support Site, the Department of Highways is
currently planning to make improvements to county roads that will be crossed
or paralleled by some of the alternate pipelines. We would encourage the
coordination of planning and design of the proposed facilities uith the
Department to facilitate the construction of compatible projects.
We would hope that the final facility plan take into consideration any
proposed highway work. We currently are preparing highway construction plans
for the effected area and will be prepared to make them available to Kitsap
County as soon as they are complete.
Coordination of planning efforts with the Department can be initiated by
contacting Mr. V. W. Korf, District Engineer, P. 0. Box 327, Olympia, Washington
98504.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
Sincerely,
G. H. ANDREWS
Director of Highways
HRG:eh
RA/RBD
cc: V. W. Korf
Mike Mills (OPP&FM)
Baker Ferguson. Chairman A H. Parker
Walla Walla Bremerton
By;
IX-35
RECEIVED
COT 21 1975
CD V
'H. R. GOl'
Assistant Director for
Planning, Research and State Aid
Howard Sorensen
Ellensburg
Virginia K. Giinby
Seattle
Julia Duller Hanten
Cathlamet
Hal old I. lioulai
Secretary
-------
Response to letter from State of Washington, Highway Commission
The facilities planning consultant has assured that all pipeline con-
struction would be coordinated with the Kitsap County Engineering De-
partment and the Washington State Department of Highways.
IX-36
-------
410 West Harrison Street, Seattle, Washington 98119 (206) 344-7331
October 17, 1975
KING COUNTY
410 West Harrison St.
Seattle, 98119
(206) 344-7330
KITSAP COUNTY
Dial Operator for Toll
Free Number Zenith 8385
Bainbndge Island,
Dial 344-7330
PIERCE COUNTY
213 Hess Building
Tacoma, 98402
(206) 383-5851
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
506 Medical-Dental Bldg
Everett, 98201
(206) 259-0288
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Central
Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities
draft impact statement enclosed with your letter dated
September 5, 1975.
The introduction of primary sewage treatment facilities should
have no significant effects on ambient air quality, since
you conclude that'project-induced population growth will not
be significant." Dust generation during construction of pipe-
line and plant should be minimized by watering as needed to
comply with this Agency's Regulation I.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
A. R. Dammkoehler
Air Pollution Control Officer
, i Ji><-
By: J/R". Pearson
f / Senior Air Pollution Engineer
ARD:JRP:et
RECEIVED
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CHAIRMAN; Everett Foster, Alternate for Patrick J Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County, VICE CHAIRMAN: N Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish County,
Robert C. Anderson, Mayor Everett; Glenn K Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton; Gordon N. Johnston, Mayor Tacoma; Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County;
Harvey S. Poll, Member at Large, John D Spellman, King County Executive, Wes Uhlman, Mayor Seattle; A. R. Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer
-------
410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9863 (206) 344-7330
Seattle, Washington 98109
March 22, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Iirpact Section, M/S 443
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Central Kitsap County Waste Water Facilities
Supplement to Draft E.I.S.
Dear Mr. Thiel:
This Agency believes that the additional alternative and the revisions
in the statement shown in the supplement do not affect our earlier
conclusions about the air quality effects of the project. Therefore,
we will have no further comment to offer in addition to the previous
comments made in our letter of October 17, 1975.
Very truly yours,
A. R. Datnmkoehler
Air Pollution Control Officer
NG COUNTY
0 West Harrison St
O Box 9863
attle, 98109
06) 344-733O
tears on
Senior Air Pollution Engineer
JRP:wb
TSAP COUNTY
al Operator for Toll
ee Number Zenith 8385
inbndge Island,
lal 344-7330
ERCE COUNTY
3 Hess Building
coma, 98402
06) 383-5851
RECEIVED
MAR 2 3 1976
OHOMISH COUNTY
6 Medical-Dental Bldg
verett, 98201
06) 259-0288
ARD OF DIRECTORS
HAIRMAN Everett Foster, Alternate lor Patrick J Gallagher, Commissioner Pierce County,
bert C Anderson; Mayor Everett, Glenn K Jarstad, Mayor Bremerton,
jrvey S Poll, Member at Large, John D Spellman, King County Executive,
VICE CHAIRMAN N. Richard Forsgren, Commissioner Snohomish County;
Gordon N Johnston, Mayor Tacoma, Gene Lobe, Commissioner Kitsap County,
Wes Uhlman, Mayor Seattle, A R Dammkoehler, Air Pollution Control Officer
-------
Kfvt I.
COMMlSdlOTith u.
November 10, 1975
Mr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr., Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
The draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Central Kitsap Waste
Water Disposal Facility has been reviewed by my Marineland Management Division.
We wish to submit the following comments regarding this proposal:
Alternative 7 appears to be the alternative with the least potential for adverse
impact on State managed shorelands, tidelands and beds of navigable waters.
Alternatives 1 and 2 provide poor locations for sewer outfalls due to incomplete
flushing action in Dyes Inlet and the presence of clam beds in this area.
While Alternatives 3 and A have better flushing action than 1 and 2, there are
commercial goeduck beds located in this vicinity that could be adversely im-
pacted.
Alternative 6 would likely have less impact than 1 and 2 but the outfall in
Dyes Inlet would have the potential for polluting the clam beds in the Inlet.
Alternatives 8 and 9 would have the potential for creating pollution problems
for recreation sites located near these outfalls.
The impact statement does not predict what toxic substances, if any, might
enter the system from the U. S. Naval Reservation. Until these possible im-
pacts are discussed, it is impossible to adequately assess the environmental
effects.
We appreciate having an opportunity to review this statement.
"s
/
Yours
/x-Y t
'(. U
V~^-< ft
BERT L. CO*E
Commissioner of Public Lands
BLC:wbe -. ;; j ..].
IX-39
-------
Response to letter from State of Washington, Commissioner of Public
Lands
Chapter 3 of the final EIS states which pollutants might be present
in industrial wastes from the Trident Support Site and what type
of domestic waste is expected. A more accurate assessment cannot
be presented in the absence of further information from the U.S.
Navy. It is our belief that this does not indicate secrecy on the
U.S. Navy's part but rather their own lack of knowledge at this
stage of their planning. However, we also feel that the U.S. Navy
is sincere in their intent to obey Federal regulations and pretreat
their industrial wastes to a level compatible with Kitsap County's
treatment facility. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to be issued by the State Department of
Ecology will include pretreatment requirements if industrial waste
constituents are included in the Navy's contribution. See also
the discussion of mitigative measures in Chapter V of the final
EIS.
IX-40
-------
Grand Central on the Park • 216 First Avenue So. • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206/464-7090
Puget Sound Governmental Conference
as of July 1, 1975 - Puget Sound Council of Governments
October 7, 1975
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, MS-443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed
Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities
PSCOG File # KT/9706/75
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject draft environmental im-
pact statement. We appreciate your effort to get input at an early stage prior
to selection of an alternative and our comments at this point are directed at
questions which should be answered before that recommendation is made.
It is our feeling, though, that once the selection of a. project has been made
based on an analysis of the alternatives, more detailed information should be
circulated for review and comment.
The following comments have been endorsed by the Kitsap County Subrcgional
Committee of this agency and are offered for your consideration in the prep-
aration of a final impact statement.
1. The EIS identifies urban sprawl as the major secondary impact to be
expected from the project, however, the supporting analysis of mitigating
measures in weak (page xii). Should the recommendation of "limiting
sewer size, access and location" be taken to mean that EPA's policy is
to consider the provision, limitation and access to sewers as the con-
trolling factor in urban development? If so, a statement to this effect
should be included in the EIS.
2. On page 1-5, the Dyes Inlet outfall is evaluated as "fair". The mixing/
assimilation capacity of this option should be quantified and compared
to anticipated future discharge volumes.
RECEIVED
GOT 1 0 1S75
IX-41
-------
Richard R. Thlel, Chief
October 7, 1975
Page two
3. The data on page A-6 should be more prominently presented. The
statement, "It was felt that the sub-category items received equal
weight", seems somewhat superficial. Are there no special cases?
4. Regarding the discussion on page 11-40, what is the waste concentra-
tion once "equilibrium is achieved", and is a possible error or "an
order or magnitude" accurate?
Again, it appears that samples are tested to determine how diluted
they become, when the question should begin with the loading to be
imposed vs. assimilation capacity. Will the assumed dilution be
achieved when one mgd are discharged? What about ten mgd? Also,
what evidence is there that dye-release accurately simulates disper-
sion of wastes at the point of outfall?
The 1995 estimated design flow is 3. 9 mgd (page III-4). After sec-
ondary treatment, the waste concentration of BOD should be 45 mg/e
(weekly average). For a dilution ratio of 100:1 to occur in Dyes
Inlet, an exchange of 3. 9 mgd x 100 is required daily, but the flow in
and out of the inlet is not given.
The figure on page III-4 of 15 gpcd for infiltration appears small. As-
suming 500 gal/acre/day, (highly optimistic for Kitsap County soils)
and a density of 3 du's/acre and 3.3 persons/du, a population of 24,000
would require 2,400 acres. This figure, multiplied by S(X) gal/acre/
day, results in 12,000 gallons or 50 gal. capita/day. This will sub-
stantially change the loading requirements placed on the treatment plant.
5. Mow does the project relate to the Sinclar Inlet Section 201 study curren-
tly underway? What are the plans for coordination with ihat study?
Thank you again for the opportunity to review the draft statement. I hope
our comments will be useful to you.
Mart Kask
Executive Director
IX-42
-------
Response to letter from Puget Sound Governmental Conference
1. The draft EIS points out that areas undergoing development can be
influenced by regulating access to sewer lines, and that mitigation
of a potential impact—uncontrolled development—-can be promoted by
such regulation. Such decisions are local, not Federal. It is not
the policy of EPA to consider sewer access to be the controlling
factor in urban development.
2. See response to comment 4.
3. The weights used in the public opinion survey were derived from a
study done by URS Co., the facilities planners. This study, which
identified concerns of the public, was used as the basis for deriving
the weights according to the table on page A-6. The survey was not
detailed enough to derive sub-category items, which were, therefore,
considered to be equal. It should be noted that the ranking of the
alternatives is the same for both sets of weighting factors.
4. Equilibrium dilutions for the various outfall sites under considera-
tion vary from a minimum of 5,800 in Sinclair Inlet to a maximum of
26,500 in Dyes Inlet. These dilution ratios are based upon a 1-mgd
discharge and assume complete mixing with the incoming tidal volume.
Corresponding dilutions for 10 mgd would be 580 and 2,650, respec-
tively. These estimates may well be inaccurate by two orders of
magnitude, particularly in the vicinity of the outfall. Waste con-
centrations in the receiving water can be found by dividing the ef-
fluent concentrations by the dilution. See Table 11-14.
Drogue studies conducted by the University of Washington in the
prototype appear to verify dye studies performed in the hydraulic
model at the Point Monroe, North Port Orchard and Dyes Inlet sites.
Agreement was best at the Point Monroe and North Port Orchard sites.
The tidal flow in and out of Dyes Inlet is, on the average, 1.391 x
10^ cubic feet per tidal cycle. This corresponds to an average flow
of 31,160 cubic feet/second.
5. The average sewage flow rate of 100 gpcd was a value measured at
Firglade, Parkwood East and Kariotis during an infiltration study
conducted by the URS Company in 1974. Somewhat higher rates were
measured in Silverdale; however, Silverdale is currently accepting
bids from contractors for a sewer rehabilitation program that will
greatly lower infiltration rates.
6. Kitsap County has been keenly aware of the status and activities on
the Sinclair Inlet 201 Facilities Plan. Their consultant has also
coordinated very closely with the Sinclair Inlet facilities planning
IX-43
-------
consultant and the City of Bremerton.
The following is an excerpt from a memorandum detailing the minutes
of a meeting between study area consultants and the Sinclair Inlet
Section 201 consultants held on 19 December 1975 in EPA's offices
in Seattle.
"The present status of the Sinclair Inlet Facilities Plan
is as follows: Initial data-gathering is essentially
complete; overall the Facilities Plan is approximately
30% completed. Alternatives have been conceptualized;
however, not studied in great detail. Their draft
Facilities Plan is due July 1, a hearing in early August,
and the final Facilities Plan due in mid-November. There
is presently little or no public controversy over the
Sinclair Inlet Facilities Plan; concerns are mainly local-
ized. A decision by Kitsap County as to which alternative
to select for their project and a decision that excludes
the Bremerton planning area would fit into their schedule
for completion of their facilities plan and would not
delay their planning study.
"In summary, it appears that there has been adequate coor-
dination between the two consultants and the County and the
City of Bremerton in the planning underway in these two
separate Facilities Plans. Costs have been interchanged
in the evaluation of common alternatives. Since the
regional alternative has been studied to Bremerton's sat-
isfaction in the Central Kitsap County Facilities Plan,
there is no reason to belabor further the consideration of
a large regional plant. The City of Bremerton will have
an opportunity to comment in detail on the final Facili-
ties Plan when it is released by URS Company for the
county."
IX-44
-------
ROLLA V. HOUGHTON (I97O)
JACK R. CLUCK
PAUL COUOHLIN
JOHM W RILEY
EMIL P SCHUBAT
DAVID SKELLENGER
BERT L. METZGER, JR.
JOEL HAGGARD
WILLIAM N. MATH IAS, HL
LAURITZ S HELLAND
LAW OFFICES OF
HOUGHTON CLUCK COUGHLIN & RILEY
9OO HOGE BUILDING
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9SIO-4
TELEPHONE
(2O6) 623-65OI
IN REPLY REFER TO
OUR FILE NO.
October 20, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
Chief Enivornmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Dick:
We appreciate the opportunity EPA Region X has provided all
citizens of Kitsap County to systematically examine the
environmental factors related to the possible Central Kitsap
County Waste Disposal Facilities. In addition to the
previous oral comments and letters regarding the project,
detailed comments on the draft EIS (reference EPA Project
No. C-530494-01) are enclosed. These comments have endengered
certain general observations which follow. These and the
other comments have been prepared and are submitted on
behalf of our client Mr. C. A. Ross of Silverdale, Washington.
The content of the Draft EIS does reflect most unfortunately
certain constraints on the document preparation which appear
to be due to certain assumed but not stated timetable constraints,
For example, no data on benthic organisms is available (see
p. 11-49) but the conclusion is drawn elsewhere in the EIS
that there will be a negligible impact upon bentic organisms
(see p. IV-21). It well may be true that some of these
difficulties will be mitigated when the necessary EIS Supplements
are prepared to analyze the environmental impacts and the
alternatives for the specific project (if any) that is
selected. But there is little doubt that the timetable may
be constrained and inadequate analysis available now because
of a fundamental assumption in the Draft EIS — that being
that the Trident wastes of 2 mgd must and will be (?) handled
RECEIVED
:., T 21 19/5
IX-45
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
October 20, 1975
Page Two
by the proposed project and on the Trident timetable. This
presumption has unfortunately rendered the Draft EIS inadequate
in the consideration of reasonable alternatives. Should the
Trident wastes be handled by an upgraded facility? Should
Trident industrial wastes be treated on the base and recycled
to protect a depletable natural resource, i.e. water?
Should Central Kitsap County facilities be constructed to
service Trident on the timetable and level of deployment
assumed in its own EIS? Should regionalization of waste
treatment facilities and coordination to the maximum extent
practicable with other existing or upgraded facilities be
goals more appropriate to this project than timetable adherence?
If so, the sites near Brownsville and by Enetai should be
deleted from further consideration. The draft EIS itself
appears to support a disposal site only on the east side of
Bainbridge Island or by Bremerton.
These issues relate to another significant area of concern
illustrated by the Draft EIS's assumption on costs. Municipal
bonds are assumed to be able to be sold at 5-7/8% which is
approximately 1-1/2% to 2% below existing market rates.
Besides this inaccuracy, no statement is made that the Navy
will guarantee paying 51% of the total costs regardless of
any actual flow of waste to the facility (see p. III-IV,
Navy Flow of 2 mgd out of 3.9 mgd average flow in 1995).
What is the impact upon the taxpayers of Kitsap County under
the proposed project and all reasonable alternatives thereto
including separate handling of the Trident wastes? Land
speculation itself resulting from the acknowledged growth
inducement of the proposed facility can and does cause tax
increases by increasing appraised values; but this impact
on the taxpayer is ignored. Even the mechanism by which the
facility is to be funded is ignored by presuming the use of
County bonds. What are the factors involved in analyzing the
socio-economic impacts upon the ratepayers or taxpayers when
selecting a different operating alternative such as a local
improvement district, a public utility district or the City
of Bremerton?
IX-46
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
October 20, 1975
Page Three
'A
The planning exposecr the Draft EIS is important; and it is a
good start. But concurrent efforts to adopt land use plans
and criteria governing population expansion into certain
land areas is treated so preliminarily so as to mislead the
average citizen into thinking the problem has been addressed.
The Draft EIS's introduction notes that Kitsap County may
preserve rural areas and direct growth by limiting sewer
size access and location (see xii). Yet the criteria and
their reasonable alternatives for these factors are not
spelled out and analyzed. How can the project be specified
until such studies are done and policies are determined
unless we are only to lock the barn door after the horse is
stolen? Will not the choice for the Silverdale area of (1)
doing nothing, (2) planning for Trident growth, (3) creating
a new city of 11,000 people north of Island Lake, or (4)
urbanizing Silverdale to significantly change the environmental
analysis for the sewer project?
For such a significant investment of funds as the project
entails, premature decisions to adhere to a timetable in
lieu of developing adequate land use policies, in completing
the Bremerton study for treatment of its present wastes,
and in analyzing the proposed project with and without the
Trident facility is unreasonable for any reasonable decision-
maker.
We hope that the enclosed comments are of assistance to you
in your continued anlysis. We deeply appreciate the efforts
the Environmental Protection Agency has expended to assure
an adequate, open and comprehensive decision making process.
Yours truly,
HOUGHTON CLUCK COUGHLIN &/RILEY
( • .•'-,' / 7
•, -^cs ^.^ -s<.-?'^ r/
Joel' Ha'ggar'd ,
JH:mn
Enclosure
cc: Mr. C. A. Ross w/enc.
Comm. Frank Randall w/enc.
IX-47
-------
COMMENTS UPON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY WASTE WATER FACILITIES
EPA PROJECT NO. C-530494-01
1. Re page x, 1|4: As the proposed project's site has not
been selected and the site specific impacts have yet to be
analyzed, is it the county or EPA that will supplement this
EIS for the environmental analysis of the specific project
routing of all lines, project configurations and the dis-
charge?
2. Re page xi, !|4: EPA has indicated that one impact
would be that a mechanism for locating anticipated growth
within the study area will result. What criteria have been
adopted by the local governmental bodies for locating antic-
ipated growth? In what measure is the anticipated growth
associated with this project inconsistent with those criteria?
3. Re page xii: The EIS presumptively incorporates the
waste loads from the Trident facility without an examination
of the alternative of excluding the Trident generated wastes
from the proposed facility. In what manner would the en-
vironmental impacts differ if the Trident generated waste
loads were not incorporated into the proposed facilities and
instead were handled completely on the base with the nec-
essary upgraded sewage treatment systems?
4. Re page xii, 1IC: As significant increases in local
property taxes are likely to result from the construction
and operation of a waste water management system, what would
be the impact upon the local property taxes as a result of
any premature termination or project stretch-out for the
Trident project. In addition, in what manner will Value
Analysis be used in the design of the project to reduce the
cost impact upon the tax and rate payers?
5. Re page xii, second paragraph under paragraph d: Since
the potential for major adverse secondary impacts exist in
the area of population location but have not yet been con-
firmed, what further studies in detail are required as part
of the continuing effort to mitigate or eliminate these
IX-48
-------
adverse secondary impacts. As the project proceeds the
draft EIS also indicates that the county officials may, by
limiting sewer size access and location, have a method by
which natural rural areas can be preserved and growth di-
rected into urban and transitional zones. What rationale or
criteria will be utilized by the Kitsap County officials in
so limiting sewer size, access and location and have they
made a commitment to so do this in accordance with criteria
for direction of urban and transitional growth areas?
6. Re page 1-1, second paragraph: The environmental
impact statement alone does not fulfill EPA's total respon-
sibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act. The
EIS is directed solely to the requirements of Section 102(C)
of NEPA and does not relate to the continuing requirement to
study unresolved conflicts in Section 102(D), nor does it
necessarily fulfill EPA's responsibility under Section 101
which requires coordination to the maximum extent practicable
to fulfill the goal, among other things, that EPA is a
trustee of the environment for future generations. In what
manner does EPA intend to fulfill these other responsibilities
of the National Environmental Policy Act for this particular
project?
7. Re page 1-1, last sentence: What would be the en-
vironmental effects anticipated from an upgrading of the
sewage treatment facilities at the Trident support site so
as to engender their ability to handle the population in-
flux?
8. Re page 1-2, last paragraph: Kitsap County, as a
municipal corporation subject to the requirements of the
State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C, is required to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action. The State Environmental Policy Act permits that to
the extent that there is an adequate environmental impact
statement prepared by a federal agency to utilize that in
lieu of one prepared by their own. The EPA environmental
impact statement is inadequate for all project aspects other
than selection of the alternatives discussed therein as
modified by the comments of this letter. While the county
may have prepared an environmental assessment in its facil-
ities plan for use by EPA in the preparation of this docu-
ment, that environmental assessment is not sufficient or
adequate for compliance with the State Environmental Policy
Act.
IX-49
-------
9. Re page 1-4, first paragraph: Have there been any
subsequent studies or new information developed which iden-
tify other or more severe adverse impacts associated with
the Trident project since the time that reference 2 was
published? To what extent has EPA independently considered
the environmental analysis and conclusions of the Trident
EIS?
10. Re page 1-4, second paragraph: It is noted that the
entire facilities plan would require reassessment if for
some reason Trident were not to proceed. Would a similar
reassessment be required as a result of a change in either
the time schedule for construction of Trident or due to
development of the Trident facility to handle more or less
than 20 boats?
11. Re page 1-4, last paragraph: With respect to the
issues identified as major issues of the project, what
further studies are required to provide a reasonable data
base for environmental analysis of the anticipated primary
and secondary impacts associated with these major issues?
12. Re page 1-5: Again the concern for presuming that the
Trident waste will be incorporated is unacceptable to an
environmental analysis considering all reasonable alter-
natives. What would be the environmental impacts upon the
alternatives identified if the Trident support site wastes
were collected and treated at an upgraded waste water treat-
ment facility located on the base? What would be the environ-
mental impacts associated with the alternative of Trident
wastes being handled totally on the base?
13. Re page 1-5, second paragraph: The draft EIS notes
that population growth within the study area and associated
demands upon utilities and municipal services are concluded
to be primarily due to the development of the Trident sup-
port site and the project induced growth will be negligible.
What is the basis for this conclusion? Similarly, what is
the basis for the statement that the sewerage systems of
each alternative will have a tendency to concentrate future
growth near sewer lines? Are any further studies necessary
to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the
sewerage systems induced growth in the area?
14. Re page 1-5, third paragraph: What specific documents
identify the careful construction techniques that should be
IX-50
-------
utilized and will these documents serve as the basis for a
condition in any grant to so require the diligent applica-
tion of them?
15. Re page 1-5, fourth paragraph: It is noted that water
quality criteria should be met consistently. Is this re-
stricted to the numerical criteria in the WAC 173-201-030
water quality criteria or does it also include the criteria
that whenever the receiving waters of a classified area are
of a higher quality than the criteria assigned for said
area, the existing water quality shall constitute water
quality criteria. See WAC 173-201-040(6).
16. Re page 1-5, last paragraph: In concluding that al-
ternative plan number 1 has the lowest project cost, to what
extent has the cost analysis requirements of applicable EPA
regulations been used?
17. Re page 1-6, second paragraph: What is the meaning
(qualitative and quantitative) to be applied to the term
"fair" and to the term "good" in describing "mixing and
dilution of effluent" and to the term "subsequent dispersion
and flushing."
18. Re page 1-5 and following: What are the environmental
effects and alternatives associated with the alternative
identified by John Strasburger in his letter of October 2,
1975, addressed to Mr. Steve Fusco of URS? That alternative
involves the possibility of Poulsbo sewage being piped
across the Lemmolo-Keyport Narrows to be joined with the
Trident sewage near Keyport. In addition, what are the
environmental impacts associated with the alternative iden-
tified in the September 26, 1975 memo by Steve Fusco of URS
to the citizen advisory group relating to Poulsbo being
regionalized with the Central Kitsap County Facility (along
with the community of Keyport and the Keyport Naval instal-
lation) with subsequent discharge to be either on the east
side of Bainbridge Island or piped south to Bremerton.
19. Re page 1-5 and following: Since the submarine outfall
has not yet been designed, what criteria will govern the
design of the outfall and what site specific studies will be
necessary to adequately analyze the environmental impacts
associated with such an outfall?
IX-51
-------
20. Re page 1-5 and following: Is there some point where
the cost as a function of volume treated breaks down so that
the economy of scale cannot be realized?
21. Re page 1-5 and following: What is the anticipated
cost for increasing the dispersion and flushing to increase
the result from "fair" to "good"; and to increase the dis-
persion and flushing to maintain existing water quality
criteria?
22. Re page 1-9, fifth paragraph: Why was not the project
alternative of handling all Trident wastes separately cov-
ered? In addition, since project modification, specific
mains and collector lines, routings and discharge site
specific impacts have not been discussed, will EPA prepare a
supplemental EIS to discuss these factors of the proposed
action?
23. Re page 1-11: To what extent have the project ratings
been quantitatively or qualitatively adjusted to reflect
conformance with the NEPA and SEPA requirement that to the
maximum extent practicable, the plans, programs and func-
tions of governmental units should be coordinated to ac-
complish, among other things, the governmental responsi-
bility of trustee of the environment for future generations?
24. Re page 1-12: The graphical display presented is
unique and well done.
25. Re page II-l: The entire environmental setting de-
scribed in chapter 2 appears to be so general as to ignore
site specific characteristics. What additional studies will
be done to identify, analyze and mitigate site specific
variations and impacts from the general environmental setting
described in chapter 2?
26. Re page II-l, second paragraph: Why was the alterna-
tive of excluding portions of sub-basin 12 and 13 from this
document and including it with the entire Bangor annex to
the Keyport Naval torpedo station not been considered? What
are the environmental effects associated with this alterna-
tive and how does this variation affect the alternatives
described herein?
IX-52
-------
27. Re page II-2: To what extent is reference 3 inadequate
and what is EPA's judgment with respect to the environmental
consequences identified in reference 3, as applied to this
project?
28. Re page II-3: Since a possible disposal site is to be
located on the east side of Bainbridge Island, what is the
environmental setting for this area both on land and in the
water?
29. Re page II-8: What areas are contemplated to be sewered
and what criteria will govern the definition of areas to be
sewered? Will soils, growth and environmental impact all be
considered and if so by what specific criteria?
30. Re page 11-11: What additional studies of air pol-
lutant emissions and mitigating measures might be required
should be done particularly in the area of determining areas
to be sewered, since it is admitted that the proposed pro-
ject can have a major adverse secondary impact in deter-
mining population location areas.
31. Re page 11-14: Since Table 11-14 identifies in sites 6
and 11 the probability of significant adverse effect upon
people due to noise, what mitigating measurers might be
employed in sewering these areas so as to mitigate the
future growth?
32. Re page 11-15, second paragraph: What is the syn-
ergistic effect of the effluent characteristics from the
proposed facilities with other unexplained toxic discharges,
particularly those recently discussed in the newspaper with
respect to the Keyport-Lemmola area?
33. Re page 11-21: To what extent will the growth induced
by the proposed sewer project increase the demand upon
ground water as a result of population relocation or aug-
mentation?
34. Re page 11-33: What assumptions have been made as to
the physical dimensions of the mixing zone which is qual-
itatively described in the State of Washington's water
quality standards? How will the discharges interfere with
biological communities or populations of important species
to a degree which is damaging to the eco-system? What
biological communities or populations are important species
IX-53
-------
in each of the outfall areas? In addition, to what extent
will the effluent diminish other beneficial uses dispropor-
tionately?
35. Re page 11-33, first paragraph: Aesthetic values in
the water quality criteria apply within the mixing zone. To
what extent will these criteria be satisfied or effected as
a result of the discharges?
36. Re page 11-33, second paragraph: It is stated that
some of the alternatives may require further treatment in
order to meet water quality standards. By the term "water
quality standards" is the requirement that the existing
water quality shall constitute water quality criteria if
better than that criteria assigned for the area included in
this consideration? In addition, to what extent has the
cost for each of the alternatives been identified to meet
these objectives?
37. Re page 11-35, second paragraph: It is noted that Port
Orchard area has frequent violations of bacteriological and
turbidity standards in the Burke Bay/Brownsville area? The
sixth paragraph on this page notes that these local bacteri-
ological problems are in those areas which are subject to
only mild flushing. Since the facilities planning con-
sultant did not select the Burke Bay/Brownsville area of
Port Orchard as a major disposal site alternative, (See page
11-41 in the last paragraph) should not this alternative be
eliminated from further consideration?
38. Re page 11-36, second paragraph: To what extent is the
acute biological shock condition or water quality criteria
affected as a result of reconcentration of effluent due to
tidal action?
39. Re page 11-36, third paragraph: It is stated that
"presumably such simulations will be made in the future."
Who will make these simulations and will they be done or is
this just a faint hope? Further, with respect to the fourth
paragraph on page 11-36, what additional studies are needed
before the outfall site is selected?
40. Re page 11-37, top of page: What verification of the
model will be utilized at a specific site when examining the
alternative configurations and locations of the specific
discharge?
IX-54
-------
41. Re page 11-38, first paragraph: What is the basis for
the acceptability of the minimum effective depth selected,
the minimum reasonable rule of thumb regarding diffuser
length and the minimum current speed across the diffuser?
42. Re page 11-38, Table IV-13: In light of the high
average percent of time current speeds are less than 0.1
knotts for the Dyes Inlet, the Port Orchard Enetai and the
North Port Orchard sites, what additional cost will be
required to assure that discharges will not degrade existing
water quality or have an adverse impact upon the aquatic
biota?
43. Re page 11-39, Table IV-14: How large a mixing zone
has been assumed in identifying the location of the diluted
100 to 1 secondary effluent waste concentration?
44. Re page 11-39, first paragraph: It is noted that in
the interim reports the Point Jefferson site is probably the
best within the study area with respect to mixing and dis-
persal. What is the anticipated cost impact on the other
alternatives to increase their mixing and dispersal char-
acteristics to that which would yield similar effects off
Point Jefferson?
45. Re page 11-40, first paragraph: As noted in the third
paragraph on page 11-41, current velocities at Port Or-
chard/Enetai as in the rest of Port Orchard are very weak
and it could lead to erroneous conclusions in modeling. On
what basis then can one rely upon the analysis of the ef-
fluent mixing at the site north of Port Orchard? The second
paragraph on page 11-40 indicates that calculations were
made to confirm the good mixing but these calculations were
based upon assumptions. Further, the third paragraph on
page 11-40 recommends that if either of the two sites in
Port Orchard are given serious consideration a field dye
study of the area be made to determine actual feasibility.
Before any selection of these sites for further considera-
tion is made, the dye study should be a prerequisite.
Alternatively, it may be appropriate as a result of the
analysis contained in the draft EIS and other documents to
disregard in further work the discharge locations in Port
Orchard at the area north of Brownsville and at Enetai.
IX-55
-------
46. Re page 11-41, last paragraph: The rating of sites
from the point of view of waste dispersion includes the
north Port Orchard site. Yet the beginning of the para-
graph, in identifying the major disposal site alternatives
that should have further detailed investigation, ignored and
deleted this site. Why then has it been included for fur-
ther consideration.
47. Re page 11-49, Table 11-16: Since there is no data
available on benthic organisms at Site C or Site J, how
could anyone make a conclusion that there will a negligible
effect upon the benthic community as is concluded on page
IV-21?
48. Re page 11-54: What is the effect of the effluent from
the discharge alternative located north of Brownsville upon
salmonids utilizing Steel Creek? Have the migration pat-
terns of the juvenile and adult salmonids in the area north
of Steel Creek been identified?
49. Re page 11-60: To what extent has EPA coordinated
under the requirements of Section 101 of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act the planning for other water and
sewage systems in the area insofar as they might have an
impact upon or a relationship to the proposed Central Kitsap
County Disposal?
50. Re page 11-63: What are the anticipated volumes,
characteristics and disposal methods for the sludge re-
sulting from the proposed facility?
51. Re page 11-65, first paragraph: Since the existence of
Trident was assumed, how can an objective analysis of the
impact due to premature termination of Trident, project
stretch-out of Trident, or development of Trident at more or
less than the planned boat level be accurately considered
with respect to the growth inducement impacts associated
with the proposed action?
52. Re page 11-67: In what manner will the data given in
Table 11-22 be affected by the provision of sewers in the
area?
53. Re page 11-72: What is the impact of sewer rates upon
the 11.9% of the total county population classified as "near
poor" and the 6.1% of the county population classified as
"poor poor"?
IX-56
-------
54. Re page 11-76: To what extent have the impacts iden-
tified in these pages been reviewed to consider the alter-
native of having all construction housing for the Trident
facility located on the base?
55. Re page 11-77: What further continuing studies should
be made of population developments in the area prior to the
determination of the proposed project capacity?
56. Re page 11-77: It is stated that the study area will
contain 47% of the population increase of Kitsap County. In
what manner is this consistent with present plans or con-
templated plans of the county and in what manner should this
population be controlled by the areas to be sewered?
57. Re page 11-78: Will the final environmental impact
statement include in an analysis and revision to incorporate
definite results of the A. D. Little, Incorporated popula-
tion projection study?
58. Re page 11-79: In what manner will the criteria for
areas to be sewered reflect the land use plan identified in
Figure 11-14?
59. Re page 11-80: In what manner will the criteria for
determining areas to be sewered take into account the re-
striction of the 47% population increase into the transition
or urban areas identified in Figure 11-15?
60. Re page 11-82: Whether the individual collector lines
to be tied into the mains are to be funded by EPA or not,
the environmental effects associated with alternatives for
collector line areas should be identified and considered.
61. Re page III-l, second paragraph: It has been predicted
that only 18,000 persons would be connected to the ultimate
sewerage system. What areas will not be covered and what
impact upon urbanization and growth will result from such
restriction?
62. Re page III-4, top of page: Since it is indicated that
population estimates will be resolved prior to release of
the final EIS, we would appreciate an identification in the
final EIS as to where these revised population estimates
have affected the analysis.
IX-57
-------
63. The 20 year design flow for 1995 is estimated to in-
clude 85 gallons per persons per day of average dry weather
flow. This apparently means that approximately 1.61 mgd
would be the flow in 1995 for a population of about 18,000
persons or less. If this is correct, why does the estimated
average daily dry weather sewage flow for the Poulsbo area
identified on page III-6 indicate that they will have a
greater per capita dry weather sewage flow generated per
person than for the study area? In addition, since the
Trident support site will generate the majority of wastes to
be treated, will the payments to be made by the Navy for the
operation and construction of the facility be based upon a
fixed payment or will it vary with some actual flow? If it
is the latter, what is the impact upon the rate payers due
to such things as premature termination of the project
eliminating all flow and thus all payments, or of lower
flows as a result of project stretch-out or lower size
project development?
64. Re page III-4, third paragraph: It is noted that the
U.S. Navy projection of 2 mgd of average daily flow from the
Trident support site is based on the total absence of de-
tailed data. We would assume that the Navy will provide
this information on a detailed basis for purposes of anal-
ysis prior to the preparation of the final EIS.
65. Re page III-7, first paragraph: What coordination by
EPA (pursuant to the requirements of Section 101 of NEPA)
have taken place with respect to the planning activities
currently being undergone by the City of Bremerton? What is
proposed as to effecting a relationship between those plans
and the alternatives identified in this draft EIS?
66. Re page III-ll, second paragraph: It is noted that the
facilities planners and the EIS staff have assumed that the
Hansville Road solid waste disposal site or similar one
would be available for sewage sludge disposal. This is
totally inadequate for an environmental analysis of the
impacts upon disposal site life time, animal feeding ef-
fects, and ground water impact due to sludge disposal. What
are the environmental impacts identified with or associated
with the proposed central Kitsap County waste water facility
considering the reasonable variation in volumes of sludge to
be produced over the lifetime of the proposed facility?
What further studies should be made to determine the impact
IX-58
-------
of the site specific effects of leachate upon ground water,
of heavy metal concentration, etc.? Will the oxygen activated
sludge waste water treatment system dictated in EPA 625/4-
73-003a document be considered as a sludge treatment alter-
native?
67. Re page 111-16, last paragraph: It is noted that the
exact length and specific location of the outfall and dif-
fuser have not been determined for alternative number 5 and
that this is awaiting further studies on local water current
being conducted by the University of Washington. Has the
cost evaluation of this alternative reflected the probable
range of additional work or design features required to
produce an effluent which will not degrade water quality or
have an adverse impact upon the aquatic biota? Will these
studies be available and considered in the final EIS prior
to the selection of another alternative?
68. Re page 111-28, second and third paragraph: The alter-
native of no action should consider the impact of not treat-
ing any of the Trident base generated wastes and should also
consider the alternatives for the areas to be or not to be
sewered. As stands, this portion of the EIS draft is totally
inadequate for a reasonable examination of alternatives.
69. Re page 111-29: What is the impact of collector line
installation costs upon the total annual cost? At some
point in the document it was identified that the bonds could
be sold for 5 7/8%. In light of the current market this is
probably between 1 1/2% and 2% below current rates for
municipal bonds.
70. Re page IV-3: It is indicated that dust and partic-
ulates raised during construction activities can be reduced
by following EPA published guidelines for minimizing fugitive
dusts from construction sources. What are these published
guidelines and will they be adhered to in the construction
of the project?
71. Re page IV-21: It appears to be totally irresponsible
to conclude that there will be negligible effects on the
benthic community when there is no data available as iden-
tified on page 11-49. In addition, what is the effect of
the effluent at the Manchester outfall upon the dense pockets
IX-59
-------
of the small clam as well as upon the salmonids that may be
migrating to or from Steel Creek?
72. Re page IV-38: In this analysis it was assumed that
discharges meet water quality standards. What are the costs
associated with making this assumption a certainty due to
the site specific characteristics? Has the analysist con-
sidered that water quality standards also include the re-
quirement of nondegradation of existing water quality in
making this assumption and analysis of impact? Has the
nitrification of the effluent to reduce ammonia impact been
considered in the total cost? What treatment will be util-
ized to reduce chlorine concentration at the point of dis-
charge since minimum levels of chlorine can have a toxic
effect upon aquatic biota. Has consideration of waste
reconcentration as a result of tidal reversals or stagnation
been considered? If not/ what is the impact?
73. Re page IV-47; This page identifies and evaluates the
degree to which the proposed project affects commercial and
sports fisheries, including effects on mollusc abundance.
Where is the analysis for the specific sites for discharge
alternatives 3, 4 and 9?
74. Re page IV-59: Has the estimated operating and main-
tenance costs included the capital amortization of special
efforts required to avoid nondegradation of water quality at
each of the specific sites been considered. Has the estimated
operating and maintenance costs assumed 2 mgd of waste
originating with the Trident site will actually be delivered?
If less than 2 mgd actually flows from the Trident site, is
it anticipated that the taxpayers will have increased costs
levied against them due to a rate reduction payable by the
Navy?
75. Re page IV-61: The assumption of a $15,000,000 or so
bond issue for 20 year maturity at an interest rate of 5
7/8% is totally unrealistic in light of current tax free
municipal bond rates. What is the impact upon the cost of a
realistic interest rate being utilized?
76. Re page IV-70: What is the impact upon the taxpayer as
a result of the anticipated tax increase if the Trident
support site wastes are not included in the proposed facility?
77. Re page IV-73, top of page: What would be the impact
from the alternatives if the Navy were to house all con-
struction personnel on base?
IX-60
-------
Response to letter of October 20, 1975 from Mr. Joel Haggard
The general comments of this letter cover many subjects in a short
space. Since it would be extremely difficult to answer the general
content of the letter, and inasmuch as an attachment prepared by Mr.
Haggard reflects the contents of the letter in the form of specific,
numbered comments, response is made to the attachment. This response
will also answer the general comments of the letter.
1. The EPA has prepared a draft supplement EIS and a final EIS which
contain more site-specific information and show a recommended al-
ternative. The investigative level of effort is considered to be
more than adequate to provide a data base for the selection of an
alternative.
2. No specific criteria have been adopted by local governmental bodies
for locating anticipated growth. No decision to follow such a
course of action has yet been made. Only the Kitsap County land
use plan exists at this time. As the County amends its comprehen-
sive plan, it is anticipated that the A.D. Little study recommenda-
tions regarding urban concentration will be followed.
3. The presumption is incorrect; the alternative of excluding the
Trident-generated wastes from the proposed Central Kitsap County
facility was considered. With separate treatment by the Navy,
there would be no construction of an interceptor from the Bangor
base to the Central Kitsap County facility and, therefore, no im-
pact. For the County's alternative 4a, there would be little
change since the anticipated impact of the Navy interceptor along
Luoto Road and Highway 303 has been characterized as negligible.
The impact of the remainder of the construction, that is other
interceptors, treatment facilities and outfall line, would be un-
changed. With the discharge to receiving waters decreased by 2
mgd, the impact on water quality obviously would be less; however,
the decrease would not be significant since our modeling predicts
an insignificant increase in ambient conditions due to the pro-
posed discharge, including the Navy's 2 mgd, for all receiving
waters except Sinclair and Dyes Inlets.
Impacts associated with separate treatment of Navy wastes on the
Bangor base are discussed in the Trident EIS (Vol. 1, p. 285 ff.).
In our judgement the public would not accept the concept of dis-^
charge of waste to Hood Canal, which is considered to be a sensi-
tive and valuable water resource. Assuming for the moment that
this obstacle could be overcome, we have evaluated the feasibility
of separate waste treatment for the Navy. The assumptions are as
follows:
1. Pretreatment would be the same for a separate Navy discharge
or connection to a Central Kitsap facility.
IX-61
-------
2. Flow is equal to 2 mgd.
3. Use activated sludge process with nitrogen and phosphorus re-
moval and additional solids and BOD removal per Department of
Ecology policy on discharge to Hood Canal. This policy states
that, in order to meet water quality standards for Hood Canal
waters, removal levels required are 95 percent BOD, 95 percent
suspended solids, 95 percent phosphorus, and 90 percent nitro-
gen (DOE Hood Canal Policy dated January 24, 1972).
4. Phosphorus removal by two-clarifier lime clarification, and
nitrogen removal by ammonia stripping.
5. Basic reference for estimating is DOE publication entitled
"Cost Estimating-Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Facilities,"
July 1971.
Utilizing these basic assumptions, costs of separate treatment for
the Navy are estimated as follows:
Capital Cost, $ 0 & M Cost, $/yr
Primary treatment 675,000 28,500
Secondary treatment 620,000 51,800
Lime clarification 240,000 43,800
Lime recalcination 210,000 34,300
Ammonia stripping 195,000 31,400
Disinfection 31,000 7,300
Outfall 66,000
Subtotal 2,037,000 197,100
Cost escalation to June
1975 dollars, ENR index
= 1.72 3,501,100 354,800
Enginering, legal, admin. 1,400,400
4,901,500
Activated carbon process 1,517,000 230,000
Total project cost 6,418,500 584,800
(separate Navy project)
Navy participation in 5,756,200 231,200
regional project (alter-
native 4a)
IX-62
-------
From this comparison, it can be seen that, in addition to a lesser
total environmental impact, regional treatment is considerably more
cost-effective.
Concerning the concept of treatment and discharge for recharge pur-
poses, the demand is not apparent. A comprehensive study now being
completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, with a report to be publish-
ed in early spring 1976, shows that adequate groundwater resources
exist well beyond the projected needs of the Trident project. This
report will be entitled "Availability of Groundwater in the Trident
Impact Area—Kitsap County, Washington" and will be published by A.J.
Hansen, Jr. and Dee Molenaar, hydrologists with the U.S. Geological
Survey. Current fresh water being used is 13 mgd; this is supplied by
9 mgd brought in from outside reservoirs and 4 mgd being pumped from
groundwater. This is expected to eventually increase by 8 mgd due to
Trident. Current recharge in the Trident impact area is 46 mgd.
Approximately half of this reaches the deep permanent groundwaters, the
remainder going off as interflow. The larger withdrawals required by
growth associated with Trident will require careful evaluation of
drawdown and transmissivity factors in order to avoid salt water
encroachment problems. This is principally a problem of spatial
location of withdrawals, which can be properly managed. With adequate
groundwater available, then, for the foreseeable future, there is no
economic incentive for recharge and it is not cost-effective. Ad-
ditional water supply impact discussion can be found in the final
Trident EIS (Vol. 1, p. 389 ff).
Disposal within the confines of the Bangor base is not feasible. An
updating of the orignal soil surveys now nearing completion has shown
that the Everett soil series, a permeable gravely sandy loam, is not
nearly as prevalent as reported in the orginal 1939 survey. This was
one of the few soil series that appear to have potential for receiving
treated waste effluent. Navy Trident officials maintain that there is
not sufficient land available for land disposal of Bangor wastes and,
even if there were, Navy policy would not premit long-term commitment
of large amounts of Base property for land disposal purposes. Based on
the 1939 Soils Survey, there appeared to be sufficient Everett series
soils (550 acres) on the northern portion of the Bangor Annex and
adjacent private lands to accommodate the discharge of 3.8 mgd treat-
ed wastewater. Now that these soils have been reclassified as Alder-
wood series, 2,870 acres would be required. The entire Bangor Annex
itself is only 6,960 acres in area.
The Navy has investigated the feasibility of expanding and upgrad-
ing the existing trickling filter facility now located on the Bangor
base and has found this to be an infeasible alternative for reasons of
cost, location and space. Continued discharge of an expanding volume
of treated waste to Clear Creek would not only in all probability
violate water quality standards but would also be contrary to the De-
partment of Ecology's policy concerning minimum dilution requirements
IX-63
-------
for discharge to perennial streams. (DOE Advanced Waste Treatment
Policy dated May 12, 1972).
Finally, participation of Federal agencies in regional systems is
a national policy supported by EPA. Executive Order 11572 speci-
fies that Federal facilities shall incorporate common procedures
in compliance with water quality standards and effluent limita-
tions (Section 3 (d) (5). OPNAVINST 6240.30, the Navy's environ-
mental protection manual, states: "The use of approved municipal
or regional waste water collectional disposal systems shall be the
preferred method of disposal of wastes from shore activities."
(Paragraph 5102 a)
4. Please see the answer to comment No. 51.
5. All decisions regarding the use of sewer access to direct growth
toward selected areas are under the jurisdiction of County offi-
cials. Such decisions have not been formalized, except by the
recommendation of a plan which would not route the Trident Support
Site interceptor sewer down Clear Creek Valley. The EIS simply
points out the availability of this tool to County officials.
6. We do not agree that we are not fulfilling EPA's total responsi-
bilities under the National Environmental Policy Act. We are not
clear what unresolved conflicts you are referring to, but presum-
ably you mean those associated with the impacts of construction
of a waste treatment project. To our best knowledge, we are
addressing these in our EIS process. Also, to the best of our
ability, we are attempting to "study, develop, and describe
appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action, "as
required by section 102 (2)(D). Your interpretation of section
101 is perhaps more specific than the writers of the Act may have
intended. The Act states, "it is the continuing responsibility of
the Federal government to use all practicable means, consistent
with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve
and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources
to the end that the Nation may 1) fulfill the responsibilities of
each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding gen-
erations." We construe this to be a broad charge to the Nation
as well as to EPA, which EPA is certainly attempting to fulfill.
All of EPA's programs, air, water, etc., are aimed at fulfilling
the public trust. If you could identify more specifically what
you mean by "these other responsibilities," we would be pleased
to evaluate our compliance.
7. It is not feasible to upgrade the existing sewage treatment faci-
lities at the Trident Support Site so as to engender their ability
to handle the Trident population influx. Please refer to comment
IX-64
-------
No. 3 for an expanded discussion. Furthermore, the population as-
sociated with Trident will not locate so as to permit the collec-
tion and treatment of its wastes on the Bangor base.
8. This statement is an opinion unsupported by the facts of the case.
9. The Trident Support Site development is subject to its own sepa-
rate environmental impact study. Questions regarding the Trident
Support Site, other than those concerning wastewater flow and
quality, should be directed toward the Department of Defense.
10. No.
11. The studies already conducted for the proposed project have been
substantially more exhaustive than typical environmental assess-
ments for a wastewater treatment facility. No further studies
are considered necessary.
12. This is a repetition of comments Nos. 3 and 7; please see those
responses.
13. The proposed project is being planned in an environment which in-
cludes the Trident base. Growth attributable to Trident is as-
sessed in the EIS for that project. Population growth attribu-
table to the wastewater facilities is limited to potential direct
employment (20 to 40 workers, depending on the alternative select-
ed) and the limited secondary employment, plus dependents.
Sewerage systems will tend to concentrate growth in their service
areas if alternative disposal is limited. Approximately 90 per-
cent of the service area has drainage limitations which inhibit,
if not eliminate, the use of septic tanks (Reference 1). Growth
is thus more likely in areas near sewer lines.
No further studies are considered necessary to evaluate the envi-
ronmental impacts associated with the proposed project at this
time.
14. Applicable controlling documents would include Washington State
building codes and permits from various agencies, including the
Washington Departments of Fisheries and Game and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, all of which would demand compliance with
specifications designed to protect the public and the environment.
At the end of this response is an exerpt from the EPA construction
Grants Program Handbook, which covers EPA's review of plans and
specifications and related requirements placed on grantees.
IX-65
-------
15. The statement in the impact statement references water quality
criteria for the State of Washington. These criteria include the
statement that whenever the receiving waters of a classified area
are of higher quality than the criteria, then the existing water
quality constitutes water quality criteria.
16. Please note that the recommended plan, No.11, has the lowest an-
nual cost based on pre-reimbursement dollars. EPA must select
alternatives on the basis of project costs before reimbursement
to the local agency. The equivalent annual costs were calculated
in conformance with EPA guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis.
17. The terms are subjective and relative. They are based upon cal-
culation of percentage dilution and include a subjective evalua-
tion of the physical modeling results demonstrated in the Univer-
sity of Washington film of their tests.
18. These questions have been answered in the analysis of alternative
plan No. 11, presented to the public in the Supplement to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and subsequently selected
as the recommended alternative.
19. Washington State Water Quality Standards will govern the design
of the outfall in that the facility must release treated effluent
in a manner which will meet the standards. Site-specific studies
at the outfall location were conducted during Phase II studies
and the results reported in the draft supplement to the Facilities
Plan.
20. This generally occurs where sewage transmission costs finally
exceed treatment cost savings.
21. The dilution, dispersion and flushing ratings for each alternative
were based upon a multi-port diffuser, e.g., the state-of-the-art
technology. These ratings are a function of the physical configu-
ration and hydraulics of the disposal area and cannot be changed.
Water quality standards can be met or improved upon by increasing
treatment, as was done for Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, or a new dis-
posal site with improved characteristics can be chosen, at a dif-
ferent project cost. Therefore, the differences between alterna-
tive costs presented in the EIS are also the incremental costs of
changing the rating of an outfall's site.
22. Please see the response to comment No. 3. The supplement to the
draft EIS and the final EIS contain all of the specific informa-
tion developed for EPA-funded portions of the proposed project.
Collector lines and local mains are not EPA funded. As these
later projects are developed, they will be subjected to addition-
al environmental reviews under SEPA, or, if Federal funds are
required, NEPA.
IX-66
-------
23. The ratings serve only as an aid to the governmental agencies so
that they may make a wise choice in their decisions affecting the
environment.
25. These studies have been reported in the draft supplement and final
EIS.
26. The wording in the paragraph of the draft EIS to which you refer
is a little misleading in that it leaves the reader with the im-
pression that consideration was given to including all of sub-
basins 12 and 13 within the Central Kitsap County planning area
and that finally a decision was made to include only those por-
tions lying within the Bangor base confines. This is not in fact
what happened. The planning basin boundaries were set long ago
by Washington State, at the beginning of the original studies for
a Central Kitsap sewage facility, to include sub-basins 9 and 10.
The Navy later requested service for wastes discharged from its
Bangor Annex and the expanding loads associated with the Trident
project. The planning area, then, should be considered as sub-
basins 9 and 10, with receipt of a point-source industrial/domes-
tic discharge from the Bangor Annex. From a practical standpoint,
there is no particular justification for including those portions
of sub-basins 12 and 13 outside of the Bangor Annex confines.
These areas have little or no need for sewerage facilities at
present and little or no growth projected into the future.
In answer to the second question, the environmental effects asso-
ciated with exclusion of the portions of sub-basins 12 and 13 out-
side the Bangor base confines are considered insignificant, with
no effect upon the alternatives considered under the Central
Kitsap project.
27. Reference 3, the Trident Support Site Environmental Impact State-
ment, was used only as a source of factual or design information.
All evaluations for the Central Kitsap project were conducted in-
dependently.
28. Additional information on the Point Monroe discharge site was pre-
sented in the draft supplement and final EISs. Also, please note
the letters from the Washington State Department of Fisheries and
from the Parks and Recreation Commission.
29. This question appears to relate to the provision of sewer facili-
ties below the interceptor level. Land use plans and policies
now in existence provide criteria for the definition of such
areas. It should be remembered that the facilities plan is de-
pendent upon land use policies and not the converse.
IX-67
-------
30. It is not admitted that the proposed project would have a major
adverse secondary impact upon air quality. The project will help
locate the population growth but will not cause it. No further
air quality studies are needed.
31. Let us first make it clear that the noise impact is predicted to
be the result of Trident-induced growth. Mitigating measures,
such as a limitation on housing density, are within the jurisdic-
tion of Kitsap County. Traffic-induced noise on major arterial
routes cannot be mitigated by the proposed project.
32. Pacific oyster embryo bioassays of wastes in the Liberty Bay area
were performed by EPA during the fall of 1975. The results of
this analysis indicate that effluent from a primary plant (Poulsbo
Sewage Treatment Plant) is about seven times more toxic than the
effluent from a secondary plant (Keyport Sewage Treatment Plant)
when diluted with seawater. Bioassays of the receiving waters
themselves showed little toxicity at depth, but a significant
amount at the surface. The causal relations for this have not yet
been firmly established, and the synergistic qualities of sec-
ondary effluent and Liberty Bay water are not precisely known.
Studies in California indicate that biological secondary treatment
is 80 to 100 percent efficient in removing toxicity compared to 33
to 56 percent for primary treatment.
33. The proposed sewer project will induce an insignificant population
growth; however, local groundwater supplies will be more than ade-
quate to service this growth. For additional data on water sup-
plies, please refer to the Facilities Plan and to Vol. 1 of the
Final Trident EIS (p. 389 ff).
34. Results of the ecological modeling indicate that certain con-
stituents, particularly phosphorus, accumulate significantly in
Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet and Liberty Bay when waste is dis-
charged directly to these embayments. Even though the ac-
cumulation of phosphorus does not lead to an equivalent predicted
increase in productivity, it may well be an indicator for the
accumulation of toxicants such as heavy metals and chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
The predicted impact upon the Port Orchard system is less for dis-
charge to the Illahee and North Port Orchard locations. The dis-
charge sites to the east of Bainbridge Island (Manchester) appear
to have the least impact on the Port Orchard System.
It is entirely possible that the discharge of the Central Kitsap
facility waste anywhere in Puget Sound will have an effect on the
biological communities of Port Orchard. The magnitude of the di-
rect impact will be greatest for discharge to the shallow, iso-
lated bays such as Liberty Bay, Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet;
IX-68
-------
less for discharge to the Illahee and North Port Orchard sites;
and least of all for discharge outside the Port Orchard system.
For site-specific species information, refer to Chapter II of the
draft supplement to the EIS and Appendix D.
The guidelines developed by the State of Washington's Department
of Ecology call for mixing zone where length in the direction
of the predominant tidal current is 150 feet plus the water depth
in either direction from the outfall centerline. The width of
the dilution zone is 100 feet plus the water depth over the dif-
fuser plus the length of the diffuser or 15 percent of the width
of the estuary, whichever is less. These guidelines are used at
the discretion of the permit writer, who may change the dimensions
on a case-by-case basis.
35. Possible aesthetic impacts from municipal discharges can come from
floatable material, oil and grease, and bio-stimulation. A biolog-
ical secondary treatment plant has a 75 to 85 percent efficiency
(almost 100 percent for visible large matter) and 80 to 90 percent
efficiency for the removal of oil and grease. Effects of bio-
stimulation can be as high as an increase of 8 percent for the dis-
charge from the Central Kitsap facility. It is debatable whether
this is a meaningful increase.
36. With regard to water quality standards, please see the response to
comment No. 15. The costs of the alternatives fully meeting these
objectives is correctly and fully presented in the final EIS.
37. It has been eliminated during the first screening stages.
38. The results of modeling studies indicate that reconcentration of
effluent is negligible with the exception of discharges to Liberty
Bay and Sinclair Inlet.
39. Such simulations will be made in the future when the state-of-the-
art improves sufficiently to assure accuracy of the results.
Phase II studies already completed are sufficient to select an
outfall site.
40. Verification of the hydraulic model studies was accomplished by
means of drogue studies. Drogues were released at the specific
locations, and their trajectories were observed by University of
Washington staff. Drogue trajectories in the prototype agreed in
general with dye releases in the hydraulic model.
41. Common engineering practice and experience together with theoreti-
cal equations were used to provide a simplistic yet reasonably
realistic answer to questions of dilution. Typical diffuser
IX-69
-------
widths vary from 4.8 feet/1 mgd (Metro-Seattle at West Point) to
21 feet/ 1 mgd (County Sanitation Districts of Orange County) .
Current speeds were estimated from the hydraulic model of Puget
Sound .
42. A secondary level treated effluent will assure against biological
damage to local biota. Please see the response to the letter from
the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Although
current speeds would be less than 0.1 knot for an average of 29
percent of the time, this means only that dilutions would not
reach 100:1 or greater. However, 100:1 was selected as a con-
servative dilution, and numerical water quality standards could
easily be reached at dilutions of only 30:1. Of the 29 percent of
the time current speeds are less than 0.1 knot, they will mostly
be sufficient to achieve at least 30:1 dilution. The balance of
the time current speeds are higher promoting turbulent mixing of
previously released effluent.
43. This is a very complex problem. The size of the mixing zone and
its location will vary with effluent quantity, water depth, tem-
perature, diffuser configuration, current strength and direction.
The slope of the plume can be highly irregular, as shown in the
accompanying sketch:
V too.V-e.0 sorfcv.ce.
The distance, D, as estimated for the north Port Orchard channel
at 100:1 dilution and a current speed of 0.1 knot, would be on the
order of 10 feet, and the diffuser length would be approximately
270 feet. Please note that this is only a general estimate.
44. One cannot, practically, improve the mixing and dispersal char-
acteristics of a specific site once an optimally designed dif-
fuser has been selected. One can only relocate to a new site.
45. Phase II studies confirmed the currents in Port Orchard channel
usine drogues instead of dye. Drogues are plastic floats which
are pulled by the currents and give results comparable to dye
studies. They are often used because they are easier to follow
and do not disperse in the water.
46. The deletion of the site from the list was a typographical error.
IX-70
-------
47. Please see the response to the letter from the Washington State
Parks and Recreation Commission. General literature states that
with a properly treated effluent there is negligible, or no demon-
strable, damage to benthic organisms. If the organisms throughout
Puget Sound are similar, then inferences common to all may be
drawn.
48. We have not identified migration patterns of the salmonids. The
diluted effluent would not harm the salmonids or divert them from
their spawning travels. The mixing zone plume itself would be so
far offshore as to permit the salmon to swim around it on their
various travels.
49. Please see the response to the letter from the Puget Sound Govern-
mental Conference. Also, Chapter I of the final EIS contains a
discussion of coordination with the City of Poulsbo. Please note
also the comment letter from the City of Bremerton.
50. Specific discussion of sludge disposal is contained in the draft
supplement and final EISs.
51. Acceptance of a 2-mgd Trident point-source load does not preclude
an objective analysis of the possible impacts due to premature
termination of the Trident project. Volumes 1 and 2 of the Final
Trident EIS contain a discussion of premature termination, project
stretch-out and development at a different boat level for the Tri-
dent project.
The draft of the County's contract for sewerage service with the
Navy discusses termination under several cases. In each case, the
Navy is required to reimburse the County for all costs and ex-
penses incurred in the preparation and planning of the sewerage
facilities occasioned by the provision of service to the Navy and
resulting from such termination. In the event that the sewerage
facilities have become operational, the Navy is required to pay
all costs of maintenance and operation of facilities for capacity
provided by the Navy, until such time as the County is able to
secure other customers to utilize the facilities.
The Navy is paying the entire cost of constructing the interceptor
from the Bangor Annex to its connection with the North-South inter-
ceptor leading to the treatment plant. The Navy is paying its pro-
portionate share of cost of construction of the interceptor from
that point to the treatment plant, of the treatment plant itself,
and the outfall line discharging to receiving waters. There would
be therefore no loss of capital cost to the County should the Navy
terminate its participation. Since the treatment plant is being
designed with parallel modular processing units, termination of
the Navy's waste contribution would result in some of these units -
being taken out of service. Operation and maintenance costs would
therefore be reduced proportionately. The only economic impact on
IX-71
-------
the remaining users of the Central Kitsap County facility would be
those costs associated with the economies of scale which would be
lost due to termination of the Navy's participation. These should
be relatively minor and are not anticipated to have a severe eco-
nomic impact on the rest of the users of the system.
Concerning the level of user charges resulting from Navy contribu-
tions of less than 2 mgd, all users would pay their proportionate
share of their waste loadings contributed to the system, in accord-
ance with user charge guidelines, Appendix B to EPA's Construction
Grant Regulations (40 CFR Part 35). Under these guidelines, the
County will be required to review user charges at least annually
and revise them as necessary to reflect actual treatment works
operation and maintenance costs.
52. The data in Table 11-22 will not be significantly affected by the
provision of sewers in the area. Some additional traffic will be
generated by the small work force operating the plant and their
dependents (20 to 40 workers and families).
53. The county poor living in an area that will receive sewerage ser-
vice will have to pay approximately $5.00 per month for the
service. This may hurt their budgets, but they will benefit, along
with the rest of the population, from reduced health hazards.
54. Housing for Trident Support Site construction workers was assumed
to be off-base, as indicated by the U.S. Navy. In the long run,
this housing would be occupied by Trident employees and as such
is part of our basic assumptions.
55. The A.D. Little study is very exhaustive and definitive; no
further studies are considered necessary.
56. The County has taken the position that the Trident-related growth
will be accommodated as needed in Kitsap County. Non-Trident
growth has been projected and distributed on the basis of current
trends, and Trident-related growth has been distributed on the
basis of time distance from Bangor. These distributions were made
at the County Census Division level. At this point, the County
has not adopted a policy which would significantly disturb that
distribution. Some control on population distribution will un-
doubtedly result from the policies adopted in conjunction with the
Complex Facilities Plan.
57. Yes, it does.
58. Please see the response to comment 29.
59. First of all, it is not a restriction, it is an estimate. Please .
see the response to comment 56.
IX-72
-------
60. We disagree. The environmental effects are associated with land
use planning and should be approached whenever the County's land
use plans are opened for public discussion and approval. See also
the response to comment 22.
61. The sewered population of 18,000 is not a restriction. It is only
a prediction that sewer lines will go where the population is
densest.
62. This has been done in the draft supplement and final EISs.
63. With regard to Trident wastes, please see the response to comment
51. Flow rates for Central Kitsap County were based on measured
values. Flow rates for Poulsbo were not measured by the URS Com-
pany but were accepted from Poulsbo*s facilities planning consul-
tant. One reason for the difference lies in the expected high
number of multiple-family dwelling units in Central Kitsap County.
The units produce less per capita flow.
64. Please refer to the chart following our response to comment 3 in
your letter of March 26, 1976. We have absolutely no concern that
the Navy is in any way attempting to avoid disclosure of any de-
leterious constituents in the waste they will be contributing.
They have indicated that approximately 90 percent of their flows
will be domestic in nature, with the remainder being commercial/
industrial wastes from industrial type facilities. The largest
portion of the industrial wastes will probably be heating plant
boiler blowdown, along with some small amounts of wastes from
plating and photo shops. As a discharger into a municipally
owned and operated system, the Navy will be required to abide by
the pretreatment standards which are designed to protect the
operation of publicly owned treatment works and to prevent the
discharge of pollutants which would pass through such works
inadequately treated. Their present plans are to collect all
industrial type waste separately and pre-treat in an industrial
waste treatment facility on base. Those remaining wastes clas-
sified as "compatible" under pretreatment standards will then
be discharged into the County system. Discharges in industrial
categories are subject to effluent guidelines issued under Section
304B of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (Public Law 92-500). If they are discharging incompatible
pollutants to publicly owned treatment works, they are required
to adopt best practicable control technology currently avail-
able, as defined by the EPA Administrator, pursuant to Section
304B of the Act. The Navy will be specifically prohibited from
introducing any wastes which would interfere with the operation
or performance of the treatment works.
65. Please see the response to the letter from the Puget Sound Govern--
mental Conference.
IX-73
-------
66. The Hansville Road solid waste disposal site has been subjected to
the EIS process and found acceptable.
All reasonable and effective wastewater and sludge treatment sys-
tems were considered by the facilities planners, and in their judg-
ment the proposed treatment system was best. The publication you
cite is not a sludge treatment or process manual. The oxygen
activated sludge treatment system is a form of wastewater treat-
ment and is not applied to sewage sludge stabilization, generally
due to its high cost. EPA's technical publication on sludge
disposal is EPA 625/1-74-006, "Process Design Manual for Sludge
Treatment and Disposal".
67. Yes; yes.
68. We do not agree with your statement that the EIS draft is totally
inadequate for a reasonable examination of alternatives. Please
see our response to your comment No. 3 for a discussion of alter-
natives available to the Navy for separate treatment for Trident
wastes.
69. Collection line installation is strictly a local affair; there
are none proposed for this project and they have no effect on
the total annual cost of this project. The bond cost of 5-7/8
percent is not an unreasonable figure, depending on the type of
bond, issuer, etc. Recent bond prices, as published in the Wall
Street Journal, support the figure as a guideline. For example,
the Wall Street Journal for November 21, 1975, p. 28, reports
the sale of sewer bonds by the Heart of the Valley Sewerage Dis-
trict, Outagamie County, Wisconsin, at an average cost of 5.906
percent (ranging from 5.4 percent to 6.2 percent). For compari-
son, 5-7/8 percent is 5.875 percent. The average Wisconsin cost
and the cost used in the EIS differ by .013 percent.
70. The EPA-published guidelines on fugitive dust are the following:
INVESTIGATION OF FUGITIVE DUST
VOLUME I - SOURCES, EMISSIONS, AND CONTROL
EPA - 450/3-74-036-a
June 1974
INVESTIGATION OF FUGITIVE DUST
VOLUME II - CONTROL STRATEGY AND REGULATORY APPROACH
EPA - 450/3-74-036-b
June 1974
DEVELOPMENT OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES
EPA - 450/3-74-037
June 1974
IX-74
-------
EMISSIONS INVENTORY OF AGRICULTURAL TILLING, UNPAVED ROADS, AND
AIRSTRIPS, AND CONSTRUCTION SITES
EPA - 450/3-74-085
November 1974
Volume I in particular contains a discussion of suggested construc-
tion techniques. Any construction specifications prepared by the
County would be subject to a technical review for adequacy by an
EPA project engineer prior to approval of grant award for construc-
tion. Consultants commonly require the utilization of specific
dust and erosion control techniques in their construction specifi-
cations.
71. Please see the response to the letter from the Washington State
Parks and Recreation Commission. It must be noted that treated
effluent is fresh water with more buoyancy than salt water. Ef-
fluent leaving a diffuser will rise and be very well mixed before
it works its way to the benthos. The very presence of thick pock-
ets of clams off Manchester implies that the Manchester outfall
produces negligible adverse effect upon them. The Manchester out-
fall also has no effect on salmonids migrating to Steel Creek.
Comparison of the toxicity data obtained from the Liberty Bay
study with calculated dilutions indicates the effluent will have a
negligible effect upon clams and salmonids in the Manchester area.
For a secondary treatment plant, the Liberty Bay study indicated a
required dilution of 1:70 to maintain a level of 0.1 times the EC5Q-,
concentration, as determined by an assay of Pacific oyster embryo.
The EC5Q concentration is that concentration resulting in a 50 per-
cent abnormality in the embryo after a 48-hour test.
72. Treatment costs that reflect site-specific characteristics have
been included in the analysis. As evidence of this, please note
the tertiary level treatment recommended for Dyes and Sinclair
Inlets. We have considered non-degradation and a negligible im-
pact - meaning one too small to estimate or notice - to be equiva-
lent. We do concede that nutrient enrichment could be a problem
in enclosed bays, but that is one reason discharges to such areas
were not recommended and that a discharge to North Port Orchard
channel was recommended. The cost of a nitrified effluent is in-
cluded in alternative costs. Dechlorination can readily be accom-
plished by aeration of the chlorinated effluent.
For consideration of waste reconcentration, please see the response
to comment No. 38.
73. The analyses available to us were presented in the draft supplement
EIS and are repeated in the final EIS. They are adequate to
assess the relative impact of the alternatives.
IX-75
-------
74. The answer to the first two questions is yes. Concerning Navy
flows of less than 2 mgd and their impact on costs to other system
users, the only impact would be a possible slight increase in user
charges due to the loss of economies of scale. See our response
to comment No. 51.
75. Please see the response to comment No. 69.
76. Again, see our response to your comment No. 51.
77. Please see the response to comment No. 54.
The impact from the alternatives would be negligible or
unchanged.
IX-76
-------
Handbook
of
Procedures
Construction Grants Program
for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works
February 1976
Municipal Construction Division
Water Program Operations
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
IX-77
-------
H. PREDESI6N CONFERENCE
Purpose and Discussion:
EPA, in conjunction with the State agency, should assume
responsibility for insuring that the plans and specifications are
prepared in accordance with sound engineering practice and regulatory
requirements. Because of the complexity of these requirements, a
predesign conference between the grantee, his consultant, the
State and EPA is strongly urged, whenever practicable.
The predesign conference, which may be held with one or
more grantees, promotes careful planning and coordination and insures
the timely completion of. the various phases of a project. In some
cases, the review of plans and specifications may be delegated to a
State. In such cases, the State is responsible for the predesign
conference arrangements. For the other cases, the regions are
encouraged to develop formats for the predesign conferences. The
formats may then be tailored to the individual staffing resources
of the States and the needs of the applicants.
Procedures:
Shortly after acceptance of a Step 2 grant, but prior to
the preparation of plans and specifications, the reviewer should
arrange a predesign conference with the grantee, grantee's
consultant and State agency. Suggested subjects to be discussed
include:
1. the legal requirement for inclusion of and
provisions for carrying out the bidding
procedures described in 40 CFR 35.936, .938,
.939 and Appendix C-2;
2. the technical requirements of the design to
insure that the project will meet effluent
limitations per NPDES permit and will be
designed in accordance with sound engineering
practice;
Re: 40 CFR 35.925-7
IX-79
-------
3. additional requirements, as applicable, for
detailed design reports beyond that submitted
with the facility plan. Possible examples are:
- loading rates and sizes of various
components of the plant;
- design computations for sewers, including
slopes and capacities;
- system head curves for pumping stations,
indicating number and capacity of pumps;
- other detailed design reports which the
particular project may require;
4. pretreatment design requirements and scheduling,
as applicable, for industrial dischargers;
Re: 40 CFR 35.925-15
5. design considerations or investigations
resulting from the environmental assessment
or environmental impact statement. Possible
examples are:
- a soil erosion plan;
- a traffic control plan;
- archaeological investigations;
Re: 40 CFR 35.925-8
6. design requirements arising from executed
agreements between jurisdictions;
Re: 40 CFR 35.917-6
7. force account requirements, as applicable;
Re: Program Guidance Memorandum, PG-34, 5/7/74
8. phasing of contracts;
Re_: Program Guidance Memorandum, PG-33, 5/10/74
IX-80
-------
9. flood protection insurance requirements, as
applicable;
Re_: 40 CFR 30.405-10
Program Guidance Memorandum, PG-54, 7/8/75
10. records to be maintained during design and
construction, separating eligible and ineligible
i terns;
Re: 40 CFR 30.805, 35.940
11. site certification requirements, if not
previously satisfied;
Rej 40 CFR 35.920-3 (b)(4)
12. future requirements for
- the user charge and industrial cost
recovery systems;
- a sewer use ordinance;
- an evaluation/rehabilitation program,
as applicable;
- an operation and maintenance program,
including O&M manual, staffing and
training;
Re_: 40 CFR 35.935-12, -13, -16
13. requirements for submission of project status
reports and requirements for periodic
inspections and audits, as necessary, for
large or complex projects;
Re: 40 CFR 30.635, .820
14. requirements for construction contracts to conform
with the standardized format, "Contract Documents
for Construction of Federally Assisted Water and
Sewer Projects";
Re_: Program Guidance Memorandum, PG-17A, 4/15/75
IX-81
-------
15. use of value engineering in the design phases
of the project;
Re: Program Guidance Memorandum, PG-45, 12/11/74
16. possible benefits from the use of construction
management.
The reviewer should provide the grantee with guidelines,
instructions, booklets, or other publications which describe specific
requirements in detail.
I. REVIEW OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Purpose:
To insure that the project to be built will satisfy effluent
and statutory requirements.
Discussion:
Depending upon the complexity of the project, periodic reviews
and inspections will have been carried out during the preparation of
the plans and specifications and changes or modifications, if required,
will have been made. The set of plans and specifications submitted for
final review should reflect all changes and be suitable for bidding
purposes.
The review procedures are both administrative and technical.
The technical review procedures are broad in scope and each region is
encouraged to pattern its own review procedures to account for State
or local design practices and requirements. Although not specifically
required, the use of a checklist such as the "Program Checklist for
Engineering Drawings, Specifications, and Engineering Reports",
Appendix C, is recommended.
IX-82
-------
Review Procedures:
a. Administrative Review
The following six items must be included in the
bidding documents:
(1) a statement of work, including drawings
and specifications, and the required
completion schedule;
(2) the terms and conditions of the contract
(40 CFR 35.938-8);
(3) an explanation of the method of bidding;
the method of evaluating the bid prices,
and the basis for the award of the contract;
(4) the criteria for evaluating bidders;
(5) the standard statement concerning the
funding of the project by EPA;
(6) a copy of 40 CFR 35.936, 35.938 and 35.939.
In addition to the above six items, the reviewer is to
insure that the specifications include the following provisions:
(1) Supplemental General Provisions
Appendix C-2 of 40 CFR Part 35 which
includes requirements for:
- audit: access to records
- price reduction for defective
cost or pricing data
- contract work hours and safety
standards
- equal employment opportunity
- utilization of small and minority
business
- covenant against contingent fees
IX-83
-------
- anti-kickback
- gratuities
- patents
- copyrights and rights in data
- clean air and water clause
(2) Equal Employment Opportunity
The EEO provisions must be followed where contracts
are greater than $10,000. In areas having a home-town or an imposed
plan, the contract specifications must contain the specific provisions
of the plan as published by the Secretary of Labor in the Federal
Register. Home-town plans are agreements reached among the local
contractors, trade unions, minority groups and governmental agencies,
which are approved by the Secretary of Labor, and contain the goals for
the hiring and training of minority groups. Imposed plans likewise set
forth minority hiring and training goals; however, such goals are not
reached by agreement, but imposed by the Department of Labor.
In either instance, the reviewer should insure thau
the applicable plan is contained in the specifications.
In non-plan areas, contractors will be required to
comply with the provision of Executive Order 11246 and engage in
affirmative action directed at promoting and insuring EEO in the work
force used under the contracts.
When the cost of the construction is estimated to
exceed a ceiling amount specified by the Regional Administrator, the
contracts may require special provisions. The reviewer, in such cases,
should contact the Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Office within the
EPA regional office for specific instructions.
Re_: 40 CFR 35.935-6
40 CFR Part 8
IX-84
-------
(3) Davis-Bacon Act
The provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act must be
included in contracts exceeding $2,000. These provisions require the
payment of prevailing wages for the various trades as determined by
the Secretary of Labor.
Prevailing area-wide rates are published weekly
in the Federal Register. For individual projects not included in
areas with area-wide wage rate determinations, the Regional Office will
obtain a wage rate for inclusion in the specifications.
Modifications to area-wide wage rate determinations
are to be included in the bidding documents provided they have been
published 10 days prior to the bid opening date. Modifications to
individual project determinations are to be included provided they are
received in the Regional Office 10 days prior to bid opening.
The reviewer is to insure that the current wage
rate determination is included in the bidding documents or that
provisions for inclusion have been made.
Re_: 40 CFR 30.403, .415
(4) Flood Insurance
For projects requiring flood insurance (see
Chapter VI E.4.a. of this Handbook) make certain that the contractor is
required to obtain the necessary flood insurance during construction.
(5) Bonding
For contracts in excess of $100,000, the following
minimum bonding and insurance requirements must be met:
- 5% bid bond;
- 100% performance and payment bond;
- fire and extended coverage, workmen's
compensation, public liability and
property damage, and "all risk", as
required by local or State law;
- flood insurance, as applicable, during
construction.
IX-85
-------
For contracts less than $100,000, bonding and
insurance requirements shall be in accordance with local or State
practices.
b. Technical Review:
The technical review of the plans and specifications is
carried out to insure that the proposed facilities, if constructed in
accordance with the plans and specifications, will achieve the effluent
limitations or water quality standards required by the NPDES permit.
The review is also to insure that sound engineering design principles
are employed, primarily regarding process considerations. Structural,
electrical, and mechanical details of the design are not critically
reviewed because they are the responsibility of the engineer whose seal
appears on the drawings. However, obvious irregularities should be noted.
The technical review should evaluate the plans and
specifications according to the criteria in "Program Checklist for
Engineering Drawings, Specifications, and Engineering Reports" (see
Appendix C) to the extent appropriate for the particular project and
State requirements. The following are examples of items which should be
reviewed.
(1) Safety Precautions
The requirements of the Occupation Safety and Health
Act (OSHA) must be fulfilled;
(2) Mitigative Measures
Plans and specifications must be compared with
mitigative measures required by the environmental assessment or impact
statement. Examples might be soil erosion control, hours of operation,
backfilling and seeding, structural design for buildings in a flood
plain, etc.
(3) Bypassing
Construction is to be carried out so as to prevent
bypassing of flows during construction, where possible.
(4) Project Sign
Contractor is required to provide a project sign in
accordance with the drawing shown in Appendix B.
IX-86
-------
(5) Reliability and Flexibility
The proposed facilities must be reliable and
provide for flexibility in operation. This may be accomplished, for
example, by requiring standby power, by providing for bypass of
individual plant units, by providing pumping capacity sufficient to
operate the plant with the largest pump out of service, etc.
Rej_ No. EPA-430-99-74-001
(6) Operation and Maintenance
All equipment, piping, switches, instruments, etc.
are to be clearly marked for ease of identification and location for
operation and maintenance.
17) Public Water Supply
All public water supplies are to be protected by
adequate backflow preventers (for example, double check valves, air
gap).
(8) Chemical Storage
All chemicals are to be properly stored and curbed
to hold the entire volume in the event of an accidental spill. Also,
adequate safety protection gear is to be provided, with proper storage,
for plant personnel.
Re: Technical Bulletin No. D-71-1, 10/15/71
(9) Ventilation
Adequate ventilation is to be provided in all areas
where necessary (for example wet well, dry well, chlorine room, chemical
storage area, etc.).
(10) Laboratory Facilities
The laboratory facilities must be adequate to conduct
the type of sampling and testing required by the NPDES permit or by the
State agency.
or dangers.
(11) Emergency Alarms
Adequate alarms are to be provided to warn of failures
IX-87
-------
(12) Use of Mercury
Mercury is not to be used for trickling filter
seals. Other uses of mercury require special review and approval.
Re_: Technical Bulletin No. D-71-2, 10/15/71
(13) Sewers
Acceptable levels of infiltration and test therefor
are included; sewers should maintain minimum scouring velocities and
have adequate capacity, including peaking factors.
(14) Equipment
Except where based upon performance specifications
at least two trade names must be specified for all major items of
equipment.
Re: Program Guidance Memorandum, PG-19A
40 CFR 35.936-13(a)
(15) Shellfish Waters
Where discharges will come into contact with
shellfish waters, appropriate measures must be included to protect the
shellfish.
Re: Technical Bulletin, Protection of Shellfish
Waters, EPA 430/9-74-010, July 1974
(16) Pretreatment
Where applicable the design must be in accordance
with the requirements for pretreatment of incompatible industrial wastes.
Re: 40 CFR 35.925-15
IX-88
-------
c. Plan and Specification Approval
Upon approval by EPA of the plans and specifications,
the grantee and State agency are to be so notified. The notification
will generally be in the form of a letter and should contain any special
conditions resulting from the review which would be imposed on the
applicant upon application for a Step 3 grant. The approval notice
should specifically remind the applicant not to advertise for bids until
after applying for and receiving a Step 3 grant.He should also be
reminded that the EPA is not obligated to award a Step 3 grant for the
project.
IX-89
-------
Page 1 of
Date
PLAN AND SPECIFICATION APPROVAL
PROJECT NO: LOCATION: OWNER:
Design Engineer
Phone
Approval by State Engineer Date_
Conditions for Approval (attach copy of certification letter and plan
and specification approval letter)
Approval by EPA Engineer Date
Conditions for Approval (attach copy of plan and specification approval letter)
Description of project in terms of type of treatment, flow capacity, and
process units:
List of ineligible items (identify by bid item schedule, number and quantity),
IX-91
-------
Page of
Date
SUMMARY OF REVIEW
Summarize the apparent inadequacies revealed during the plan and specification
review process and describe the resolution of each. If necessary, summarize
pertinent conversations and cite specific correspondence with the consulting
engineer:
IX-92
-------
Page of
Date
GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT NO: PROJECT NAME:
YES NO
Has an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) been prepared
on this project?
Have all recommendations of the EIS been followed?
Is the treatment process suitable for the character and volume
of the sewage to be treated?
Have the components of the sewerage system been properly sized,
based on realistic population projections?
Will a minimum of primary treatment be provided during
construction?
Has an organized, systematic, readily understood Basis of
Design been provided?
Has an I/I (infiltration/inflow) Analysis been completed?
If an I/I Analysis has not been completed, has the State certified
that the contributing sewer lines do not have excessive
i nfi1trati on/i nf1ow?
Is shellfish growing a consideration? If yes, what protective
provisions have been made?
Will any of the contemplated construction be located in the flood
plain and subject to flooding? If yes, what is the frequency?
What reasonable protection has been provided?
Is the project in a designated flood hazard area as defined under
PL 93-234 (Flood Disaster Protection Act)? If yes,what amount of
insurance has been obtained by the applicant under this Act? $
Are permits to construct required from other Federal Agencies?
If yes, are these permits in the process of being secured?
IX-93
-------
Page of
Date
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS AND
DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS
PROJECT NO: PROJECT NAME:
YES NO GENERAL
" Have at least two brand names been used with the or equal clause?
BUILDINGS
Is an adequately equipped and stocked laboratory provided?
If not, have provisions been made to contract for labwork?
Is the space provided in the various buildings adequate?
Are heating, lighting, and sanitary facilities adequate
in all buildings?
Are chemical storage and machine locations safe?
Have the restrictions on the use of mercury pursuant to
TB D-71-2 been complied with?
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Have noise and odor control been given proper attention and
provided for where necessary?
Has attention been devoted to a generally aesthetic appearance
of the facility?
RELIABILITY
Is standby power provided? If standby power is not provided,,
describe on an attachment the means of assuring continuous
operation.
Have multiple units and equipment been provided to the maximum
extent possible?
Can individual plant units be bypassed?
Are there adequate provisions for flexibility of operation?
SAFETY FEATURES
Is the plant fenced or otherwise enclosed?
Is the public water supply protected by a backflow
preventer?
Is mechanical ventilation provided where required?
Are railings and machine guards provided?
IX-94
-------
Page
Date
of
PROJECT DESIGN DATA
PROJECT NO:
LOCATION:
PROJECT NAME:_
DISCHARGE TO:
Scope of Project:
Degree of treatment (present): SS removal %; BOD^ Removal
Degree of treatment (proposed): SS removal %; BODs Removal
Is this project related or tandem to previous project(s):
Description of new or modified plant:
Type of Sewer System:
Separate
Combined
PROJECT LOADING
1, Industrial Wastes - mgd
2. Industrial Wastes - ^OD5
3. Industrial Wastes BODs
Ib/day
4. Industrial Wastes - P.E.*
5. Domestic Population
Served
6. Domestic Average
Flow - mgd
7. Total Average Flow -
mgd (Items 1+6)
8. Raw P.E. (Before Treat-
ment (Items 4+5)
9. Effluent P.E. (After
Treatment)
(Item 8) x (1-%BOD5 Removal)
Present Load
Start-up
Load
Design Year
(19 ) Load
Principal types of industrial wastes:
Permit Number
Permit effluent limitations
*P.E. = Total Ibs. BOD5/day
0.17
IX-95
-------
Page of
Date
STREAM DATA
PROJECT NO: PROJECT NAME:.
1. Name of Receiving Stream
2. Estimated Minimum Daily Flow Duration Frequency_
3. Stream - Free Flowing ( ) Sluggish ( )
4. Distance Downstream to Nearest Community
5. Distance Downstream to Nearest Water Intake
6. Receiving Water Velocity
7. Salinity of Receiving Water_
8. D.O., BOD and S.S. of Receiving Water
9. Temperature range of Receiving Water °F
10. Temperature range of Effluent °F
11. Area of Mixing Zone
12. Trapping Level (Will Plume Reach Surface)
13. Dilution Ratio
14. Calculated Coliform/100 ml
15. Stream Classification
16. Water Quality Criteria
17. Make computations to assure that the project effluent will not have a
detremental effect on the quality of the receiving stream.
IX-96
-------
Page_
Date~
of
Bar Screen
Total Area
SCREENING, GRIT REMOVAL
AND FLOW MEASUREMENT
sq. ft. Effective Area
sq. ft.
Space Between Bars_
Slope of Screen
inches Velocity
fps
Mechanical Screen: Capacity_
Method of Cleaning: Manual
Disposal of Screenings
Comminuting Device
Type
Is Drainage Platform Provided?_
mgd Type
Mechanical
Can screen be bypassed?_
Location
Size
inches Capacity
mgd
Auxiliary Bar Screen_
Grit Chamber
Mo. Chambers
Type
Cross-Section Area Each
sq. ft. Total
Linear Velocity in fps: Average_
Method of Velocity Control
Min.
_sq. ft. Length_
Max.
ft
Detention Period: Present Flow:
Drain Provided
_Seconds Design Flow:
Seconds
Method of Cleaning: Manual
Disposal of Grit:
Flow Measurements
Type Metering Device_
Mechanical
_Location (Raw Sewage or Eff.
Indicating and Recording Mechanism_
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-97
-------
Page of
Date
SEDIMENTATION TANKS
Type: Primary: Intermediate: Final:
Feed: End/center/peripheral
Number Tanks Shape of Tanks
Inside Dimensions: Length Width SWD Depth piarneter_
Effective Volume Each Tank cu. ft. Total Volume cu. ft.
Recirculation Rate Design Flow (including recirculation mgd
Detention (Average 24-hr, flow): Present hrs. Design _nrs-
Surface Loading: Present gpd/sq. ft. Design
Length of Overflow Weir ft.; Overflow Rate gpd/ft.
Is overflow Weir Adjustable? Type of Weir
Sludge Collection Equipment, Type
Scum Removal (Type):
Disposition of Scum
Sludge Removal by: Pump Gravity to
Approved by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-98
-------
AERATION TANKS
Number Tanks
Inside Dimensions: Length
Net Volume Each Tank
Width
Page
Date
JShape of Tanks_
Depth
of
Diameter
cu. ft. Total Volume
cu. ft.
Percentage of Daily Flow of Return Sludge to Aeration Tank_
Design Flow (exclusive of return sludge)
BOD5 Loading ppm #/day
Required Air
mgd
_cu. ft./#BOD5/day
Furnished Air
cu. ft./#BODs/day (normally 150% of required air)
Detention Time (Average 24-hr. Flow): Design nrs.
Length of Overall Weir ft. Overflow Rate gpd/ft.
Equipment
Number Blowers Cap. Each cfm Total Cap cfm At Ibs.
Diffusers: Plates
Fixed Tubes
Impingement Aerator_
Mechanical Aeration
Number Units
Jet Aerator
Swing Diffuser_
Updraft Tube
Down Draft Tube
Operated Intermittently by Time Clock
Sludge Return Pumps
No. Pumps Type Cap. Each
_gpm Total Cap.
_gpm
Rated Heads
_ft. Computed Heads
ft.
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-99
-------
Page
Date"
of
TRICKLING FILTERS
Type (Standard or High Rate):
Number of Filters Dimensions: Dia. ft. Depth ft.
Surface Area: Each_
Depth of Media
sq. ft. Total
sq. ft.
acres
ft. Volume of Media
cu. yds.
Average daily flow_
Recirculation
A. Quantity
B. Quantity
Total
_mgd
Hydraulic Loadings:_
BODs Applied Sewage_
BOD5 Loading
Filter Material: Size
Soundness test specified:_
Distributor: Type
Provisions for Flooding_
Recirculating Pumps
Pump No. Type
_mgd.
jngd. returned from
to
mgd. returned from
to
_mgd/acre
_ppm_
#/day
_#/cy/day
_#/acre-ft./day
inches; Kind
No. Arms
_Air Channels Adequate
Capacity Rated Head
gpm ft.
Computed Head
ft.
gpm
_gpm
_ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
gpm
ft.
ft.
Approved by State Engineer:
IX-100
-------
Date
HASTE STABILIZATION PONDS
Location
Number of Ponds Operation: Series Parallel Either_
Surface Area: #1 #2 #3 Total: acres
Loading: Persons/Acre #BODs/Acre/day
Grit Removal Required Screens Required
Provisions to Divert Surface Water
Provisions for Measuring Flow:
Provisions for Sampling:
Depth: Optimum Operating ft. Maximum ft. Minimum ft.
Freeboard: ft.
Type of soil:
Are specifications adequate for compaction of embankments?
Top width of embankment ft. Erosion Protection •
Embankment Slopes: Inner Horz. ] Vert.
Outer Horz. ] Vert.
Depth of Submergence of Inlet ft. Distance from Bank_
Distance From Inlet to Outlet ft.
Is scour protection provided at inlet?
Drawoff levels: Top Middle Bottom_
Bottom Drain
Is controlled overflow provided?
Provision for effluent disinfection
Appropriate Warning Signs fence provided_
What provisions have been made to fill the ponds
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-101
-------
page ot
Date
SLUDGE DIGESTION - SEPARATE
Single Stage or Primary Digestion Tanks
No. Tanks Dimensions Each: Diameter ft. Depth ft.
Volume Each cu. ft. Total Vol. 1st. Stage cu. ft.
Volume Per Capita (Design) cu. ft.
Second Stage Digestion Tanks
No. Tanks Dimensions Each: Diameter ft. Depth ft.
Volume Each cu. ft. Total Vol. 2nd. Stage cu. ft.
Volume Per Capita
First and Second Stage Digesters
Total Volume All Tanks cu. ft. Vol. Per Capita cu. ft.
Heated Unheated
Gas Disposal Aux Heat Heat Exchanger
Type of Cover Pressure and Vacuum Relief on Cover
Is unvalved overflow provided?
Flame Trap Drip Traps Waste Burner_
Sludge Withdrawal Line (Size) inches. Pumped Gravity
Circulation = Gas/Mechanical Supernatant Disposal
Recirculation Pumps or Sludge Pumps
Number Cap. Each gpm. Size Disch. Line inches
Rated Heads ft. Computed Heads ft.
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
Ix-102
-------
Page of
Date
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Sludge Drying Beds
Number of Beds Area of Each Bed_
Total Area
Area per capita: Present sq. ft.
Design sq. ft.
Gravel: Layer Depths Sizes
Sand: Depth inches
Underdrains: Size Spaced C-C_
Freeboard Above Sand Suitable Splash Pad_
Beds Subject to Flooding Concrete Runners Provided
Is drainage from beds returned to plant for treatment?
Vacuum Filters
Type of Sludge to be Handled: Raw Digested
Number of Filters Size Capacity_
Total Area Chemical Treatment
Filtrate Disposal
Holding Tank
Lagoons
Will groundwater be protected from contamination?
Number of Lagoons Total Volume of Lagoons_
How will sludge be disposed of?
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-103
-------
Page
Date
of
CHLORINATION
Points of Application
No. of Chlorinators
_Type_
Total Capacity lbs/24hrs.
Total Capacity Ibs/mg flow: Present
Chlon'nator Room
Outside Door Only
_Design_
Type of Ventilation_
Scales Provided
Adequate Storage for Containers
Gas Masks Provided
Chlorine Contact Tank
No. of Tanks
Inside Dimensions_
Capaci ty
Detention Time
Can Tanks be drained?
Disposal of Drainage:_
_min. @ present
_min. @ design
Sludge Removal
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-104
-------
Page
Date
of
SEWAGE PUMPING STATION
Location
Type Pumps Specified_
Type Pump Control
Alternator
Simultanious
Are Duplicate Units Provided?_
Can max. flow be handled with largest unit out of service?
If not, explain alternate procedure
Maximum Flow
Average Flow
Minimum Flow
Volume of the wet well
Detention time & maximum flow
minimum flow
Does the fillet in the wet well have adequate slope?
Has a bar rack or sand trap been provided?
Is there a gate valve and a check valve on discharge?
Is there a gate valve on suction?
Is ventilation provided in the wet well? Dry well
Is standby power, automatic overflow or a detention pond provided?^
Is an adequate alarm system included?
PUMP
No.
SIZE
(in.)
FRICTION
Head (ft)
STATIC
Head (ft)
CAPACITY
gpm
RATED
TDH
COMPUTED
TDH
CONSTANT/ f
VARIABLE 1
SPEED !
;
I
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-105
-------
SEWERS
Location
Type of Sewer: Sanitary_
Combined
Classification: Collector^
Type of Pipe
_Interceptor_
Length of Sewer_
Design Velocity_
_Type of Joint_
Diameter
Required Velocity
to Sta.
Minimum Velocity from Sta.
Design Capacity Required Capacity_
Is the cover adequate in all cases?
If the cover is not adequate, where? Sta.
What type joint test is required?
What are infiltration/exfiltration limits?_
MANHOLES
Maximum distance between manholes
Diameter of Barrel
page
Date
or
Storm
Outfall
Slope
to Sta.
Diameter of Cover
Are manholes provided at all changes in grade, size or allignment of sewers?_
Is outside plaster required? Paved invert?
Are corrosion resistant steps or ladders provided?
Are retainers and blocking provided where necessary?
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-106
-------
Page
Date
of
Design Flow
Outfall Length_
Diffuser Length_
Number of Ports
Depth of Discharge_
OUTFALL
mgd
ft. Diameter
ft. Diameter
ft.
Jnches
inches
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
IX-107
-------
Page of
Date
FORCE MAIN
Location
Hazen-Williams "C" factor used for Design_
Type of Pipe Size Pressure Class
Type Joint Specified
Force Main Length Computed TDH Rated TDH_
Velocity Minimum Cover Provided
Are Blow-Offs Specified? Air Relief Valves?
Are Thrust Blocks and Retainers Provided Where Necessary?
Approval by State Engineer:
Comments:
-108
-------
ROLLA V. HOUGHTON (I97O)
JACK R CLUCK
PAUL COUGHLIN
JOHN W. RILEY
EMIL P SCHUBAT
DAVID SKELLENGER
BERT L METZGER, JR.
JOEL HAGGARD
WILLIAM N MATHIAS.m
LAURITZ S HELLAND
LAW OFFICES OF
HOUGHTON CLUCK COUGHLIN & RILEY
9OO HOGE BUILDING
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98IO4
TELEPHONE
(206) 633-6501
IN REPLY REFER TO
OUR FILE NO.
March 26, 1976
Mr. Richard Thiel
c/o EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Park Place
M-S 537
Seattle, Washington
Dear Mr. Thiel:
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 1976
98101
On behalf of C. A. Ross, we are submitting the following
comments upon your draft EIS Supplement, EPA 910/9-75-012,
regarding the Central Kitsap County Wastr Water Facilities.
We understand that our comments of October 20, 1975 on the
draft EIS are to be included in your responses to the draft
EIS Supplement; so they are not repeated here.
ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recently adopted State of Washington SEPA Guidelines
provide for use of your EIS in lieu of one separately pre-
pared under SEPA if certain conditions are satisfied. See
WAC 197-10-650, 652. Under these Guidelines and prevailing
NEPA case law, we must reluctantly disagree with the as-
sertion on Page 1-2 of the Draft EIS Supplement that a
"complete" (inferring adequate) description and environ-
mental analysis of the new alternative and indeed of others
has been made. With respect only to the SEPA Guidelines,
the environmental elements of WAC 197-10-444, when applied
locally, have not been adequately treated in the draft EIS.
Supplementation, modification or new EIS preparation will be
required. See WAC 197-10-652.
Without being inclusive and thus arrogating to ourselves the
County's duty to prepare adequate environmental documents,
we offer a few examples of the inadequacy. The total pro-
posal includes the collectors which are functionally related
to the treatment facility. See WAC 197-10-060. Yet the
IX-109
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 2
March 26, 1976
impacts and alternatives for that portion of the total
proposal are not discussed. Alternatives and mitigating
measures are absent for the treatment plant location, size
and configuration and for the outfall pipeline routing from
the treatment plant.
Continuous requests have been made for environmental anal-
ysis of the alternatives regarding the Trident waste load to
the treatment facility. (See our letters of 10/11/74, 6/3/75,
9/3/75 and 10/20/75 to EPA, and of 7/23/75 and 1/15/76 to
the County). What are the environmental factors and impacts
associated with the alternatives of 1) not treating any
Trident wastes, 2) accepting only Trident waste volumes that
cannot be further reused or recycled, and 3) deep well disposal
or high rate land disposal of Trident wastes. Without
examining these alternatives a course of action contrary to
the preliminary Kitsap County Comprehensive Growth Plan
goals and objectives of encouraging recycyling of waste
water and solid waste will result. An initial question is
what discernible reduction of impacts (like cold shock or
fresh water impact for marine water quality or biota)
are associated with a reduction in discharge volumes?
EPA's failure to examine a reduced Trident waste load re-
sulting from reuse enable the Navy and EPA to not act as
trustees of the environment for future generations. For
whether ground water is available or not, unnecessary short
term use of water resources is contrary to this trustee
duty. The County's Facility Plan consultant told the Citizens
Advisory Committee on April 2, 1975 that the Plan must look
at "3) reuse of waste water." It does not; and your action
to enable the construction of a treatment plant at a capacity
which takes no account of volume reductions by reuse is
contrary to NEPA and applicable grant regulations. See 40
CFR 35.905-3. We ask that you include in your final EIS
information from the USGS re ground water availability and
from the Navy re reduced waste load volumes resulting from
reuse. This coordination procedure is mandated by the
policy requirements of NEPA.
How can the alternative of high rate land disposal be analyzed
without soil type information for the Bangor site? See B-2
of the Draft EIS Supplement.
These reuse alternatives all relate directly and immediately
to the need for the proposed facilities capacity.
IX-110
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 3
March 26, 1976
RELATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Page 1-6 of the draft EIS Supplement notes that the relative
environmental weightings should be viewed with caution. Why
is this so? What limits should be recognized as limiting
the reliance upon these numbers? Whet confidence level and
uncertainty is to be associated wit i -he relative weightings?
The Paramatrix report "Mathematical Mo lei of Three Port
Orchard System Outfall Sites" states a^ page 6 "Although
values have occasionally been recorded, Port Orchard and
Dyes Inlet lack sufficient profile data for the remaining
seasons." How does this deficiency affect the relative
weighting for marine water quality and aquatic biota impact
at the North Port Orchard disposal location?
We request a complete review and verification of the weightings
set out in Figure II-l. We suggest particular attention to
the Socio-Cultural Impacts for Alternative 11. We must
question the relative ranking of Alternatives 9 and 11,
particularly since the Facilities Plan notes that the North /
Port Orchard disposal site is almost one-third worse than *
the Manchester site. Should the environmental facts not be
given adequate weight or recognition in the decision making
process and the North Port Orchard site be chosen, what
further studies, mitigating measures and costs are necessary
to preclude violation of the non-degradation water quality
requirements and all adverse impacts greater than the en-
vironmentally preferable alternative?
TREATMENT PLANT IMPACTS
A high ground water table problem is identified at page II-3
of the draft EIS Supplement for the proposed treatment plant
site. What alternative treatment plant locations and con-
figurations are available to eliminate adverse operational
consequences, on the ground water quality such though caused
by accidental spills or material storage? Because of this
ground water problem, we ask that you review the "+50"
rating given in Figure II-l to the ground water quality
parameter for Alternative 11.
Page IV-7 makes certain comments regarding adverse impacts «
and mitigative measures for the pipeline routing used with
Alternative 11. What mitigating measures and associated
IX-111
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 4
March 26, 1976
costs will be employed to eliminate these impacts? Do the
cost figures reflect this? What mitigating measures, as-
sociated costs or pipeline routing alternatives are there
to protect the ravine, preclude soil erosion and water
turbidity violations, and minimize pipeline integrity problems.
(See page II-7 re the ravine and pages II-8 re turbidity
problems).
A reasonable alternative would be to have the Navy construct
and own the pipeline from Bangor down Clear Creek connecting
at Bucklin Hill Road. This would preclude the possibility
of non-Navy hookups in the Clear Creek area and eliminate
growth inducement. The Navy would then pay a portion of
capital costs for the pipeline across Bucklin Hill Road and
reduce the capital costs to Central Kitsap County citizens
and the bond principal. Can not the Navy pipeline construction
be effected in a manner so as to preclude adverse environmental
consequences? Political opposition is not a determinative
factor in ruling out an environmentally preferable alternative.
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
At page 11-10, the draft EIS Supplement asserts that it is
the transport of clean dilution water across the diffuser
which controls the degree of initial dilution obtainable.
Assuming a reasonable amount of receiving water, it is the
jet momentum of the diffusers not the volume of dilution
water which controls the near field dilution phenomenon and
hence initial dilution. Similarly, on page 11-13 certain
assumptions are stated regarding the calculation of dilution.
As to the assumption that jet momentum will cause mixing in
the bottom one-half of the total mixing depth, to what
extent have the studies for diffuser site location accounted
for inadequate momentum resulting in discharges colder than
the receiving water laying on the bottom?
At page 11-11, the draft EIS Supplement states that the Port
Orchard UW model is accurate, although subject to some
limitations for some outfall locations. What are the limi-
tations for the North Port Orchard outfall and what uncertainty
do they cause in the conclusion that ambient water quality
will not be degraded? (See page 12, "Application of an
Ecological Model to Port Orchard, Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet
I
H
IX-112
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 5
March 26, 1976
and Liberty Bay Subsystem of Port Orchard" by John R. Yearsley.)
If there are uncertainties, what mitigating measures and
engineering safeguards and associated costs will be employed I1
to insure that the ambient water quality will be maintained *^
and enhanced. What added studies will be required to confirm
the acceptability of North Port Orchard should it be selected?
(See particularly pages 12 and 13 of Yearsley's report cited
above).
Table II-3 confirms the inadequacy of the North Port Orchard
site. On the average 29% of the time the assumed desirable
dilution factor of 100:1 will not be met. For neap tides,
it won't be met 40% of the time. Should Port Orchard be
selected, what conditions in an NPDES permit pursuant to
Section 302 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 9PL 92-500) would be appropriate?
How is the data in Table 11-13 for North Port Orchard related
to the determination by Parametrix that under the worst case
the predicted dilution at the periphery of the defined
dilution zone would only be 29.5 (see page 23, Parametrix
report) or about one-third of the desirable initial dilution
which is well inside the dilution zone boundaries? This
also casts strong doubt about the rating of "+50" for marine 4 ^
water quality impacts identified at page IV-27. There the •*•
initial dilutions, serving as a basis for the +50 rating,
were said to be in the range of 50:1 to 200:1. When the
dilution won't reach 100:1 about 40% of the time for neap
tide conditions, the rating of +50 appears unrealistic and
arbitrary. Analysis of all this dilution information also
suggests strong doubt about the value of the statement on
page 11-15 that a dilution of 5000:1 is probable — par-
ticularly when it then says this is only considered accurate
to an order of magnitude.
We also question the unconditional statement regarding the
UW study. As evidenced by comments in that study, even the
UW does not conclude as to North Port Orchard that significant
doubts do not exist. They note at page 28 (Final Report, An
Oceanographic Study of the Port Orchard System) that dye
transport into undesirable areas was evidenced. This includes
the Brownsville area. (See also page 73, Final Report; page
3 of Interim Report #1, and pages 10 and 11 of Interim
Report #3). What is the possibility of localized water
IX-113
-------
14
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 6
March 26, 1976
quality violations due to such transport from the North Port
Orchard site; and how will they be mitigated? At page 42,
the slow flow past the North Port Orchard site is discussed.
At page 40, the report notes that tidal waters can receive
two slugs of discharge a day. To what extent will waste
buildup or reconcentration occur from the North Port Orchard
disposal? Will this occasion localized water quality degrada-
tion; and if so, how will it be eliminated?
The conclusion on page 11-17 that the studies do not support
the conclusion that Point Monroe is a superior site to North
Port Orchard is error. The UW study at page 146 specifically
concluded "Model observations showed that discharge of waste
into the main basin of Puget Sound is more desirable than
discharge into the Port Orchard System." The Parametrix
study, even though it examined a Point Monroe discharge
closer to shore than is desirable (see top of page 11-15,
draft EIS Supplement), uniformly demonstrates the superiority
of the Point Monroe site over the North Port Orchard site.
Even Figure II-l of the draft EIS Supplement affirms the
superiority as to physical impacts of the Point Monroe site.
This rationalization to support North Port Orchard should be
corrected to reflect study results.
DEMOGRAPHICS
How much of the estimated population (see page 11-25) will i t-
be located on the Trident base and in the service area to be •»•
served? How will the Navy's determination regarding on-
base housing policy affect the waste load?
PLANT CAPACITY
Page III-l indicates a revised design flow of 3.8 mgd. Is
2.0 mgd of that flow still due to Trident? How would Trident
water reuse affect the design capacity? What are the cost
and environmental impacts of such reduced capacity? What
are the costs for the reserve capacity of the treatment
plant facility; and how does the capacity of the plant 7*7
compare with the capacity of the sewer system? (See December
5, 1975 report by the General Accounting Office to the
Natural Resources Subcommittee of the House Government
Operations Committee re EPA Region III and V approved grant
applications).
IX-114
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 7
March 26, 1976
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Sludge generated by the treatment facility will in part
originate at the Trident federal facility. Regardless of
its processing off the base, this fact subjects the treatment
facilities sludge disposal to EPA's guidelines for the land
disposal of solid wastes. See 40 CFR § 241, particuarly §
241.100(d). Will the sludge disposal be in accordance with
these guidelines? What are the costs associated with these
requirements? Have the environmental factors regarding
sludge disposal in EPA's report "Disposal of Sewage Sludge
into a Sanitary Landfill" (Final Report (SW-71d) for Grant
No. 5801582, 1974) been reviewed and considered here?
COSTS
The total O&M costs are less expensive for Alternative 9
than for Alternative 11 (See page III-ll). These total costs
are those costs dependent upon the annual quantity of waste
water collected and treated. Fixed annual costs are set out
in Table III-4 under the column titled "Annual Amortization."
It is the combination of these total annual costs which
represent the annual total cost of the facility. See Appendix
A, paragraph f(3), 40 CFR § 35. And this total annual cost
is cheaper for Alternative 9 than for Alternative 11.
Annual Cost Alternative 9 Alternative 11
Total O&M $412,800 $457,600
Annual Amortization 114,300 80,900
Total $527,100 $538,500
Port Orchard is simply more expensive.
The costs for Alternatives 9 and 11 should be lower since it
appears that an artificially high interest rate figure of
7.5% was used. Current tax free municipal bonds are going
at lower rates. The interest rate set out in the Water
Resources Council's "Proposed Principles and Standards for
Planning Water and Related Land Resources" should be used
and the cost figures corrected.
IX-115
-------
Mr. Richard Thiel
Page 8
March 26, 1976
What is the basis for the Navy paying 40% of the capital
cost? What would the percentage be if the Navy were to hook
on to the pipeline at Bucklin Hill Road south of Clear
Creek? How was the Navy's 48.08% shares of O&M costs calculated?
Does the percentage depend upon the Navy's percentage of
total design flow, does it depend upon actual delivered
flows, and does it depend upon the strength of wastes delivered?
At pages V-13 and VI-1, comfort is apparently given to
citizens about any uncertainties in the North Port Orchard
alternative since the plant could always be upgraded or the
outfall could be extended to Point Monroe. This is rather
like buying insurance after the plane crash. What criteria
and procedures will be used to give advance warning that
this might be necessary? What added costs might reasonably
be associated with such future significant changes?
Even assuming no uncertainty, no adverse impact, no con-
servation of water, and that the draft EIS Supplement costs
are correct, Table III-4 indicates that each citizen of
Central Kitsap County served by the facility would only have
to pay 4.6 cents per month more for Alternative 9 than for
Alternative 11. A decision for Alternative 9 when such
small costs (well within the uncertainty of the cost estimates
and to be less if a realistic interest rate were used) are
involved would constitute an arbitrary and capricious disregard
of the environment. This is because an added cost of 4.6
cents per month is a reasonable method to mitigate and
eliminate the adverse environmental consequences of Alternative
11 which are significantly greater than Alternative 9. The
Facilities Plan indicates that North Port Orchard is about
30% worse environmentally than Manchester.
Yet the 4.6 cents per month differential may be reversed if
the costs of all reasonably required mitigative measures
(see pages IV-12, 26, 27, 31, for example) and added studies
(see page IV-15, for example) and other costs identified in
Appendix A, 40 CFR §35 are fully accounted for.
Sincerely yours,
HOUGHTON CLtfGK COUGHLIN X RILEY
s> ^{-€- 'y'-/&?i.
Joel Haggard-' /
JH:mn
cc: Mr. C. A. Ross
Honorable Frank Randall
Honorable John Merkel
IX-116
a
*3
i*
-------
Response to letter of 26 March 1976 from Mr. Joel Haggard
1. Collectors are not normally funded by EPA grants and are not included
as part of the proposed project. As collection systems are proposed
later they will be subject to separate environmental reviews. The
health benefits of providing these collectors have been demonstrated
years ago. The proposed project would take wastewater from these
collectors to a central treatment facility and discharge treated
effluent.
No adverse impacts were found in association with the site proposed
for the recommended plan. Configuration of buildings within the site
is not considered relevant to environmental impact in this case. No
significant adverse impacts were found in association with the outfall
pipeline routing.
2. Please see the response to comment No. 3 of your earlier letter, which
addresses the separate treatment of Trident wastes. As for deep well
injection, groundwater is of higher quality than marine waters by any
standard and is used as the major source of water supply in the study
area.
3. Our discussions with the U.S. Navy resulted in their assessment that
90 percent of their wastewater would be domestic sewage. This implies
that 90 percent of their water use is for domestic purposes. At this
time, wastewater reuse for domestic purposes is not acceptable within
this country. No potential industrial users of reclaimed wastewater
were found in the study area.
The availability of sufficient groundwater supplies in the study area
has been referenced in the Facilities Plan as a personal communication
with Mr. Arnold Hansen, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey
in Tacoma, Washington on 28 October 1975.
The attached chart presents the Navy's estimate of wastewater source
distribution on the Trident Support Site. The reuse of wastewater
from each facility was considered in the preparation of these estimates,
but no major reuse opportunities are forseen at this time.
4. Appendix I of the draft supplement EIS states that three soil types
found in the study area are suitable for land disposal of effluent;
they are Indianola loamy sand, Kitsap silt loam and undifferentiated
alluvial soils. Based upon Figure 5-3 of the Facilities Plan's tech-
nical report, the relative quantity of the desired soils in the con-
fines of the Trident Support Site is very low and inadequate for land
disposal. See also the response to comment No. 3 of your earlier letter.
IX-117
-------
oooooooooooo
OOOOOOOC3OOOO
Lf)r— LOi— COCOVOi— OOOO
i—i szcrcai— coi—i
Q;OUJZD
-------
5. The environmental ratings, even when prepared by technical experts,
are subjective as to the numbers assigned. For this reason, ratings
should be used as a tool or an aid, not as a final, determining fac-
tor. The computer output provided in Appendix A shows a rating sensi-
tivity, i.e., the change in the base score of an alternative if a
particular factor were to change by 10 points.
The deficiency in the modeling only provides uncertainty as to the
complete accuracy of the estimated impacts. The modeling is not
perfect for any of the disposal sites. It should be noted that marine
water quality ratings were determined from basic continuity equations
and not Parametrix's results.
6. A review of the weightings and ratings has been conducted and several
clerical errors uncovered. These errors have been corrected before pre-
sentation in the final EIS. The relative ranking of alternatives does
not change. We must emphasize the need to use ratings only as a tool
and that several alternatives with numerically close ratings are es-
sentially "equally" good.
7. The apparent ponding of water at the treatment plant site seems to be
caused by poor drainage due to subsoil conditions, but the water may
actually be connected to the groundwater. A soils survey will be con-
ducted prior to the preparation of detailed facility design drawings.
It is expected that groundwater problems can readily be overcome by
standard construction techniques and, if they cannot, the site loca-
tion may be moved. This should not require a new EIS once the basic
concept of the preferred alternative has been explored and accepted.
We have never heard of a wastewater treatment plant suffering accidental
spills on the property, although discharges of not fully treated waste
have been known to occur due to poor operator control. This is a:i
unlikely event that could occur at any plant at any location, but rarely
occurs and would cause no lasting damage.
8. Mitigative measures for pipeline construction are discussed in
Chapter VI. These measures will be adopted as discussed in that
chapter and the costs are included within the cost estimates.
9. We assume you mean secondary impacts due to hookups to the Navy pipe-
line. At this time, the Navy interceptor from the Trident Support
Site is being sized to accept only U.S. Navy wastes and no capacity
is being provided for other connections except for Island Lake homes.
10. Mr. Haggard states that "Assuming a reasonable amount of receiving
water, it is the jet momentum of the diffusers, not the volume of
dilution water, which controls the near field dilution phenomenon
and hence initial dilution." This is essentially a restatement rather
than a contradiction of the discussion in the draft EIS sopplcmcnL.
IX-119
-------
In a situation where dilution is dependent on two phenonena (transport
of clean dilution water across the diffuser and momentum-induced mix-
ing) the assumption that the former does not control initial dilution
inevitably leads to the conclusion that the latter must. The fact
remains, however, that since momentum-induced mixing can be controlled
by the system designer while the transport of clean dilution water
across the diffuser is subject to the vagaries of nature, it is usually
the natural transport of water past the diffuser that determines the
initial dilution achieved.
The momentum of the discharged wastewater that leads to mixing in the
receiving waters has two components; momentum resulting from the
velocity of flow through the diffuser ports and momentum resulting
from the density differential between the discharged wastewater and
the receiving environment. The density of the receiving water will
always be much greater than that of the discharged wastewater irre-
spective of the temperature of the latter because the elevated density
of the former is due to its salinity rather than to its temperature.
Momentum resulting from the density differential will always be suf-
ficie"t to induce mixing in the receiving water.
11. Three factors that limit the accuracy of the University of Washington
Port Orchard model are mentioned in the draft EIS supplement: the
inability to take account of wind effects and the difficulties as-
sociated with viscosity and surface tension scale effects. These
limitations affect the accuracy of the model in predicting water
movements at any given point more severely than they affect pre-
diction of generalized water circulation. It is impossible to say
how these limitations affect predictions of water movements in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed North Port Orchard outfall, and
this clearly contributes to the uncertainties regarding expected
performance of the outfall. In recognition of these uncertainties,
however, large safety factors have been assumed in the preliminary
design and analysis of outfall systems. It is our belief that adop-
tion of these safety faccors ensures that ambient water quality will
not be significantly degraded.
Reviewing Table II-4 in the draft EIS supplement, it is apparent that
a secondary effluent diluted 10:1 with receiving water meets the AA
standard with the exc'-ption of the bacteriological standard; the
latter could be complied with readily by increasing chlorine dosage
rates. Table 11-13 indicates that, based on University of Washing Lor
current measurements, 100:1 or more initial dilution would occur
71 percent of the time. The precision of the measurements does not
allow an accurate calculation to be made of the percent of time that
initial dilution will equal or exceed 10:1, although what evidence
exists suggests that it would be in the range of 95 to 99 percent.
Thus, it would appear that degradation of ambient water quality is
extremely unlikely.
IX-120
-------
Prior to design of the proposed North Port Orchard outfall, it would
be desirable to conduct a six-month continuously recorded current-
metering study, supplemented by periodic drogue or drifter studies
and some measurement of seasonal changes in water column density
structure. The information gathered will allow the outfall to be
designed to ensure protection of the quality of the receiving waters.
12. Contrary to Mr. Haggard's assertion and based on the earlier dis-
cussion of safety factors, we believe that the information contained
in Table 11-13 confirms the adequacy of the North Port Orchard site.
With respect to Section 302 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, the effluent must be such that water quality
in the receiving waters is maintained. Standard NPDES permit conditions
(effluent limitations) are considered sufficient. The permit writer,
Department of Ecology, will have the option of adding receiving water
quaily monitoring requirements if warranted. The public will have an
opportunity to review permit conditions prior to issuance.
13. The discrepancies between the dilutions calculated by Parametrix and
Engineering-Science, stem, at least in part, from different assumptions
with respect to diffuser characteristirs. We believe that the
diffuser length assumption used in the draft EIS supplement conforms
with good engineering practice and is justified if 100:1 dilution ia
the goal. It should be noted, howaver, that 100:1 dilution was chosen
for illustrative purposes in order to compare performance of similar
diffusers at different sites. It was not intended to imply that 100:1
dilution is necessarily a desirable goal. There was no scientific
basis for choosing that particular number.
The rating of eacb disposal sitf on the basis of water quality is
somewhat subjective. However, although it represents an opinion,
it is the opinion of an educated person, specialising in that field,
who has applied the best scientific information available to him.
It must be remembered that the EVAL system serves as a guide to the
decision makers, not as the final decision on a project alternative.
The statement on page II-5 regarding a possible dilution of 5000:1
in Port Orchard Channel relates to total dilution, that is, the pro-
duct of the rapid initial dilution discussed earlier, and dilution
due to currents, wind and waves throughout North Port Orchard channel.
14. We are not sure to which statement regarding the University of Wash-
ington study Mr. Haggard refers. It is stated in the draft EIS
supplement that while the theoretical dispersion at Point Monroe
should be greater than that at Port Orchard, this was not supported
by the University of Washington model. It was not intended to imply
that no doubts exist with respect to predicted circulation in
Port Orchard channel.
In view of the high degree of initial dilution expected, it appears
extremely unlikely that movement of the seawater-treated wastewater
field into any particular area or return of the field to the discharge
IX-121
-------
area with the tide will cause a violation of water quality standards.
No measurable build-up of waste constituents in Port Orchard channel
is expected.
15. Our conclusion that the University of Washington model studies do
not support the theoretical assessment, that dispersion at Point
Montor should be superior to that at Port Orchard, was based on
the observation of a movie-film of dye studies conducted using the
model rather than from the text of report. Regardless of the model
results, it is pointed out in the draft EIS supplement that "Based
on the relative exposure of the two remaining sites to large scale
water movements in Puget Sound, (Point Monroe) should be the superior
site," a statement that corresponds well with the University of Wash-
ington conclusion that "discharge into the main basin of Puget Sound
is more desirable than discharge into the Port Orchard system."
The issue at stake is not whether dispersion at Point Monroe is
greater than at North Port Orchard; it almost certainly is. The
issue is whether the theoretical incremental environmental benefits
01 discharge at Point Monroe justify the increased cos*~s. It is a
common experience in environmental management that removal of the
last vestiges of a pollutant can cost much more than removal of the
mass of the pollutant. Harvesting by hand the ears of wheat remaining
in a field after the combine has passed is rarely cost-effective.
The question to be addressed is whether the theoretical environmental
benefits of discharge at Point Monroe, as opposed to North Port Orchard,
are analagous to the remaining ears of wheat; they can be harvested,
but is it worth it.
16. Approximately 10,000 to 15,000 persons will reside on the Trident base.
This figure is obtained from the projected housing at the site and an
estimated family size of 3.3 persons per household. The on-base
housing, according to the U.S. Navy, will be the principal source of
uastewr-ter flow. We have been informed that the balance will be due
to some machine shops, photography processors, etc., with the largest
industrial contribution to be from heating plant boiler blowdown,
as shown in the response to comment No. 3.
17. The Trident flow contribution remains unchanged. On water reuse,
please see the answer to comment No. 3. There would be no reduced
capacity due to a decrease in Trident flow because a decrease is not
anticipated.
Sewer line capacity will be based upon the 20-year design flow. This
is less than commonly practiced but acceptable because higher capa-
cities cannot be justified due to a lack of longer range population
projections; also, limited capacities are in line with the local
populations' concerns about unwanted, excessive growth.
IX-122
-------
18, Sludge disposal, as a part of an EPA funded treatment plant, will be
in accordance with accepted practice. However, EPA will not fund
sludge disposal in central Kitsap County because the landfill site
is already owned by the County and is in operation. EPA involvement
would occur only if there were a problem with leachate or surface run-
off, which is not the case. If you read further in the guidelines you
cite (to 40 CFR I 241.100 (v)), you will find that "solid wastes",
the subject of the guidelines, does not include solids in sewage (sludges)
The report to which you refer is the project report of a demonstration
grant to the City of Oceanside, California, and is not nearly of as much
application as "Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land",
July 1973 Joint Conference Proceedings. You may also wish to review
the publications listed in "Land Application of Sewage Effluents and
and Sludges: Selected Abstracts "(EPA-660/2-74-042, June 1974). EPA
currently has not promulgated guidelines for the disposal of wastewater
sludges in sanitary landfills.
The facilities planner used State of Washington standards for the de-
sign of the landfill facility. They are RCW 70.95, the State Solid
Waste Management Act and WAG 173-301, the State Minimum Functional
Standards. The Standards are similar to EPA's 40CFR-241 which apply
only to activities on Federal Facilities.
19. Please refer to the final EIS, Chapter I, for a complete detailed cost
presentation of the various alternatives according to the newest esti-
mates presented in the final Facilities Plan.
20. An interest rate of 5 7/8 percent, current at the time of the cost
analysis, is used in the final EIS in Chapter I. The rate will vary
from time to time, but it is important that all of the alternatives
are analyzed according to the same rate.
21. The basis is the Navy's proportion of the flow and their cost of the
interceptor sewer. It is based upon design flow of sewage at the
strengths stipulated in Chapter II of the EIS.
22. If effluent and receiving water monitoring were to indicate that
during operation the proposed facility were causing water quality
criteria to be violated, then an upgrading of the facility or a
relocation of the outfall would be in order, A very rough estimate
of the increased costs would range from $1.5 million capital and
$0.46 million annual total based upon tertiary treatment as at
Silverdale, to $5.2 million capital and $0.54 million annual total
based upon the longer outfall to Bainbridge Island.
23. The facilities planner for Sinclair Inlet has indicated that the
Manchester outfall site for central Kitsap's waste would probably
be an undesirable solution. This is presented in a letter printed
in this chapter. We concede that the Manchester site is probably
superior with regard to physical impacts, but we are not convinced
that this is sufficiently so and that North Port Orchard's impacts
are so bad as to justify the higher cost.
IX-123
-------
24. The introductory chapter in the final EIS explains the revisions
of cost necessitated by reevaluation of Poulsbo's participation
and presents new, complete costs for each alternative. Alternative 11
still has substantially less cost.
IX-124
-------
Telephone 876-7152. Extension 255
MUTOffU
KITSAP COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING • PORT ORCHARD. WASHINGTON 98366
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mr. Dick Theil, Environmental Protection Agency
Amv,
Robert E. MitchelltlnCitsap County Planning Director
WAR 241976
Adequacy of DEIS & SDEIS on Central Kitsap Wastewater
Facilities Project for Local DEIS.
DATE: March 5, 1976
Section WAC 197-10-650 of the SEPA guidelines states that the "pre-
paration of an EIS shall not apply when an adequate final EIS has
been prepared pursuant to ...(NEPA)." The adequacy of a federal
EIS is determined in part by the adequacy of specific elements of
the EIS when applied locally. These specific elements are listed
in the SEPA guidelines, WAC 197-10-444. Pursuant to your request,
this memorandum addresses the adequacy of the treatment of these
elements in the EIS on the Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan, prepared by EPA, Region X, when applied locally. Each
element will be addressed separately in the order they are listed
in the SEPA outlines.
The elements are organized into two categories, "Elements of the
Physical Environment", (1) and "Elements of the Human Environment",
(2). The subcategories are identified by lower-case letters and
the sub-subcategories are identified by lower case Roman numerals.
Following each subcategory and/or sub-subcategory, is a listing of
the pages in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and/or
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) on
which the element is addressed.
If the DEIS and/or the SDEIS is not adequate, a statement to that
effect is made, including the additional information or conclusions
necessary to make the statements adequate.
1. Elements of the Physical Environment
a. Earth
i. Geology (page II-2, DEIS)
ii. Soils (II-4, IV-29, DEIS; II-l, IV-20 SDEIS)
As stated in the DEIS and SDEIS, the extent of change
in yield of native and/or cropped vegetation brought
about by the proposed alternative should remain un-
changed .
IX-125
-------
Page two
March 5, 1976
iii. Topography (11-23 to 32, DEIS; II--1 to 8, SDEIS)
iv. Unique physical features
The topography and unique physical features of the
study area and the proposed treatment plant sites
are adequately inventoried and evaluated. Disrup-
tions of topography and other physical features
along pipe routes and at treatment plant sites will
be minor and generally involve road rights-of-way.
v. Erosion (IV-6 to 7 and V-2, DEIS; IV-7 SDEIS)
The potential for erosion along pipeline routes is
adequately addressed. The potential of erosion
from removal of vegetation during development of
sewered areas is much greater.
vi. Acretion/Avulsion - not applicable.
Air
i. Air quality (11-10, IV-3, DEIS; IV-3, SDEIS)
As stated in the statements, the proposed project
is not expected to change ambient air quality which
is currently very good.
ii. Odor (IV-5, DEIS; IV-5, SDEIS)
The proposed project is not expected to create odors
in the project area, as stated in the DEIS and SDEIS.
iii. Climate (II-7, DEIS)
The proposed project will not alter existing clima-
tic conditions as stated in the DEIS and SDEIS.
Water (11-58, DEIS)
i. Surface water movement (see surface water quality and
quantity, below).
ii. Runoff/absorption (see soils, 2.a.ii)
iii. Floods - not applicable.
iv. and v. Surface water quantity & surface water quality
(11-15 to 16, 11-32 to 42, IV-3 to 33, IV-36 to 42, DEIS;
II-8, 11-11 to 20, IV-21 to 27, IV-85 to 88, SDEIS)
As stated in the DEIS and SDEIS, the proposed project
should upgrade Clear Creek, Burkes Creek, and other
IX-126
-------
Page three
March 5, 1976
streams to meet water quality indicators through
reduction of septic tanks in this area. If the
Island Lake area is sewered, the water quality of
the lake will be upgraded also. The effects on
water quality of the discharge of secondary level
treated wastewaters were evaluated for each outfall
site. This evaluation is more than adequate for
local purposes.
vi., vii., viii. and ix - Ground water movement, ground
water quantity, ground water quality and public
water supplies. (11-17 to 22, IV-34 to 35, IV-43
to 44, V-13 to 14, DEIS; IV-26 to 27, IV-29 to 31,
V-8, SDEIS)
Although the quality of ground water will improve
with the proposed project, the quantity is expected
to decline through the lowering of the water level
in shallower, hand-dug wells in the study area.
This impact identified in the statements will be
mitigated by the expansion of public water systems.
The wells in these systems will utilize water from
aquifers rather than water present in the uppermost
layers of the soil.
Flora
i., ii., and iii. - Numbers or diversity of species,
unique species and barriers and/or corridors.
(11-23 to 32, 11-42 to 51, IV-13 to 28, V-2 to 12,
DEIS; II-l to 8, IV-6 to 7, IV-11 to 19, IV-32,
SDEIS)
The flora of the study area, the treatment plant
sites, the outfall sites (marine habitats) and other
surface water in creeks and lakes and the impact of
the projects on flora are adequately inventoried and
evaluated.
The secondary impact of loss of habitat due to deve- I *•
lopment could also be mentioned. '
The need for effective land use controls near pipe- I £,
line routes could be emphasized more. |
iv. Agricultural crops (IV-45, DEIS; IV-20, SDEIS)
Soil properties affecting yield of native or cropped
vegetation will not be affected by the proposed pro-
ject. The DEIS also includes inventories on lands
used for agricultural crops, including pastures,
that will be changed by each alternative, but does
not rate these impacts in Section IV of the DEIS or
SDEIS.
IX-127
-------
Page four
March 5, 1976
e. Fauna
i. and iii. - Numbers or diversity of species and barriers
and/or corridors.
(IV-23 to 32, 11-44 to 52, 11-54 to 57, IV-8 to 11,
IV-46, DEIS; II-l to 8, IV-8 to 9, IV-33, IV-66 to
67, SDEIS)
The fauna of the study area, the treatment plant
sites, the outfall sites (marine habitats) and other
surface waters in the study area and the impacts of
the project on fauna are adequately inventoried and
evaluated. Construction of pipelines and the treat-
ment plant will result in a minor decrease in wild-
life habitats, as stated in the DEIS. The secondary
impact of loss of habitat due to development also
could be mentioned.
ii. Unique species (IV-12, DEIS; IV-10, SDEIS)
As stated in the DEIS and SDEIS, no long-range nega-
tive impacts are anticipated as a direct result of
the project. However, a secondary impact of in-
creased densities of development may be loss of
habitat for the mountain lion and fisher.
iv. Fish or wildlife habitat (III-8, IV-13 to 28, IV-47,
V-4 to 12, DEIS; IV-11 to 19, IV-34, IV-68 to 84,
V-10 to 15 SDEIS)
As stated in the DEIS, the greatest impact will be
on marine habitats in the vicinity of the treatment
plant outfall. These impacts and mitigating measures
for negative impacts are adequately inventoried and
evaluated.
f. Noise (H-4, DEIS; IV-4, SDEIS)
The minor negative impact of plant operation and the tempo-
rary negative impact of construction noise are adequately
addressed.
g. Light and Glare - not applicable.
h. Land use (11-74, IV-74 to 76, IV-76, VII-2, DEIS; IV-53 to
55, IV-57, IV-101, VII-2, SDEIS)
The DEIS rates the compatibility of the treatment plant
site alternatives with the planned land use in the area but
does not adequately address the relationship between the
Clear Creek pipeline route and land use along the pipeline.
IX-128
-------
Page five
March 5, 1976
The statement is made that the plan will "assist the local
jurisdiction to direct development to areas designated for
growth...by providing service in desired areas and denying
access in other areas". However, as stated in the SDEIS,
"...all the land bounding Clear Creek is designated as
rural. An interceptor traversing this area will tend to in-
duce development which might not otherwise occur." Denying
access in this area, as suggested by the DEIS, would be
difficult. The SDEIS continues as follows: "In fact, it
was in large part due to these concerns, expressed by the
public, that (the eleventh) alternative was put forward.
Alternative ll's routing of the pipeline from Trident will
avoid the Clear Creek area and thus obviate any potential
growth-inducing impacts". Although the above statements
are not questionable, the SDEIS also states that "(T)here
are no foreseeable growth pressures along this alternative
pipeline route". A more correct statement would be that
there will be growth pressures along any pipeline route.
Denying access along alternative ll's route will be just as
difficult as denying access along the Clear Creek route.
i.
i.
Natural
SDETS)
resources (IV-42 to 47, DEIS; IV-29 to 34,
Rate of use
ii. Non-renewable resources
See also sections on flora, fauna, earth, air and
water above.
As stated in the DEIS and SDEIS, the impact on
natural resources will be negligible or slightly
positive, except for the quantity of potable water
available which will be slightly reduced. Water
is a renewable natural resource, and other sources
in addition to shallow wells will be developed to
serve the project area.
j. Risk of explosion or hazardous emissions - not applicable.
2. Elements of the Human Environment
a. Population (11-70 to 72, 11-75 to 83, IV-58, IV-80-81,
VT.T.-2, DEIS; 11-24 to 28, IV-45, IV-59, IV-102 to 103,
VTI-2 SDEIS)
Since the publication of the draft EIS, the population pro-
jections made by the cost-revenue consultant have been
received. These projections were compared to the projec-
tions made by COPSG. A revised population projection from
COPSG is expected in March. This projection will be re-
viewed and, if acceptable, adopted as the official projec-
tion for Kitsap County, and forwarded to EPA, URS, and SES,
IX-129
-------
Page six
March 5, 1976
On page 11-83 of the draft EIS, the statement is made that,
..."the distribution of the increased population is expec-
ted to diffuse within the limits imposed by the County plan,
with concentration along the major transportation corridors
and pipeline routes". It should be noted that the County
plan may not suggest population growth along all corridors
and pipeline routes, especially those in areas designated
in the County plan as rural.
b. Housing (11-64, 11-74, IV-65 to 73, V-16 to 20, DEIS;
IV-50 to 52, IV-98 to 99, SDEIS)
The 1970 inventory of land use is adequate for the study
area. A more recent land use inventory was made by COPSG;
however, this inventory is available only for the County,
and cannot be disaggregated to the study area.
Prediction of impacts on residential values and tax rates
is particularly useful to local agencies. Although the
DEIS does not address the effect of a sewer on housing den-
sities nor does it compare the purchase price of a dwelling
unit served by sewer to the cost of a unit with on-site
sewage disposal, both housing density and cost were adequa-
tely addressed in the cost-revenue alternatives study.
Housing is also addressed indirectly through discussion of
land use in 2 (h.) above.
c. Transportation/circulation (11-65, IV-56, IV-90, DEIS;
IV-43, IV-64, SDEIS)
i. Vehicular transportation generated
As stated in the reports, the impact of the construc-
tion of the sewage plant will have a temporary, minor
impact on traffic. No additional local impacts are
anticipated. The operation and maintenance of the
sewage treatment plant will generate even less traffic.
ii. Adequate parking facilities
Parking facilities for the plant will be provided as
stated in the DEIS.
iii. Transportation systems (IV-56, DEIS)
As stated in the DEIS, the existing treatment plant
sites will be served by existing access roads, which
at most may require limited widening or repair. New
sites may require construction of short access roads
and possible lighting.
iv. Movement/circulation of people or goods - not applicable
IX-130
-------
Page seven
March 5, 1976
v. Waterborne, rail & air traffic - not applicable.
vi. Traffic hazards - not applicable.
d. Public services (11-60, 11-63 to 64, DEIS; 11-20 to 22,
SDEIS)
i., ii., & iii. - Fire, police and public schools
As stated in the DEIS and SDEIS, fire, police and public
schools are available in the study area. Although the
population increase in the area will increase the demand
on these services, the cost/effectiveness of providing
these services to each household should improve.
iv. Parks and recreation (see i. below)
v. Maintenance (11-69, IV-59 to 60, DEIS; 11-23,
IV-46, IV-93, SDEIS)
As stated in the DEIS and SDEIS, municipal costs of
operating and maintaining the sewer system will
stay the same or increase slightly. This evaluation
is adequate for local purposes.
e. Energy
i. & ii. Amount required and source/availability
The amount of electrical power required for opera-
tion of the sewage collection and treatment is avail-
able from Puget Sound Power and Light. Although the
alternatives vary in the amount required for trans-
portation of the effluent, this difference is not
considered to be a significant factor in selection
of the alternative.
f. Utilities
i. Energy (11-60, IV-48 to 49, DEIS; 11-20, JV-35 to
36, SDEIS)
As the DEIS and SDEIS state, electricity and gas are
primary sources of energy and are adequate for pro-
ject demands as well as all Trident related demands.
ii. Communications (IT-60, DEIS; 11-20, SDEIS)
Although telephone service is provided throughout the
study area, service is provided by two companies.
Therefore, calls between the two service areas are
long distance, inconveniencing users and increasing
the potential delay in obtaining emergency services.
Although communications in the project area are less
than satisfactory, the proposed project will have no
effect on this utility.
IX-131
-------
Page eight
March 5, 1976
iii. Water (IV-50, DEIS; IV-60, IV-37, SDEIS)
The DETS and RDEIS state that the proposed project
will not increase demands on the local water supply
systems, that is, the Silverdale and North Perry
Water Districts, the Poulsbo and Bremerton water
systems and the Public Utility District system in
Keyport. However, it is evident that sewer service
requires water service. The sharp increase in de-
mand for sewer will be accompanied by a moderate
increase in demand for water.
iv,
Sewer
DEIS;
sewer
(11-60
11-21,
to 62, III-l
III-5 to 13,
to 8, III-ll to 30, IV-55,
IV-42, SDEIS; Cost of
IV-59 to 71, DEIS; IV-46 to 52, SDEIS)
The DEIS and SDEIS state that the project will signi-
ficantly augment the existing system on a continuing
basis at comparatively small initial cost to the
County and ongoing cost to the County and system user.
The' construction of the sewer is also a means of
implementing a comprehensive land use plan, which
when implemented cannot be altered. Therefore, sewer
construction is correlated with an irreversible
change in land use patterns.
v. Storm water (IV-54, DEIS; IV-41, IV-91, SDEIS)
The DEIS and SDEIS rate the degree to which the pro-
posed project imposes demands for drainage and flood
control on surrounding properties and local flood
control system. However, an indirect impact of the
project will be the increase in storm water runoff
as a result of increases in the density of residen-
tial development.
vi. Solid waste (III-8, 10 and 11, DEIS; III-4, SDEIS)
As stated in the DEIS, the treatment of wastewater
results in the production of sewage sludge. Although
the amount of sludge is small when compared to the
total solid waste generated in the County, land dis-
posal of the sludge is preferred to incineration.
Should the County's plan to construct a land disposal
site be altered, for example, to a resource recovery
system, a land disposal site would still have to be
maintained for disposal of the sewage sludge.
Human health
i. Public health (including mental health) - (T.I-63 to
64, DEIS; 11-22, SDEIS)
As implied by the reports, the impact on public health
is secondary.
IX-132
-------
Page nine
March 5, 1976
ii. Environmental health
SDEIS)
(IV-51, DEIS; IV-38, IV-90,
The degree to which the proposed project reduces
environmental health hazards and demands on the
environmental health division of the local health
district is adequately addressed.
Aesthetics (11-83 to 84, IV-85 to 89, V-21 to 24, DEIS;
11-29, IV-63, IV-105 SDEIS)
As stated in the report, the aesthetic and visual impact
of a sewage treatment plant will vary greatly with its
location. The visual impact of a pipeline is less and
will decrease in time as indigenous ground cover is re-
placed .
i.
Recreation (11-58, IV-52 to 53, IV-83 to 84, DEIS;
IV-39 to 40, IV-62, IV-104, SDEIS)
The beneficial impact of all alternatives on water
recreation and potential for trail development is
adequately addressed.
However, a secondary impact not addressed in the re-
port, will be the change in type of recreation faci-
lities demanded, as a result of increases in densi-
ties of development. Removal of the Silverdale
Sewage Treatment plant from the Silverdale waterfront
park will also improve the recreational value of this
facility.
j. Archaeological/historical (11-74, IV-82, DEIS; IV-61, SDEIS)
The impact of the proposed project on archaelogical and
historical sites is negligible, as stated in the report.
REM/JCT/MTH/tlh
IX-133
-------
Response to comments from Kitsap County Planning Department:
1. There will be a secondary loss of wildlife habitat due to develop-
ment, however, it is our conclusion that each development will be
due to natural and Trident-induced growth. Project induced growth
in the study area would be negligible.
2. We agree that there is a need for effective land use controls near
pipeline routes. This was most sharply demonstrated by the debate
over the Clear Creek interceptor route. Conclusions of that de-
bate were that land use designation should be provided by the Kit-
sap County Planning Department and that designation enforced by
Kitsap County officials.
3. Please see the response to comment No. 1.
4. We believe the contrary to be true. Higher density development
concentrates the population and keeps people from encroaching upon
natural areas. A population density of one family per acre is just
as damaging to fishers and mountain lions as a density of three to
four families per acre, and it requires more land area.
5. Growth may ultimately occur along the Luoto Road pipline route if
excess sewerage capacity is provided in the interceptor sewer.
However, a deliberately planned lack of excess capacity would re-
tard growth pressures. Further, it was felt that the Clear Creek
area was contiguous with the business district of Silverdale, a
positive growth inducing factor, while the Luoto Road route has less
such attraction.
IX-134
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX C-37S5
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER
8 OCT 1975
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the Central
Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities, Washington, EPA Project C-530494-01.
We have the following comment.
We would like to remind you that under Section 10 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1899, a Department of the Army permit will be required for any of
the nine alternatives that are still being considered.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Sincerely yours,
F:Y:O H. W
Assistant Chief, Engineering Division
IX-135
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX C-3755
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the supplement to the draft environmental impact
statement on the Central Kitsap County, Washington, Wastewater Facilities,
EPA Project C-530494-01, with respect to the Corps of Engineers' areas of
responsibility for flood control, navigation and hydropower. We have the
following comment.
We would like to remind you that a Department of the Army permit will be
required for all construction in, over and beneath all navigable waters
of the United States, or adjacent wetlands.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Sincerely yours,
'•"?•>r4 :.oor Irg Di /' ^i '• n
IX-136
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
October 14, 1975
REGION X
Office of Community
Planning and Development
IN REPLY REFER TO:
10D
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement Central Kitsap County
Wastewater Facilities
We have reviewed the statement submitted with your September 5, 1975
letter requesting comments by October 20th.
The proposed project is the construction of interceptor sewer lines,
wastewater treatment facility and waste water disposal facility to service
central Kitsap County and the Trident support site.
We have some concerns in the area of overall coordination. The County is
presently developing a growth study, which is scheduled for completion
in June of 1976. This growth study will be based on the Arthur D. Little
study, which has just recently been completed. It would appear to us that
to commit this project to a specific alternative before the development of
the growth policy could defeat the purpose of the policy.
The Arthur D. Little study contains a method for cost revenue evaluation
of growth. Although the E.I.S. contains a similar method, we suggest that
each alternative be evaluated using the ADL methodology since it will be used
by the County to consider alternate growth policies.
The E.I.S. does not evaluate the cost alternatives of a limited access I
growth policy. This could result in unacceptable user costs. I *
From a technical standpoint we concur in your analysis that your most favored
site at Manchester would achieve better effluent diffusion than your next
favored site at Brownsville.
IX-137
-------
Although the Brownsville site shows significantly lower annual cost, in the
long run this may not be significant in that this location is not favorable
from the standpoint of meeting ultimate treatment facility needs. Again,
in a large part the ultimate needs would be dependent upon the County's
growth policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your statement.
Sincerely, ' /
//'<••-> - . / -
C. Scalia
Assistant Regional Administrator
IX-138
-------
Response to letter from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment
1. The County is making every effort to coordinate and synchronize
the numerous planning and capital-improvement elements included
in its Trident Impact Planning Program (TIPP) . The Central Kitsap
Sewer Facilities Plan is one of these elements. The benefits to
be derived or risks avoided by delaying action on an individual
component until action on the overall program has reached comple-
tion, must be weighed against the consequences of that delay.
Ideally, it might be desirable to freeze everything in place
until all necessary planning is complete (including growth
studies such as that of A. D. Little). Unfortunately, the
press of events in the real world does not afford the luxury
of such an approach.
Even were the Navy directed to freeze its Trident construction
program in place until such time as County planners had devised
the ideal growth management system, Trident is not the only concern.
The Central Kitsap sewer facilities being analyzed in this EIS
were needed long before the Trident project was announced and would
now be in place had not Trident been added to the system. Planning
decisions and building commitments in the original service area
were made in anticipation of a 1976 target start-up date.
Among the numerous consequences of further delay are the costs
of maintaining a number of marginally effective interim sewage
facilities serving a number of new subdivisions in the central
area. The County permitted the installation of these interim
facilities and accepted responsibility for their operation based
on the expectation that the regional system would soon be on line.
The longer these interim facilities have to remain in use the greater
the frequency of breakdown and the consequent public health hazards
and higher public costs of repair. There are other consequences
of delay affecting the location, design and timing of new develop-
ments and new housing costs which are just as serious.
2. A principal reason for concern with a limited access policy was
the possible location of the Trident Support Site interceptor
in Clear Creek Valley. This is not a concern with the recom-
mended alternative, which routes the pipeline along the northern
edge of the study area and away from anticipated growth areas.
As HUD may be aware the original service area and proposed rout-
ing of trunk lines for the Central Kitsap facility were designed
to serve areas where substantial housing development activity
was occurring and in keeping with County planning policy. It is
the addition of the trunk line from Bangor and routing of that line
through areas currently designated as rural to link up with the
original regional system which raises questions regarding a limited
access policy. The fact of the matter is that policy regarding
IX-139
-------
access in this particular instance will not necessarily affect
user costs, and certainly not negatively. The Navy, in order to
transport its wastewater to the County's regional treatment facil-
ity, will pay the full costs of the trunk lines and operating
costs its loads will require. If the County desires to increase
the size of the pipe linking Bangor to the regional disposal site
in order to accommodate local collector line hook-ups along that
route, it has the option of doing so, if in accordance with duly
adopted plans. The resulting user charges would be based on the
capacity added to the line primarily designed for Navy loads.
These costs are expected to be lower than would be expected if
the same capacity were built on its own.
There is no evidence to support the contention that the proposed
Brownsville site would not meet ultimate treatment needs. If and
when the EPA or Washington State establishes higher treatment
level requirements, the additional unit processes can be added
at the facility site. In terms of ultimate growth, the plant site
is well located with regard to the three expected growth centers:
Trident, central Kitsap County and Poulsbo.
IX-140
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE M/S 317
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
February 26, 1976
REGION X
Office of Community
Planning & Development
IN REPLY REFER TO:
10D
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section
M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Subject: Supplement to D.E.I.S. Central Kitsap County Wastewater
Facilities
We have reviewed your supplement and have no further comments.
/
Sincerely, -
Robert C. Scalia
Assistant Regional Administrator
IX-141
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
PEP ER-75/884
fJOV 1 1
Dear Dr. Smith:
Thank you for the letter of September 5, 1975,. requesting
our views and comments on the draft environmental impact
statement for Wastewater Facilities, Central Kitsap County,
Washington. Although the document adequately addresses most
impacts, additional information is needed to assess possible
environmental impacts resulting from the proposal relative to
the jurisdiction and expertise of this Department.
The draft statement is written on ten alternatives. However,
the proposed project has not been selected from the ten altern-
atives. The "...major Federal action significantly affecting
the quality'of the human environment, ..." is the specific
project to be implemented, rather than the ten alternatives
studied. A separate draft environmental statement on the
specific project should be considered to present the antici-
pated impacts in greater detail than the generalized summary
findings contained in this statement.
From the standpoint of safeguarding fish and wildlife and
particularly marine resources, the disposal characteristics of
alternative plan No. 9 are such that there would be a minimum
of contact between marine organisms and high concentrations of
wastewater effluent. Consequently, we urge thoughtful consid-
eration of adopting this alternative as the project plan.
Alternatives 3 and 4 call for discharge of treated effluent
south of Fay Bainbridge State Park. There is, however, nothing
to substantiate the conclusion that the project would have a
neutral effect on parks and recreation in the area. Would the
project cross park lands? What would be the effect on aesthetic
and physical environments of the park? What recreation facilities
would be disturbed or destroyed and what mitigative measures would
be proposed? What effect would the discharge effluent have on
local swimming, boating and beach combing at the park? Answers
to these questions are necessary to determine the impact on Fay
Bainbridge State Park.
RECEIVED
IX-142
-------
Figures III-6 and III-7 indicate that Alternatives 3 and 4 might
intrude on Kitsap County's Keyport Park. The same questions are
also applicable to this park. Use of any of Keyport Park for
project purposes would require the prior approval of the Secretary
of the Interior. This is required because the County obtained
this former Federal surplus property from the United States ex-
clusively and in perpetuity for public park and recreation pur-
poses and it is so restricted by a deed covenant. We would
consider a request for a non-recreation use, as might be required
by the project, only if it could be shown that there is no feas-
ible and prudent alternative and there would be no interference
with the public park and recreation purposes of the park.
Chapter IV, page IV-84; Chapter V; and Chapter VI need revision
to reflect these concerns regarding these two parks.
Bicycling is a growing and popular activity for Kitsap County
residents and visitors who pursue it both as a means of recrea-
tion and transportation. The increased population generated by
the Trident project can be expected to create more demand for
bicycle facilities. Likewise, a similar situation exists re-
garding hiking trails and walkways in the county.
This project presents an excellent opportunity to incorporate
hiking and/or bicycling paths along interceptor sewer lines.
To fully realize the potentials of this opportunity, we suggest
that the following be considered:
1. Recognition of public recreation and non-motorized transport-
ation as one of the interests in land acquired by the applicant
for construction of the interceptor sewers.
2. A sufficiently wide right-of-way or easement for these
purposes.
3. A center line location of the easement or right-of-way
selected to include walking and bicycling as one of the determi-
nants of horizontal and vertical alignment.
4. Coordination with the Kitsap County and Washington State
Trail Plans prepared pursuant to Washington State Law. Infor-
mation on the State plan is available from:
Interagency Committee for
Outdoor Recreation
4800 Capitol Boulevard
Tumwater, Washington 98504
IX-143
-------
Information on the county plan is available from:
Kitsap County Board of Commissioners
614 Division Street
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
5. Investigation of other Environmental Protection Agency
grant projects in the Eastern United States that have incor-
porated bicycling and hiking facilities. In addition to the
EPA Regional Administrators for Regions I and III, you may
wish to contact:
Maurice D. Arnold, Regional Director
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Northeast Region
Federal Office Building
600 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
The area of the proposed wastewater facilities is located in
seismic risk Zone 3, where major destructive earthquakes may
occur. We suggest that the seismicity of the region and its
implications for siting and design of the facilities be dis-
cussed in the environmental statement.
Primary effects of the project on fresh and marine surface
waters appear to have been adequately considered. However,
the effects of future development of the service area which is
likely to be encouraged by the project should be discussed in
the statement.
Page III-ll, second paragraph. The following statement needs
further consideration: The clay layer, a liner under sanitary
landfill used for disposal of partially digested and centrifuged
sewage sludge, "may be accompanied by a leachate collection and
treatment system (similar to a wastewater treatment facility)
and if the clay layer is not present must be substituted by such
a system." Examination of the geology and geohydrology of the
project area as described in the environmental statement and as
presented in Bulletin No. 18 of the State of Washington Depart-
ment of Conservation, Division of Water Resources, indicates
that extensive continuity and retention of hydraulic integrity
of layers of low permeability cannot safely be assumed in the
project area. We suggest therefore the further consideration of
the need for a clay liner protected against damage beneath all
IX-144
-------
sludge-disposal landfills, if the sludges are processed as
described, because only heat-treated and dried sludge can be
expected not to yield viruses or other pathogens .
Pages IV- 34, IV-35, IV-H3, IV-H4. We agree that water levels
will probably locally decline to some extent as a result of the
implementation of the project; however, we suggest the need for
considering the possibility that such declines will probably
prompt increasing use of the deeper aquifers and thus produce
a secondary impact. Inasmuch as ground water seems to be the
only significant source of water supply, discussion of such an
impact seems appropriate.
Although the document does not discuss mineral resources, we
know of only sand and gravel deposits within the project area.
However, the proposed pipeline routes should not adversely
affect these deposits.
The section on "Irretrievable Commitment of Resources" should *•
note that there would be a commitment of construction materials *
for building the proposed facilities .
The statement does not indicate that the Washington State
Historic Preservation Officer has been consulted to determine if
sites eligible for the "National Register of Historic Places"
are located in the study area. This consultation should be
made and the results reported in the environmental statement.
We also suggest that the statement report procedures to be used
for the preservation and enhancement of historic and archeologic
properties during the proposed construction.
Sincerely yours,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior
Dr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr.
Regional Administrator, Region X
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
IX-145
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208
March 18, 1976
ER-75/884
RECEIVED
Regional Administrator l»iAR 2 2 19/6
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X EPA-FIS
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Statement for
Wastewater Facilities, Central Kitsap County, Washington, and have the
following comments for your consideration in further preparation of the
environmental impact statement.
From the standpoint of protecting fish and wildlife resources and habitat, ^
Alternate 11 appears to be the least damaging. This is particularly true >
since it would eliminate encroachment of an interceptor sewer line along
Clear Creek drainage basin thus eliminating disruption of aquatic and
riparian habitat.
It should be noted in the Jurisdiction Section (page 11-21) that Kitsap
County also includes the Port Madison and Port Gamble Indian Reservations.
In further regard to Indian lands, it is noted that Alternatives 3 and 4 Jl
would entail construction of a sewer line through a portion of the Port
Madison Indian Reservation. It is suggested that project coordination be
initiated with these tribes prior to any construction activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.
Sincerely yours,
,O\-UT'°/V Charles T. Hoyt
Special Assistant to the Secretary
IX-146
-------
Response to letter from U.S. Department of the Interior
1. A supplemental draft environmental impact statement covering the
new alternative has been presented to the public.
2. Although it appears from initial calculations that disposal at
Manchester (alternative 9) would provide better dilution and dis-
persion of the treated effluent, it cannot be proved that this im-
provement is significant. This is particularly true when compared
to the Port Orchard channel discharge of the preferred alternative,
where treatment levels and dilution and dispersion would be ade-
quate to ensure that water quality criteria are met.
3. The discharge of treated effluent south of Fay Bainbridge State
Park would meet water quality criteria and thereby be compatible
with all adjacent water-oriented activities and uses. Letters re-
ceived from the Washington Department of Fisheries and tbe Parks
and Recreation Commission expressed intent to more intensely de-
velop recreational uses and clam harvesting in the vicinity oi the
State Park. Concerns of these agencies could be alleviated by tne
proper construction and operation of the wastewater treatment and
outfall facilities. However, the preferred alternative does not
impact that area.
4. Development of public recreational opportunities could occur equal-
ly well with any of the proposed alternatives arid the preferred al-
ternative. While not currently part of the design plans, these
opportunities can be added as plans are developed in more detail
and as interest in them is expressed by the public and by Couaty
officials. Selection of the preferred alternative was based prin-
cipally on other considerations, but the preferred plan does not
preclude development of recreational uses.
5. The seismic hazard to the proposed wastewater treatment and trans-
mission facilities will be incorporated in the design of cue i";icJ —
lities according to Washington State and current professional
technical standards.
6. It has been concluded that future development in the study area
will be due to the Trident Support Site and will be insignificant-
ly due to the wastewarer management system.
7. Our cursory examination indicates that groundwater supplies suoula
be adequate to serve the projected population in tne study area.
8. In comparison to the total construction activities anticipated ar.
a result of Lhe Trident Support. Site induced growth, the comri.lt-
ment of materials and resources to the wa:~tewater treatment, faci-
IX-147
-------
lity and transmission lines would be insignificant.
9. The archaeological survey results do state that the National Regis-
ter of Historic Places has been consulted and also that no archaeo-
logically or historically important features are in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed project. Construction of almost all pipe-
lines within highway right-of-ways and easements will keep con-
struction activity away from other areas. See also comments of
the Washington State Historical Preservation Officer later in this
chapter.
10. Alternative 11 is the proposed project, and this concern is there-
fore satisfied.
11. If an alternative other than Alternative 11 is selected by the
County, involving routes through the Port Madison Indian Reserva-
tion, the County would be required to coordinate the project with
tribal officials well prior to any construction activities.
IX-148
-------
CLEAR CREEK COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CLU3
October 27, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Wa. 98101
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Central Kitsap
County Wastewater Facilities
Dear Mr. Thiel:
At the regular meeting of the Clear Creek Community Improve-
ment Club on October 4, 1975 it was adopted that the following
comments be n.ade ir. response to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Central Kitsap Wastewater Facility:
I. In assessing impact of the various alternatives the
negative environmental effect of sewer induced population
strowth near to Clear Creek is discounted oecause current land
use pi arm ir. £ designations of the area are rural/ agricultural.
We consider this assumption is in error and should oe recor.sider-ed,
It is the County's stated objective to designate the Clear Creek
Valley as transitional if a sewer line is run down the valley.
This objective was put into public record by the Planning
Commision at the public hearing on the Interim Planning Policy.
To assume the County would not redesignate the valley to
transitional once a sewer line was installed is not reasonable.
Further, it should not be assumed the County would size the
line to only handle 3angor sewage without a specific coE-aitiEont.
from the County.
2. A second assumption which we feel is in error is that
development immediately adjacent to the Creek would not by
permitted. Until the County takes action to procure a buffer-
zone along the Creek or legislates a oufi'er zone, it should
be assumed in assessing environmental impact that euch.
will occur once the sewer is in place,
3. Under mitigative measures to protect Clear Creek
ecology routing of the Ban^or interceptor so it does rot
pass down the Clear Creek valEy should be included. Such
alterrative routings exist and may be more economical,
ecologically harmful, more advantageous to orderly -.lev«lo x. er t,
ard less disruptive to agricultural activities. Our letter
to URS company dated August 6, 1975 (copy attached) lists
several examples of these alternatives.
IX-149
-------
(2)
4. An eleventh alternative is currently under consideration
by the URS company. This eleventh alternative routes 3an?or
sevage to Keyport in lieu of Silverdale. It is requested that
this eleventh alternative oe included in the environmental
impact statement.
Respectfu
'c.R. Wai worth
President
Copy to:
Mr. Gene Lobe
Mr. 3111 Kahan
Mr. Frank Randall
Mr. Steve Fusco
IX-150
-------
Response to letter from Clear Creek. Community Improvement Club
1., 3. and 4. According to a personal communication with Ms. Peggy
Hollenbeck of the Kitsap County Planning Department, there is no
plan at this time (24 November 1975) to change land-use planning
designations in Clear Creek Valley. Also, the interceptor line
down Clear Creek Valley would be under U.S. Navy control, and ac-
cess would require U.S. Navy approval. However, it is recognized
that policy decisions are not cast in concrete and may change as
future circumstances warrant. For this reason, the recommended
alternative was developed, and it would circumvent the entire ques-
tion of Clear Creek Valley development. Under the recommended al-
ternative, population growth in Clear Creek Valley would be influ-
enced by other factors and controlled through the zoning process.
2. According to the Kitsap County Planning Department (referenced
above), the Washington State Department of Fisheries is maintaining
a close watch to protect the spawning grounds in Clear Creek. Ex-
isting legislation is adequate to protect Clear Creek from damaging
development, and the area is being monitored to assure compliance.
IX-151
-------
, NORTHWEST STEELHEADERS COUNCIL
* of
TROUT UNLIMITED
BREMERTON CHAPTER
P. 0. Box 2252
Bremerton, Washington, 98310
November 9, 1975
Environmental Protection Agency
Richard Thiel
Public Affairs Office
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, Washington
Dear Sir:
We are a group that is dedicated to the protection and
enhancement of the cold water fishery and as such are very
interested in the proposed sewer project and its affect
on Clear Creek.
We are apainst any alternative that vould disrupt the fish
or spawinp. beds that are in the creek. If the creek is involved
in the final alternative we recommend that the Washington State
Fisheries Program of stream rehabilitation be incorporated.
We want to he involved in any futvre public meetings on this
subject and would like to be notified of time and place.
If you have any specific questions for our group or we can
help in any way please call or write.
Thank you.
pril V,raapa, Director
Bremerton Chapter NWS
3927 Valley Drive
Bremerton, Wa. 9°310
Phone: 377-7,^7
Eernie Whittaker, Director
"Bremerton Chapter KWS
1921 9th St.
Bremerton, Wa. 9-310
Phone: 373-4716
Sincerely
Phil Waaga
Berni e Whittaker
cc: Steve Fusco
RECEIVED
11 1S75
PDA
IX-152
-------
PRESIDENT. ALFRED T HARRIS
VICE PRESIDENT ADRIAN O HUDLER
SECRETARY MARJORIE M FISCHER
TREASURER CLAUS NORDLUND
Lemolo Community Club
A Non-Profit Corporation
Rt. 6 Box 6534
Fbulsbo, Wa 98370
February 17, 1976
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 RECEIVED
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue IT 6 1 9 1976
Seattle, Washington. 98101
CPA ri~
*»! «•'!"•
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, i.e., Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities, EPA
Project No.C-530494-01 . We wish to make the following comments.
There is repeated reference to Poulsbo's and Lemolo 's wastewaters,
page 111-1 and raw wastewater from Poulsbo and Lemolo, page 111-4
and 111-5.
Although Lemolo is located with- in the Poulsbo planning area, Poulsbo
is not currently handling raw wastewater from the Lemolo area nor is
such service needed or contemplated in future.
Lemolo, unincorporated, is a sparsely populated community located
east of Poulsbo. The Kitsap County Planning Department has designated
this area on their comprehensive planning map as rural. The Kitsap
County Health Department, after conducting tests in the area, have
found that septic tanks are adequate to handle the sewage needs of
the area. In fact one County official has stated that the Lemolo
area will not need to be sewered for at least 50 years, if at all.
Providing a sewage facility that could serve the Lemolo area could be
an expensive mistake. For this reason we suggested to the URS
Company an alternate route for Poulsbo to join the regional system.
This route, instead of going through Lemolo and across Liberty Bay
would go around the west side of Liberty Bay and down highway 303 to
the interceptor line. We understand the URS Company has stated that
this route would be too expensive. We feel, that do to the fact that
this route would take the sewage line through the Poulsbo Junction
area, which will need sewers and is in a transitional zone that is
destained for a higher population density, it would make sense to
review the feasability of this route as opposed to going through a
rural area.
Sincerely,
Sraith
Lemolo Community Club
DStmf
cc*Mr. John Stras burger- Attorney
Mr. Steve Fusco-URS Company
IX-153
-------
Response to Lemolo Community Club
1. It is well recognized from the responses to the Poulsbo facilities
plan which EPA has been receiving that the Lemolo citizens do not
anticipate the need to be sewered in the near future. However,
proper planning of sewer service for the greater Poulsbo area
would indicate future densities in the Lemolo vicinity may well
require sewer service. For this reason, a modest reserve capacity
has been planned for in any interceptors serving the Poulsbo plan-
ning area. This capacity would not need to be utilized if the
loads or demand were never realized.
2. The feasibility of that route was reviewed in both the Central
Kitsap County and Poulsbo facilities plans and found to be not
as cost-effective as the Keyport Narrows crossing. The Narrows
route also has the advantage of more easily providing service to
Keyport and the Keyport Naval Torpedo Station should this be
desirable in the future.
IX-154
-------
CH2M
II HILL
engineers
planners
economists
scientists
26 March 1976
S9155.AO.OO
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue RECEIVED
Seattle, Washington 98101
f.iAR 2 9 1976
Dear Mr. Thiel:
EPA.-r-i'-;
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement
Central Kitsap Facilities Plan
C-530494-01
The potential for impact in the Sinclair Inlet sewerage
planning area as a result of proposed alternatives for the
central Kitsap planning area leads me to comment on your
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the central Kitsap project. My primary concern is with the
acceptability of alternative plan No. 9—treatment of the
combined flows of central Kitsap and Sinclair Inlet at
Manchester—to the entities within the Sinclair Inlet study
area.
Preliminary information presently under study by CH2M HILL
indicates that joint treatment at Manchester would be more
costly to our study area than other acceptable options.
Further, it does not appear that significant water quality
benefits will be realized by treatment at Manchster over
other available treatment alternatives for our study area.
These preliminary conclusions will be tested shortly by
ecological modeling.
If our preliminary conclusions are verified through the
ecological modeling, we intend to recommend that the entities
in the Sinclair Inlet planning area give no further considera-
tion to joint treatment with the central Kitsap planning
area at the Manchester site. This recommendation would be
primarily based on the added costs to Sinclair Inlet entities
of such an alternative. We will seek written verification
of this position from the City of Bremerton as soon as we
are able to present the relevant facts concerning the situation
to the commissioners. I hope that such a written response
can be in your hands by 12 April 1976.
IX-155
ScMttle Oltuc 1)00 114th Avenue S I Bpllevue. Washington 98004 2()b/453-r>000
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
Page 2
26 March 1976
S9155.AO.OO
Until a written statement of policy can be obtained pursuant
to a review of the alternatives by the Bremerton commissioners,
I can only offer this letter indicating the general direction
the Sinclair Inlet study is headed. I hope the information
transmitted herein will provide valuable guidance to your
efforts until a formal policy statement can be obtained.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely,
William T. Dehn, P.E.
Project Manager
Sinclair Inlet Sewerage
Facilities Plan
cc: Mr. Frank Randall, Kitsap County
Mr. Fred Schoneman, City of Bremerton
Igb
IX-156
-------
CITY HALL
WASHINGTON
THE OLYMPICS
239 FOURTH STREET
GLENN K. JARSTAD
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
ROBERT B. STEWART
COMMISSIONER
OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
April 12, 1976
FRED S. SCHONEMAN
COMMISSIONER
OF PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
G. C. YEADON. SR.
CITY CLERK
AND PURCHASING AGENT
RECEIVED
APR 14 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Statement
Central Kitsap Facilities Plan
C-530494-01
This letter is provided in response to your request for comment on the
Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Central
Kitsap County facilities plan. It is a statement of the City of Brem-
erton's policy regarding combined treatment with the Central Kitsap
planning area at the Manchester location (alternative plan No. 9 in
the subject document).
A review of the probable costs to the City of Bremerton is its parti-
cipation in a joint treatment facility at Manchester indicates that
costs over the planning period may exceed those of other available
options by as much as 35 percent. Other less costly alternatives
appear to meet water quality regulations based on results of the EPA's
ecologic model of Puget Sound. These other alternatives will allow
the city to continue treatment using at least one of its present
treatment plants.
For these reasons, the City of Bremerton is opposed to the concept of
joint treatment of its wastewater at the Manchester site with Central
Kitsap County. We suggest that you proceed with other alternatives for
the Central Kitsap area that do not include the City of Bremerton.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely ,
GLENN K. JSTAD
vlb
OBERT B. STEWART
OMMISSIONER OF~FINANCE
*5n( O « &
FRED 'S. SCHONEMAN
HOME OF THE PUGET SO
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
NAVAL BASE AND SHIPYARD
-------
LAW OFFICES OF
KENNETH P SHORT Q _ _ C^ D C" C C M A M Jv f"~ A CJ I C" JAMES A. OLIVER
PAUL RCRESSMAN OMUr V^M D l_ C. DAVID R KOOPMANS
DONALD A. CABLE 3QIH FLOOR, S EATTLE-Fl RST N ATI ON AL BAN K BU I LDI NG WILLIAM K MclNERNEY. JR.
WILLIAM L. HINTZE ROBERT J ADOLPH
JOHN O BURGESS I O O I F O U R T H AV E N U E KENNETH L. MYER
DOUGLAS R.HARTWICH SEATTLE, WASH INGTON 98154 JOHN F. KALBEN
ROBERT E HEATON ROBERT S. JAFFE
JOHN H STRASBURGER AREA CODE (2O6) 682-3333 JOSEPH D. PUCKETT
DONALD W. FERRELL MARGARET A. EVANS
PHILLIP OFFENBACKER STEVEN W. HALE
PAUL A. BARRETT
EDWARD R LANGENBACH. JR
October 20, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities
We have read with interest the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. The Draft Statement indicates that it was
based on the Draft Facilities Plan by U.R.S. We have previously
commented on that plan and enclose a copy of our letter dated
July 25, 1975, addressed to Dr. Gary R. Minton. Many of the
comments in that letter are equally applicable to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
Specifically, we would like to reiterate the follow-
ing points :
1. Neither the Draft Facilities Plan nor the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement adequately examine the
economic advantages of regionalization. The Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement does make a partial attempt
to do so in the areas of maintenance and operation costs
but does not take into consideration the cost savings
that would result if Poulsbo did not construct a new
sewage treatment plant or a new effluent outfall. In
order to rank the regional and nonregional alternatives
based on cost, the cost of a nonregional Poulsbo plant
would have to be added to the estimated nonregional al-
ternatives for Central Kitsap or some other adjustment made
so that a fair comparison of the relative costs was made.
2. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement contains
a rather elaborate analysis of the environmental conse-
quences of the various alternatives proposed. However,
in analyzing the regional alternatives, the Draft State-
ment does not take into account the environmental ad-
vantages of eliminating all effluent discharge into Liberty
IX-158
-------
Richard R. Thiel -2- October 20, 1975
and Ne Si Ka Bays. The Environmental Impact Statement
notes the importance of Liberty Bay in the production of
fisheries income. Given the economic importance of Liberty
Bay, the elimination of effluent from Liberty Bay would
certainly be an environmental "plus" which should be con-
sidered. Likewise, the analysis of the nonregional al-
ternatives for Kitsap County does not take into considera-
tion the environmental disadvantage of continuing effluent
discharges in Liberty and Ne Si Ka Bays .
We trust that the economic arid environmental advantages
and disadvantages of regional and nonregional alternatives
will be more thoroughly explored in the Final Environmental Im-
pact Statement.
Sincerely your-s,.
John H. Strasburger
cc: Lemolo Citizens Club, Inc.
JHS:pm
IX-159
-------
Response to letter from Mr. John M. Strasburger
1. A full evaluation of a regional versus a nonregional alternative is
presented in Chapter I.
2. Liberty and Ne-Si-Ka Bays are outside our study area and would be
subject to a detailed environmental study for the Poulsbo Facilities
Plan. Our analysis shows that there are economic benefits to be
realized if Poulsbo joins the regional system. We recognize that
discharge of wastewater effluent to a narrow bay is much less prefer-
able than discharge to Port Orchard channel. An EPA-conducted analysis
of the effects of waste discharge to Liberty and Ne-Si-Ka Bays by the
City of Poulsbo indicates that nutrient levels would increase, causing
increased algal production.
IX-160
-------
October 16, 1975
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Concerning the Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities,
Washington, EPA Project C-530494-01, we hereby question some
conclusions of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
object strenuously to the Brownsville (Port Orchard Channel)
location (as amended subsequent to the July 24, 1975 Silverdale
hearing) as the sewage discharge site.
It is for the following reasons that we question conclusions of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and of the Brownsville
(Port Orchard Channel) location as sewage discharge site:
1) Despite statements in the E.I.S. that relatively good
water dispersion will occur in Port Orchard Channel, we are
concerned that n,utrient levels would increase in the adjacent
shallow bays (Liberty, Manzanita, Fletcher) and would cause
rapid eutrophication in the summer resulting in extensive
algae blooms. Under what basis could a decision be made to
discharge effluent in shallow water and adjacent to shallow,
well-mixed bays where eutrophication can occur as opposed to
discharging in stratified waters beneath the photic zone, as
in the central basin of Puget Sound, where eutrophication is
unlikely to occur?
2) What will be the effect of human waste on the extensive
commercial and sport mollusc populations found in Port Orchard
and adjacent bays (such as geoduck and oysters), specifically
as regards human coliform bacteria and hepatitis? If the
coliform level was high would the state require depuration
of these molluscs prior to sale? We do not believe this
question was sufficiently addressed in the August E.I.S*
3) There have been less than 4 days of on-site current
testing in Port Orchard Channel. Everyone with whom we have
spoken (in the U. of W. Department of Oceanography, E.P.A.,
and the environmental consultants) has agreed that the Puget
-1-
IX-161
-------
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
October 16, 1975
Page Two
Sound model can serve only as a guide and must be accompanied
by on-site current testing of duration extensive enough to
encompass all tidal ranges and wind conditions. Was this done?
Which of the tests were conducted on days with strong northerly
winds? If short-term, on-site testing was done on days with
strong southerly winds, could those tests be considered
indicative of average conditions in the testing area? It
would seem mandatory that further, extensive on-site current
testing be conducted prior to consideration of Port Orchard
Channel as a sewage discharge site.
4) Does the Puget Sound model, which has been the main source
of data concerning current movements at the alternative
discharge sites, take into account vertical gradients in
density (stratification)? To what extent was surface and
bottom tension, as well as wind conditions, taken into con-
sideration in the model study results?
5) Incredibly, the almost landlocked Port Orchard Channel
was given a much higher rating as an outfall site (relative to
water quality) than was the main Puget Sound (east side of
Bainbridge Island) (ref. alt. 5, pg. iv-38 and alts. 3-1.4,
pg. iv-37) in the August 1975 E.I.S.? Yet no one to whom we
have spoken at the E.P.A., U.R.S., or U.W. Oceanography Dept.
has been able to offer any explanation of why this was sc.
We believe a well documented explanation and/or a re-evaluation
is in order.
6) It is inconceivable to us that the effluent could be
adequately flushed from behind Bainbridge Island with all the
cul-de-sacs of Liberty, Fletcher, and Manzanita Bays, as well
as the dead water area of central Port Orchard Channel
adjacent to the outfall site. It should also be of great
concern that the effluent may increase the likelihood of
another "Keyport incident" as has recently occurred in Liberty
Bay.
7) To what extent were the herring spawning grounds along the
west side of Port Orchard Channel (near the discharge site),
the extensive salmon nursery areas existing in Liberty, Fletchei,
and Manzanita Bays, as well as the important recreational
salmon fishery centered around Battle Point and University
Point considered in the rating of Port Orchard Channel as a
sewage discharge site? It appears that little consideratiot..
was given to these factors. Is it absolutely certain that
these natural resources would riot be adversely affected Ly
sewage discharge into Port Orchard?
IX-162
-------
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
October 16, 1975
Page Three
8} As demonstrated by the U. of W. Puget Sound model, a
slight movement of the discharge site within the area of Port
Orchard, channels effluent into Liberty Bay, Manzanita Bay,
the dead water area of Brownsville-University Point, or the
beaches on the west side of Port Orchard Channel. The extent
of movement to accomplish this was relatively small on the
model, not only because of the model's scale, but because of
the small tolerances which exist to affect current movement
in the actual area, itself. The discharge site, once con-
structed, will remain static, but the waters of Port Orchard
will be continually influx. What reason is there to suppose
that, over a period of years the currents in Port Orchard will
not change to a degree sufficient to alter the flushing
movement from the discharge site; instead bringing massive
amounts of effluent into one of the adjacent bays cr dead
water areas?
For these reasons, we strongly urge that the Central Kitsap
wastewater discharge site not be located in Port Orchard
Channe1.
Signed
Arthur Barne
TJ-rehas Be i e
Occupation
Barnett, Robben, Blaue-rt,
»~yfi4crse, Doces & Lewicki
^/Attorneys
Schweppe, Doolittle, Krug,
Tausend, Beezer & Beiorle
Attorneys
Residence
Fletcher Bay
Bainbridge Island
Fletcher Bay
Bainbridge Island
William Klein
Port Orchard Channel
Resident
Fletcher Bay
Bainbt i dqc I si anci
Michael .Krieger
Writer, formerly shipping
business
Riddcll, Williams/ ]vJo,
Bu 1 j.i 11 & Wn 1 kinshaw
~ 3 —
Fletcher Bay
Baint.i i c'gr: T s lane!
!•• i.et.ci' •::)• Bay
Ba in t-r i rig-' • I s 1
IX-163
-------
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
October 16, 1975
Page Four
Jon Lindbergh
.-Heroine Biologist,
Environmentalist
Retired Port Orchard
fgrrry pilot and fisherman
Manzanita Bay
Bainbridge Island
Fletcher Bay
Bainbridge Island
Corirad Mahnken
Oceanographer
-------
Response to letter from Bainbridge Island Concerned Citizens
1. The University of Washington field studies indicate that many areas
of the Port Orchard system, including the Brownsville area, are
very productive. Discharges to the surface waters would, in fact,
provide excess nutrients during the spring plankton bloom. Pre-
dicted concentrations, from model simulations, indicate a maximum
increase in production of eight percent over background values.
However, this does not take into account small scales, nor does it
allow for the fact that the model does not appear to be represent-
ing conditions very well in the Brownsville area.
An eight percent change would be difficult to measure; moreover, it
cannot necessarily be said that this is a harmful change. Algae and
other microorganisms provide the major food for many fish and clams,
which fact must be balanced against their nuisance value.
2. The treated effluent would be chlorinated and then dechlorinated.
This chemical treatment, when combined with an efficient, secondary
level treatment facility and high dilution in the receiving water,
will reduce coliform organisms to water quality standard levels.
If the coliform level were to be high, the State probably would re-
quire depuration prior to sale.
3. Wind stress cannot be scaled easily in the physical model and was
therefore not included in the study. Field studies were being per-
formed on 7 August 1975, when southerly winds averaged 13.4 mph at
Seattle-Tacoma Airport. This was approximately five mph greater
than the average.
A study by the Meteorology Committee of the Pacific Northwest River
Basins Commission shows that the probability of hourly observations
of wind speeds greater than 12 mph from the south (SE-SW) is five
percent during August, the conclusion being that while the magni-
tude of the wind observed on 7 August 1975 was above average the
event itself occurs one hour in 20 during August. The wind may,
therefore, be an important mechanism for exchange between Port Or-
chard and the main part of Puget Sound and for mixing within Port.
Orchard channel.
4. Vertical density gradients in the model are determined by the amount
of fresh water runoff, which is also the principal component in the
prototype. Field studies indicate little stratification due to
salinity differences in the prototype. Vertical temperature, differ-
ences, which are not considered in the model, were less than 3.6°F
between top ar.d bottom at University Point during mid-summer.
IX-165
-------
It is worth nothing that the circulation induced by vertical strati-
fication would improve the exchange characteristics of Port Orchard.
In this sense, the hydraulic model gives a conservative estimate of
the transport.
Surface and bottom stress were considered only in a quantitative
way. Caution was used in interpreting results for those areas
where the product of water speed, in knots, and depth, in fathoms,
is less than 20.
5. New Phase II Study results have been incorporated into a re-evalua-
tion of outfall sites and a discharge into the main Puget Sound
now rates higher. An earlier reason for its down-rating was the
artificially imposed constraint of using a 40 foot water depth in
order to have comparable results with other areas. Since that time
the facilities planner has assured that the outfall at Point Monroe
would extend into deep water.
6. Exchange between the cul-de-sacs of the Port Orchard system and the
main Puget Sound does appear to be slow. This is particularly true
of Liberty Bay. Parts of the system do respond fairly rapidly, accord-
ing to field studies performed by the University of Washington. The
North Port Orchard site is one of these locations.
This is verified by the response of silicate, as observed by the
University of Washington. Silicate was depleted rapidly during spring
phytoplankton bloom (Figures 3-42 and 3-43 of the University of Wash-
ington report) in late May-early June, but recovered by the end of
June (Figure 3-44).
The temperature and salinity response observed during the study
(Figures 3-5 through 3-10 and Figures 3-11 through 3-16, respectively)
also verify this.
7. The North Port Orchard channel, in the vicinity of outfall site C,
has been recognized in the EIS and in the Facilities Plan to sup-
port herring spawning areas and recreational salmon fishery. The
entire Port Orchard channel, particularly in the bays, shallow in-
lets and sections with tributary streams, has also been recognized
as important for its salmon nursery and migration areas. It is es-
timated that the mixing zone would be a narrow "curtain" 260 feet
long and approximately one foot wide at the bottom, increasing to
a width of 10 feet below the surface and diffusing over the surface.
Fish which contact the effluent near the outfall port could be ex-
posed to a full-strength concentration during the few seconds that
they passed through it. Fish which swim closer to the surface
would be exposed to an initial dilution of greater than 100:1 an
average of 71 percent of the time (EIS supplement, January, 1976,
Chapter II). Further flushing and tidal exchange would increase
IX-166
-------
the effluent dilution. The estimated toxicity levels of major con-
stituents in the effluent from the proposed facility are shown in
Appendix F of the Central Kitsap County Facilities Plan. Constitu-
ents known to be toxic to fish in full strength concentrations are:
(1) aluminum (0.31 mg/1 effluent concentration exceeds toxic level
of 0.3 mg/1); (2) ammonia (27.0 mg/1 effluent level exceeds 1.0 mg/1
toxic level); and (3) chlorine (1.0 mg/1 effluent level exceeds
0.1 mg/1 toxic level). These toxicity levels generally indicate
50 percent survival of test organisms in 96 hours. Chlorine tox-
icity would be virtually eliminated with planned dechlorination
facilities prior to discharge. Minor effects which may cause some
fish avoidance in the immediate area are slight drops in the dis-
solved oxygen levels and small increases in copper concentrations.
Fish passing through the narrow outfall plume would experience an
instantaneous exposure of a few seconds to a few minutes in the ef-
fluent and would probably not be affected by acute toxicity for
such a short duration.
Juvenile salmon and other young fishes generally swim close to the
shore areas and in shallower waters, where food and shelter are
most abundant. The young fish generally avoid the deeper, faster-
moving waters and thus would not likely be directly exposed to the
areas of the effluent plume with low dilution. Thus, the nearshore
waters and bays along Port Orchard Channel would receive effluent
diluted in excess of 100:1, and this should not appreciably affect
biotic activity and dimension.
No one can say with absolute certainty; at best we can compare with
previous experience.
8. The driving forces for the circulation in Port Orchard are tidal
forces, wind stress and fresh water runoff. The transport of bottom
sediments may very well be important, but the available charts show
little change in bottom configuration over the years.
There is no reason to expect major changes in the tidal forces and
wind stress within the next 20 years, but the diversion of fresh
water will be a reality. The fresh water runoff is typically 100
to 1,000 times less than the tidal transport; the contribution to
the advection processes is therefore negligible. However, the fresh
water may be of importance in the density-driven processes such as
gravitational convection. The effect upon convection due to diver-
sion of fresh water was not examined.
IX-167
-------
RECEIVED
f.iAR 1 0 1S75
March 16, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for sending me the copy of Supplement to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities, EPA Project
No. C-530494-OI, dated January 1976.
As a resident of Bainbridge Island for 15 years I have been concerned with
the planning and environmental efforts to preserve the uniqueness of the
Island and to encourage public participation in determining long range
policies.
The above document , if implemented, could drastically change the character
of the Island. If the major sewer trunk line crosses the northern end of the
Island, it could, with the addition of a treatment plant, generate a "Second
Winslow". It would have a ten million gallon capacity per day of disposing
of treated sewage.
On the enclosed page I have noted the reasons why I am opposed to the disposal
of Central Kitsap sewage on and off Bainbridge Island.
Ver^truly yours
$u>vn
George A. Hartman, A. I. A.
Affiliate A. I. P.
Copies:
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
Robert Mitchell
BIPAC
Mr. Frank Randall
Mr. Stuart A. Robertson,F.S.A.
IX-168
GEORGE A HARTMAN RT 7 BOX 76OO BAINBRIDGE ISLAND WASHINGTON 9811O
-------
the effluent dilution. The estimated toxicity levels of major con-
stituents in the effluent from the proposed facility are shown in
Appendix F of the Central Kitsap County Facilities Plan. Constitu-
ents known to be toxic to fish in full strength concentrations are:
(1) aluminum (0.31 mg/1 effluent concentration exceeds toxic level
of 0.3 mg/1); (2) ammonia (27.0 mg/1 effluent level exceeds 1.0 mg/1
toxic level); and (3) chlorine (1.0 mg/1 effluent level exceeds
0.1 mg/1 toxic level). These toxicity levels generally indicate
50 percent survival of test organisms in 96 hours. Chlorine tox-
icity would be virtually eliminated with planned dechlorination
facilities prior to discharge. Minor effects which may cause some
fish avoidance in the immediate area are slight drops in the dis-
solved oxygen levels and small increases in copper concentrations.
Fish passing through the narrow outfall plume would experience an
instantaneous exposure of a few seconds to a few minutes in the ef-
fluent and would probably not be affected by acute toxicity for
such a short duration.
Juvenile salmon and other young fishes generally swim close to the
shore areas and in shallower waters, where food and shelter are
most abundant. The young fish generally avoid the deeper, faster-
moving waters and thus would not likely be directly exposed to the
areas of the effluent plume with low dilution. Thus, the nearshore
waters and bays along Port Orchard Channel would receive effluent
diluted in excess of 100:1, and this should not appreciably affect
biotic activity and dimension.
No one can say with absolute certainty; at best we can compare with
previous experience.
8. The driving forces for the circulation in Port Orchard are tidal
forces, wind stress and fresh water runoff. The transport of bottom
sediments may very well be important, but the available charts show
little change in bottom configuration over the years.
There is no reason to expect major changes in the tidal forces and
wind stress within the next 20 years, but the diversion of fresh
water will be a reality. The fresh water runoff is typically 100
to 1,000 times less than the tidal transport; the contribution to
the advection processes is therefore negligible. However, the fresh
water may be of importance in the density-driven processes such as
gravitational convection. The effect upon convection due to diver-
sion of fresh water was not examined.
IX-167
-------
RECEIVED
MAR 1 0 1S7G
March 16, 1976
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for sending me the copy of Supplement to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities, EPA Project
No. C-530494-01, dated January 1976.
As a resident of Bainbridge Island for 15 years I have been concerned with
the planning and enviror. mental efforts to preserve the uniqueness of the
Island and to encourage public participation in determining long range
policies.
The above document , if implemented, could drastically change the character
of the Island. If the major sewer trunk line crosses the northern end of the
Island, it could, with the addition of a treatment plant, generate a "Second
Winslow". It would have a ten million gallon capacity per day of disposing
of treated sewage.
On the enclosed page I have noted the reasons why I am opposed to the disposal
of Central Kitsap sewage on and off Bainbridge Island.
truly yours,
George A. Hartman, A. I. A.
Affiliate A. I. P.
Copies:
Senator Warren G. Magnuson
Robert Mitchell
BIPAC
Mr. Frank Randall
Mr. Stuart A. Robertson,F.S.A.
IX-168
GEORGE A HARTMAN RT 7 BOX 76OO BAINBRIOGE ISLAND WASHINGTON 9811O
-------
Following is a summary of the comments to the draft EIS:
I. Agency that is NOT responsible for Comprehensive Planning on Bainbridge
Island is in fact doing the comprehensive planning
2. A potential URBAN CENTER will develop along the sewer line, because
sewer districts are legally constrained to provide future connections by
"Equity of Service".
3. Such an Urban Center is CONTRARY to the present Comprehensive Plan,
where the interior of the Island is zoned for a minimum 30,000 square
foot lots.
4. Out of ten alternate sites that are being evaluated, six are off Bainbridge
Island, rated first, second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh. Yey ddddduf the
land on Bainbridge, or the location of the outfalls, were NOT part of the STUDY
AREA.
5. People on Bainbridge Island are not aware of the long range impact of the
proposed pipeline. The plan is being implemented without due process of law.
6. There are at least two other studies being conducted, yet there does not appear
to be any coordination and any assessment of total cumulative impact on the
Puget Sound Waters
QlU
7. The conclusions/the ten sites are questionable, because acording to the
draft EIS statement:"All the models of dilution and dispersion share a common drawback
their accuracy is predicated upon an extremely limited amount of actual
field current measurment. "
8. From the practical point of view, further quote from the draft EIS:"Thus,
based on the information available, the extra cost of a Point Monroe discharge
probably cannot be justified on the grounds of superior dispersion. "
9. In determining the weighted ratings for each site, the draft EIS does not
satisfactorily explain how the ratings were established. These ratings are a vital
tool in ultimate site selection.
IX-T69
-------
Response to letter from Mr. George A. Hartman
1. This statement is untrue. No comprehensive planning is being done
for Bainbridge Island. Bainbridge Island's only involvement with
the Central Kitsap County Facilities Plan is as a location for a
treated effluent outfall. This is quite reasonable since Bainbridge
Island is a part of Kitsap County. The alternative projects involv-
ing Bainbridge Island would not mandate any changes in the island's
comprehensive planning.
2. and 3. The treated effluent transmission lines considered for Bain-
bridge Island are not "sewer" lines. Raw sewage cannot be added to
those lines, and thus there is no incentive for any raw sewage-
producing establishment to locate near the lines. Development on
Bainbridge Island would be dictated by the island's comprehensive
plan and the locations of the island's sewage treatment facilities
and service zones.
4. The outfall location off Bainbridge Island was subjected to a bio-
logical survey, and the proposed pipeline route was also evaluated
by our ecologisLs. The preferred alternative will not even involve
Bainbridge Island to this degree.
5. The people of Bainbridge Island have been notified of the Facilities
Plan and their comments solicited, as evidenced by your letter and
others presented in this chapter.
6. Total cumulative impact upon Puget Sound waters is beyond the scope
of the envirorjnental impact assessment for this project, but the
effects of this plan are expected to be negligible. One must also
face the realities that with the exception of land disposal, which
was investigated and found infeasible, any remaining discharge al-
ternative will ultimately end up in Puget Sound.
7. For this reason, treatment plant and outfall designs are conserva-
tive as a standard procedure, allowing reasonable safety factors.
Also, although field verification of modeling results has been lim-
ited, the results are sufficiently accurate for site, selection.
8. The quote is presented out of context. Point Monroe should provide
better dilution and dispersion but not sufficiently so to justify
the added cost of that alternative. This is why a discharge to
Port Orchard channel, where impacts are expected to be negligible,
was selected as preferred.
9. Appendix A provides a detailed explanation of the rating system and
the combination of expert opinion with local citizens' concerns.
IX-170
-------
RECEIVED
NOV041S75
£&
^*H>ZJt "K "" ^ , , , ..
J&^i (&~ *+'^
.A. ^^^ */tf*«»*
-------
• filverdale, Wash.
' • November 5, 1975
. ~ • •
Mr. Richard R. Thlel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 • > •
Environmental Protection Agency •
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Wash. 9S101
Dear Sir: •
After attending the October 29th meeting on the Central Kitsap County
Wastewater Facilities, I .became quite disturbed over the fact that all
ten plans involved coming through the Clear Creek Valley. However, I
was somewhat relieved at the end of the meeting to learn that some work
and study has been made on an eleventh alternative.
For the past 32 years I have owned and lived on 4-0 acres that straddle
Clear Creek. I further intend to live here for the rest of my life,
and have no thoughts of selling off. any portion to developers or specu-
lators.
At the present time Clear Creek Valley is zoned Agricultural, which is
the way I would prefer to have it remain. This is also the attitude
that I find among ay neighbors ;^ho live here for pretty much the same
reason that I do, namely that we like the rural atmosphere. A sewer
through the Valley poses a real threat to the zoning and the rural at-
mosphere, and I am very much against the ten present alternatives. The
population density here in the Valley certainly does not call for a sewer
line, and septic tanks seem to be adequately taking care of our wastewater.
At this time I would very strongly urge that you pursue Alternative
which when considered with the sewer problems of Paulsbo and Lemolo makes
fer and avay the most sense of any plans. From news releases it appears
that the Luoto Road will be ripped up and be made 4 lanes, which -further
adds logic to incorporating the sewer line on that route at- this time.
I certainly appreciate all the work that has been done in preparing the
10 alternatives. However, I respectfully request that you pursue Alternative
with the same depth and vigor.
Sincerely yours,.
Cc Mr. Gene Lobe
Mr. Frank Randall
Mr. Bin tohan
Eric D Kegley
Route 1, Bx 178
Silverdale, Va. 98353
IX-172
01975
-------
Route 1 Box 225
Silverdale, WA 98383
November 6, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thlel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel,
In the last few days we have learned that the Central Kitsap
Waste Water meeting held on October 29 discussed 10 alternative
plans for bringing waste water from the Trident Base. It seems
that all of these plans were routed down the Mountain View Road
and then down Clear Creek Valley to Silverdale.
We still own 20 acres of land that has been in our family since
1920 and had hoped to see it remain as a farm for the rest of our
lives and then to pass it on to our children. At the present time
Clear Creek Valley and out to where this farm is located is zoned
agricultural, and we are deeply concerned that with the coming of
a sewer there would be great pressure fron developers and specu-
lators to rezone, bringing unbearable taxes and other problems
connected with high density population.
It is our understanding that in addition to the 10 alternatives
presently included in the Environmental Impact Statement that
some work has already been done on Alternative r/11, which is an
entirely different routing from the other 10 alternatives. It is
dlso our understanding that Alternative #11 would be reuted over
the Luoto road, picking up interceptor lines from Poulsbo and
Lemolo, thence on to Keyport and the treatment plant in the Browns-
ville area. It would seem that this would be a much more logical
and efficient routing than the 10 other alternatives. We would
certainly urge that you further study and pursue this route.
Respectfully yours,
Copies to Mr. Gene lobe
Mr. iYank Randall
Mr. Bill Mahan
RECEIVED
IX-173
-------
IX-174
-------
I I ) I I I I )
/
f/
i-fT-
u-
-------
/Tli,
-27
P*&fL&^£
-------
i/u
u^r
IX-177
RECEIVED
3V l: 1975
PP A. rio
-------
Silverdale, Ua.
November 7, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, l^S M3
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Wa. 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
During the October 29 meeting on the Central Kitsap Wastevater Facilities
we couldn't help but be impressed with the vast amount of leg work and
research necessary to bring the project to its present state.
Since the July 24 meeting when it was announced the sewer routes would
all come down Clear Creek Valley it has been a subject of great concern
to those of us who have lived here for many years, as well as those who
have moved in with the thought of living in an area zoned agricultural.
We have been here for over 27 years and know quite well most of the people
in the valley, and in all candor we must say that as of now we are unable
to find one person who really approves of a big sewer line through Clear
Creak Valley. The worst objections are that this will speed development
and speculation, bringing about increased taxes and other problems,
crime, etc.
After the July 24 meeting a few of us discussed the over-all sewer prob-
lem in Kitsap County, and made the suggestion that Silverdale, Trident,
Poulsbo and Lemolo would all be handled together with an outrall in the
Brownsville area, which seems to be the most acceptable from the stand-
point of cost and feasibility. At the close of the October 29 meeting ue
were pleased to see that our suggestion had been pursued and that consider-
able work has already been done on Alternative ,.'!11, with a promise in Mr.
Fusco's letter of October 23 that the project would be pursued more fully.
Since the Poulsbo and Leniola sewer problems are quite acute, and since the
Luoto Road is to be torn up and four-laned, it would seen very timely that
the sewer line be incorporated in that project at this time. This also lias
the added advantage of serving a much greater number of people than coming
down through Clear Creek Valley. Furthermore, no easements would be involved
on this line.
By far the largest share of the land in the Valley is owned by farm people
such as myself, who intend to farm and have no intention of selling out to
developers and see no need for a sewer line at this time. As for the future,
the uplands on the sides of the Valley are very suitable for septic tanks,
particularly if zoning regulations and lot sizes are made adequate.
The more we think about the project the nore good tiling's we can see in
of Alternative #11, and we strongly suggest that this route be very carefully
considered. r-^\.' -\ -. in
• -' * — _— I w /
Respectfully youre>.
GP:dp
Cc: Messrs. Lobe, Randall and Mahan,
County Commissioners
Gerald Petersen
Rt 1, Bx 193, Silverdals, V.:a. 93383 TY 17Q -
1 A"™ I / O f7
(/
-------
-------
RECEIVED
i-'~'V 11 1S75
IX-180
-------
Response to comments from Messrs. Priddis, Kegley, and Peterson, Mrs.
Laurence Copeland, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Vig, Mr. and Mrs. Don Schoner,
Mr. and Mrs. David Edwards and Mrs. Lorraine Anderson.
Your concerns are satisfied; the proposed project does not include an
interceptor down Clear Creek.
IX-181
-------
APPENDIX A
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION COMPUTER SUMMARY
A-l Methodology
A-2 Typical Individual Output
A-3 Summary Output
-------
Appendix A-l
METHODOLOGY
-------
NUMERICAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The Environmental Impact Report format used herein is based on
the Socio-Economic Systems, Inc. EVAL Methodology. The EVAL system
is characterized by four primary procedural steps:
1. The environmental impacts to be evaluated are classified
according to environmental impact categories and numerous sub-categor-
ies. The four basic categories are:
a. Physical Impacts: Those aspects of the proposed project
which physically degrade or enhance the environment: e.g.
air pollution, noise, changes to physical and biological
systems, etc.
b. Resource Impacts: Those aspects of the proposed project
which demand or supply services and/or resources: e.g.,
power demands, municipal service demands, transportation
demands, etc.
c. Economic Impacts: Those aspects of the proposed project
which affect the economic conditions in the relevant
area: e.g., employment, tax base, etc.
d. Socio-Cultural Impacts: Those aspects of the project
which affect the social, cultural and aesthetic condi-
tions in the relevant areas: e.g. architectural features,
maintenance of historical sites in the area, health and
safety, etc. The environmental impact categories, cri-
teria and sub-criteria used in this study are shown on
the following page.
2. Once the impact categories are defined, they are assigned a
value according to their relative significance. For instance, the
Physical Impacts of the project may be more significant than Socio-
Cultural Impacts, so the former would be given a rating factor of 100%,
the latter a rating factor of 80%. The relative importance of sub-
categories are similarly determined, and weighting factors are assign-
ed.
3. Numerical ratings are given for each individual criterion.
Generally, a "0" rating indicates no impact. A positive number indi-
cates a beneficial impact, and a negative number indicates an adverse
impact. The range of ratings is +100 to -100, with "significant"
adverse impacts being identified by a ranking of -10 or lower. It is
important to note the comparative, rather than absolute nature of these
ratings; that is, a rating of -10 for a particular alternative's
impact upon air quality fundamentally means the alternative ranks bet-
ter in comparison to an alternative which is rated -20 according to
this criterion.
A-3
-------
4. The numerical ratings are multiplied by the appropriate
weighting factors, and the resultant weighted impact ratings are summed
up for each alternative to give a composite rating for each of the al-
ternatives, including the "no project" alternative.
A graphical display of the comparative impacts of the alternatives is
given to provide a summary comparison of the alternatives. Detailed
information on the individual rated criteria is provided on a separate
page for each criterion. Each of these pages lists:
1. Criterion title
2. Criterion definition
3. Boundary of the affected area
4. Method of analysis
5. Discussion of synthesis of pertinent information
6. The source or reference from which the data came and with
whom the data was verified.
The summarized, composite values are designed to provide at-a-
glance comparison of alternatives. The detailed criteria analyses are
designed to provide explicit and clear explanations of each environ-
mental impact evaluation. This allows the interested reader to see
exactly how the evaluation process was carried out. The numerical
ratings precisely communicate the comparative impacts of the alterna-
tives on the particular environmental factor. With this information
the reader is able to decide whether or not he agrees with the impact
assessment. In determining the set of weighting factors used to denote
cumulative impact of the proposed project, various officials were con-
tacted in order to ascertain which criteria groups were the most criti-
cal in terms of the long-range goals of Kitsap County.
Two sets of weighting factors are presented: one derived from a
public opinion survey conducted by URS and the other developed in a
meeting held in June, 1975. Present at this meeting were members of
the Kitsap County Planning Department, the County Engineer, and others.
The public opinion survey results were analyzed to obtain the
weighting factors by separating the sampling matrix into the four cate-
gories of physical, resources, economic, and socio-cultural impacts (see
following table). The value number was then divided by the number of
items to give the mean value. For physical impacts, this value was
likewise multiplied by 27.63 to equal 100%. The other mean values
were likewise multiplied by 27.63 to obtain their relative weights.
A-4
-------
Environmental Impact Criteria
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
Environmental Qualities
Air Quality
External Noise
Odor
Terrestrial Environment
Wildlife & Its Habitats
Vegetative Communities
Marine Biological Environment
Benthic
Water Columm
Surface
Water Quality
Surface Water
Marine Water
Groundwater Quantity
Groundwater Quality
Soils (Fertility)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Direct Effects
Municipal Services Cost
Loans and Subsidies
Property Tax
Changes in Tax Revenues
Changes in Tax Rates
Indirect Effects
Property Values
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Utility Service Systems
Electrical
Water
Municipal Services
Environmental Health
Parks and Recreation
Sanitary
Natural Resources
Potable Underground Water
Quality
Quanity
Potable Surface Water
Fauna
Marine
Terrestrial
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
Social Impacts
Planned Land Use Pattern
Health and Safety
Cultural/Esthetic Impacts
Archeological and Historical
Entertainment and Recreation
External Esthetic Impression
A-5
-------
Total
Impact No. of Items Value Mean Weight
Physical 21 76 3.6 100
Resource 8 16 2.0 55
Economic 9 9 1,0 28
Socio-Cultural 11 30 2.7 75
The sub-categories were not weighted for the public opinion survey.
It was felt that the sub-category items received equal weight.
The weighting factors assigned at the June, 1975 meeting were as
follows:
Category Sub-Category
Weight Weight
Physical Impacts 100
Environmental Qualities 100
Terrestrial Environment 90
Alteration of Biological
Environment 95
Resource Impacts 90
Utilities Service System 100*
Municipal Service 100*
Natural Resources 100*
Economic Impacts 95
Direct Impacts 100
Indirect Impacts 95
Socio-Cultural Impacts 85
Social Impacts 100
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts 90
*Considered equal
In summary, the EVAL methodology makes it possible to compare
the total impact of proposed project alternatives by quantitative
evaluation, emphasizing during the process the more important criteria,
and therefore, the most critical environmental impacts. The individual
impact evaluations which led to the final comparison are clearly de-
lineated, allowing the reviewer the opportunity to determine whether
he agrees with the evaluation, if not, precisely where the disagree-
ment lies.
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A-2
TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT
The following section contains a computer output of the basic
information developed for alternative plan No. 11. It is typical of
the output format for any alternative plan.
A-7
-------
»*»»*»*»**»**»»*»»*****»»**»*»»»****»»*»*
* E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
» FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (11) . *
A****************************************
DATE: 12/31/75 PAGE: 4 (18070)
CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT REF: EPA-10
ENVIKONMENTAL IMPACTS: ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.* ENVlKQNMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY CLASSIFIES IMPACTS IN FOUR CATEGORIES:
i. PHYSICAL IMPACTS: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED PKOJECT
PHYSICALLY ENHANCES OR DEGRADES THE ENVIKONMENT IN AREAS SUCH
AS AIR QUALITY, NOISE, FAUNA AND FLORA,HYDROLOGY, TRAFFFIC, ETC.
(THIS PROJECT HAS 4 SUBCATEGUKltS CONTAINING 10 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
2. RESOURCE IMPACTS: THOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJtCT WHICH
DEMAND OR SUPPLY SEnVICES AND/OR RESOURCES, E.G. UTlLlTItS
DEMANDS, MUNIOAL SERVlCt L)cMANDS, TRANSPO*TAT ION DEMANDS.
(THIS PROJECT HAS J SUBCATEbG*IES CONTAlNlNb <» TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
b. ECONOMIC IMPACTS: THOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT »HICH
AFFECT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE RELEVANT AKEA, E.G. TAX t«ASE»
EMPLOYMENT, NEw bUSINEbS FUKMATIUN, ETC.
(THIS KKOJECT HAS 2 bUbCATEGOnlES CONUlNlNG <* TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
4. SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: TnOSE ASPECTS OF THE PHOPOStO PROJfcCT
WHICH AFFECI SOCIAL, CULlUKAL AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS IN THE
WELEVANT AKtA, E.G. LAND USE COMPAlA81LITY, POPULATION bIZE
AND DENSITY, HISTORICAL OR ARCHEEOLOGICAL SUES, ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES, E(C.
(THIS PKOJECr HAS 2 SUBCATEGORIES CONTAINING 5 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
THESE FOOR CATEGORIES AKE BROKEN OOwN INTO THE INDICATED NUMBER OF
SUBCATEGORIES AND CRITERIA, SOME WITH SUB-CRITERIA, WHICH AKE ANALYZED
SEPARATELY. THE RESULTS OF THE ANALtbIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS ARE SUMMA-
RIZED IN THE StCTION TITLED "ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES",
DISPLAYED GRAPHICALLY IN "GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENVIRONMtNTAL
IMPACTS" AND "PROJLCT ALTERNATIVES BAR GRAPH", AND DESCRIBEU IN DETAIL
IN "ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS INDEX OF CRITIERIA".
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.»CALIF. 1974
A-8
-------
*««««**«*««*«*«««-«#» ««««»«•»«««»«««•«##«*#«
* E.I.R.S. «
« FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT ( 1 1 ) «
CODE: 75-2 REV
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
4 MPACJ--IW&X-OF— CRJ-T-E-RJ-A
KEY TO INDEX OF CRITERIA:
ITEM: PARTICULAR IMPACT ITEMS ANALYZED IN THIS REVIEW.
-RAGE-IS-U-LO CAXI OhL^^A
KEY ITEM: ASTERISKS (««») CALL ATTENTION TO ITEMs WITH RATINGS
GREATER THAN *JO_ OR -10 ON A SC&LE OF -100 TO,+ 100.
"UNR" INDICATES AN UNPAYABLE ITEM. EIR CONTAINED INSUFFI
CIENT DATA ON WHICH TO BASE A NUMERICAL RATING.
STATUS: M (MANDATORY) OR D (DESIRABLE) INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
PARTICULAR IMPACT ITEM IN THE ANLYSIS OF OVERALL PROJECT
WEIGHT: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PARTICULAR ITEM RFLATIVE TO OTHER ITEMS
C (CATEGORY). SC 'SUB-CATEGORY), CR (CRITERION), SX (SUB-
CRITERION) INDICATE LEVEL OF ITEM BEING WEIGHTED.
BASE RATING: UNWEIGHTED NUMERICAL RATING op IMPACT ON A SCALE OF -100
TO +100 ASSIGNED TO PARTICULAR ITEM.
RATING SENSITIVITY: THE CHANGE IN THE- OVERALL PROJECT RATING
THAT WOULD RESULT IF THIS INDIVIDUAL BASE ITEM WERE RAISED OR
LQttE&ED BY—3-O-EOI.MJ.S.. :
ACTUAL OVERALL PROJECT RATING IS 12.73.
IMPACT OF PARTICULAR ITEM FOK NO-PROJECT AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED. RATED AT CATEGORY AND SUB-CATtGORy LEVELS ONLY. FIRST
NUMRFR JSJ^iI-ERaJEC.I-ALJ£Rt!MXI^Eji_AL TERhUXiA£_^l_£)JL«E£XlJL-BELDW
NO-PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE #2 BELOW #1.
_ _J JEM_LD-_ *_._JP A GJL(5J_
IMPACT ITEM NAME
1000 PP.
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
1100 PP.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
KEY
ITEM
TUS
WEIGHT
C 100%
M SC 100%
:RATING:RATNG
_EASE_ :SEJMS1 r_lALI£R -
RATING:T1VITY:NTVES
.. .
7.94: 3.88: 0.00
-1.67: 0.97: 0.00
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIF.
A-9
-------
«*»«-««««««««e«e«»«»»»tt«««-»«**«ii>'ti-«»«.«««<»«
* E.I.R.S. *
L * ENVIRONMENTAL TMPATT REVIFW ^ERVj^t *
1 * FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT ( 1 1 ) »
3 DATE: Q4/oi^7fc PAGFI Q Mft07o)
CODE: 75-2 REV
5
ITEM ID # PAGE(S)
8 IMPACT ITEM NAME
10
1110 PP.
12 AIM QUAI JTY
13
1120 PP.
15 EXTERNAL NOISE
16
17 1140 PP.
18 ODOR
19
!0 1200 PP.
TERRESTRIAL f- Nv IKONMFNK
!2
" 1210 PP.
24i U; T 1 HI T C"F Jt TTQ UAUTTATQ
i6i 1220 PP.
rKtbnWAIrK hLULUfiY
!8|
H 1230 PP.
301 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
']
!2! 1270 PP.
33 MARINE RIOL. ENV/IRONMFNT
1
!5( 1271 PP.
36 BtNTHIC
37
38 1272 PP.
39 WATER COLUMN
>
1273 PP.
k SURFACE
•it
1500 PP.
451 WATER QUALITY
*e
1510 PP.
te SURFACE WATER
13
* 1520 PP.
MARINE WATER
52
^ 1530 PP.
* GROUNDWATER
55
56
KEY
HEM
»«•«
»»#
«•»«
«««
#««
•»««
#««
«*»
«««
fi-^C-
STA-
TUS
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M...
M
^M
CLIENT REF: EPA-10
: jRATINGJRATNfi
: BASE :SENSI-
WE1GHT :RATING:T1VITY
• •
* •
• »
• •
CR 100%: 0,00? 0»32
: :
• •
CR 100%: -5,00: 0-3?
• •
* •
: :
CR I00£: 0,00: 0,3?
• •
• t
• *
SC 100%: -0.08: 0.97
• •
• *
• •
• •
CR 100<&:-15.00: 0.24
• •
• •
• •
• •
CR 100%: 5.00: 0.24
* *
* •
• *
• •
CR 100£:-l?-oos 0,2^-
: :
: :
CR 1 00%: 2\ ,67s 0,?4
: :
: :
SX 100%: PS.OO: O.OB
: :
: :
sx ioo£: 20.00: o.os
: :
: :
SX 100«: 20.00: 0.08
: :
: :
SC 100%: 33.50: 0.97
• •
• •
• •
• »
CR 100%: 38.00: 0.32
: :
: :
C.R 100%: 50.00: 0.32
: :
: :
rR 100%: 12.50: 0.3?
t : :
ALTER
NTVES
0,00
0.00
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.»CALIE. 19?4
-------
««««»««««««««««»«
* E
^ * ENVIRONMENTAL
»««««»«««»««»«<'»«««
.I.R.S.
»»»««
rr »
' * FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT ( 1 1 > *
3 DATE: 04/01/76 PAGE* 10 (18070)
^ CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT REF: EPA-IO
* ! • • • t DATTNir-.BATMr:
7 ITEM ID # PAGE(S)
8 IMPACT ITEM NAME
9
10
1531 PP.
12 GROUNOWATER OUANTITY
13
1532 PP.
15 - r,RQUNDWATER QUALITY
16
17 1600 PP.
18 ^njLS
19
z° 2000 PP.
21 RESOURCE IMPACTS
12
" 2100 PP.
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
!5
*j 2120 PP.
" ELE^TRICAI
H 2170 PP.
B0 WATER
31
" 2200 PP.
53 MUNICIPAL ^ERVICFS
-------
«««««•»«««•»«»«•»<»«#
* E
L * ENVIRONMENTAL
1 * FOR: KITSAP WA
2 tt*«tttt**#**«4»«#«4>-«
3 DATF: 04/01/76
4 CODE: 75-2 KEV
5
6
7 ITEM ID # PAGE(S)
8 IMPACT ITEM NAME
9
10
" 2420 PP.
12 POTABLE SURFACF WATER
13
2450 PP.
15 FAUNA
16
2451 PP.
16 TFRRFSTRfAl
IS
!C| 2452 PP.
21 MARINF
n
23 2460 PP.
2< FLORA - PROPS/COMMERCIAL
'1
re 3000 PP.
!: FrflNOMir. IMPACTS
1
?9| 3100 PP.
30 DIRECT EFFECTS
ji
i? 3120 PP.
53 MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
J4
i5 3130 PP.
36 LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
J7
38 3140 PP.
33 PROPERTY TAX
40
41 3141 PP.
" CHANGES IN TAX REVFNUFS
43
3142 PP.
4sJ CHANGES IN TAX RATES
46
17 3200 PP.
18 INDIRECT EFFECTS
15!
* 3210 PP.
51 PROPERTY VALUES
* 4000 PP.
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
A
y
tHUHKHHHHHHH
.I.R.S.
IMPACX-JJEA'-U
=TE^ATEK TRf
»'>«4>««««tr««t
KEY
ITEM
«««
«««
«««
«•»«•
»»*
STA-
TUS
M
M
M
u_M
^.M
M
M
M
' M
M
W
!_M _.
L_14 ,
M
M___
»«•»•»«•»«««»*«»
*
rW ^>EPViCE *
^ATMENT(ll) »
3o««tt-r. «•<*«•«•
PAGE* n nanTni
CLIENT REE
WEIGHT
CB-4-O-a^
cB_ i ao.^,
.SX—LO-Q.^
_sx_i4).a^
«-CR 1 0 0 5^.
tSC— ijaa^
CR-LOU*
CK— LOD^-,
CR 100%
^sx_aoa^;
LSA- iooi
i_SC_ L00%
CP LODi
_C 15%
BASE
RATING
-5. -00
10,00
u_ DjJUL
— 2D.*OJL
D-..OX)
^_^a-^42
_3JU8IL
L, D^JLD.
_9JD-.DO^
2.bO
Jx.ao
0.00
^JL-0-.-OO
1D.CLQ
.LJ-.92.
EPA-K
RAT-ING-
SENSI-
TIVITY
.0*16
0.18
•^ Ob.D-9
. a-^0-9-,
0-.-18
. 1+&9
Q.54
o.ia
0. ) R
0, IB
-Q^XIS^
^_- 0..09
0.54
fii54
2. 9J
3
RATNG
ALTER
NTVES
0.00
n.no
»
0. 00
0.00
:
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.»CALIF. 1974
A--12
-------
*«««««*«»«»««*««»*««««»«»«*«*»«• »»««««•«««»
* E.I.R.S. »
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT ( 1 1 ) *
DATE: 04/01/76 PAGE*
CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT REF:
• • • •
ITEM ID # PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
4100 PP.
SOCIAL IMPACTS
4120 PP.
pLANNFr> LAND USE PATTEWN
4140 PP.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
4200 PP.
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
4210 PP.
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HJSTORiCAJ <
4230 PP.
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATION
4240 PP.
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
KEY :STA-
ITEM :TUS
*
*
»«•«• • M
««« ; M
t
*
• M
• M
' M
: M •
: BASE :
WEIGHT :RATING:
: ;
• *
: :
!*
«
cK 100^: 50.00:
• •
SC lOOf: -1.67:
: :
: :
CP 1 00%: 0. 00 :
• »
CR ioOy! 5.00:
r» i nniv • -in. nn •
• ' • • •
* * * •
_J2_ (.18070)
EPA-10
SENSI-:ALTER
TlVITY:NTVEb
:
•
*
0.73:
0.73.
*
1.45: 0.00
•
•
0.46:
0.48:
0 .481
:
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC..CALIF. 1974
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A-3
SUMMARY OUTPUT
The summary computer calculations of the impacts of alternative
plans have been revised to include Phase II study information and the
development of alternative plan No. 11. This revision uses the URS
Company's public opinion survey as the basis for weighting individual
impact categories and obtaining a summary score. The procedure by
which this is accomplished is presented in Appendix A-l of the draft
EIS.
This section contains the summary calculations of ratings, weights
and final scores for each alternative plan. The numerical scores that
result from this calculation are intended to aid the evaluator in de-
termining the relative value or environmental impact of each of the
various alternatives.
A-14
-------
5
* E.I.R.S. " «
FNVTRONMENTAL IMPACT RFVTEU/ J>gRVjrg
* FOR; KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMT<1,2»6)*
2
' DATE; 04/01/76
CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT HEF; EPA-10
6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCnRES
e
9 ; UN WEIGHTED; ; WEIGHTEUI,
01 ; HATING ; WEIGHT*: RATING :
12| P-HYSJ[£AL_IMPA.C,IS : 2«-4__j iJdoJB « £*4 J_
13 -» — •.....---_.-,,_ __.. — ,._.. ... — _ — —'— — ——«— — -. — -. — — „.. — „ — — ... . — — — — — .... — — —*—_
14
15 RE?OURCE IMPACTS ; 10.0 ; 5g» ; 5.5 I
16 • — — — • — _•____ — _^_ _________ — ___ — — _____•__ — — •— — — — — — — — •• — — — «,—
17
18 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ; 18.8 ; 2a& ? 5.^^ L
19 • — — — — — _ — •__« — __—• — ___»___—__• — — «____•«._ — •__ ______________
!0
SOClQrCJJLlURAI __ IMPACJS _ I _ 5.H ; 7<=.% I 4.4
!0
31
OVERALL WEIGHTED HATING**
PROJECT;
92
" NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE; 0.00
M
* WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TCJ PAGE ONE.
** OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
"I NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MIN^R TMHACTS INTO A SIGNI-
'V F1CANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC.tCALlF. 19?4
A-15
-------
E.l.R.S.
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (3) *
3 DATE; OV01/76 PAftFi 5 (18063)
CODE: 75-2 CLIENT REF: EPA-10
E.li.VJL8iJNM£IlIAI
tUNWEIGHTEn: L_W£1GMIE£LL
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
: 9_,JL_j
_RESOURCE IMPACTS !__ 10.51 65* ! 5^5 L
_EjCONQJiIC__IMP_AC_TS _J 19.6 ; 2R» : ' 5.5 ;
20
21 SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS ; L4ta :_ 7.5^ ? 10.6
;
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
;
53
>4
PROJECT: - ' 12.z^
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE! O.OU
1
W * WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
** OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PRO JECT_S _MAY COMB INE_SEV£RAL_ MINOR JMPACIS_INTO A ..SIGNI--
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
42
13
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC.»CALIF.
A-16
-------
m
>3
E.I.R.S. " *
* FNVJRQNMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *_
1 » FOR: KITSAP WASTEwATER TREATMENT <<») *
3 DATE: 04/01/76 J PAGE; s neo64)
4 CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT REF: EPA-IO
5
6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY gCpRES
{UNWEIGHTED; I_J£E_LG±LI£D-L
10| : RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
11 ___— — «.__.—-._ — ___-._«.__—«.__ — — — ——— — _ — __ — _ — — _• — _ ——— — — — — — » — _— — —
12 PHYSICAL IMPACTS 5 9.7 ; 1 Jlfli ; Q.7 ;
13 ••—•••_•••••—_______________»———_—__—__—_—_ _—__.
14
I6| RESOURCE IMPACTS ; JJ)j3 J 5s* L
16 ____________________________.,__..•—»_•„^—•„——___~.
17
ECONOMIC IMPACTS t 20.4 t 2fl% : 5.7
" SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS ; 14.2 ; 7^ : 10.6 t
26 OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
29 __«_-________________________.
PROJECT: -' 12.33
12
53 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE; O.QU
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
** OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
"1 RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
P9 NUMBER OF PROJLCTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL__MJNfiR_jmfAC_LS_1.N_TO_A_§.IGMr_
F1CANT IMPACT. OVE.RALL RATINGS GREATER THAN *10 OR -10 INDICATE A
" SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
12
<3 ".
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.»CALIF. 19?4
A-17
-------
15
16
S3
* E.I.R.S. *
_» ENVIRON MENTAL -IM£A.CT_fi£Y-I£-W—i£RV^-CE «_
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (5) *
2
31 PATF; 04/01/76 PAGE; 5 (18065)
CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT REF: EPA-10
5
6 FuwTLmMucMTfli JMPATT SUMMARY '
;UNWEIGHTED; L. WEIGHTED;
RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
I..3 : -LQ-o *_ : z.3 ;
E£Q.NIQMJjC_lMEACJiL J__ ?n.4 : Z&£—i. _5.
19 ____________•____________—_______ _ _ _—___
20
21 SJ3CJLOj-Ci)LI-URAJ I MP_Ar IS-
OVERALL WEIGHTED HATING*"
PROJECT: . - 11.41
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE!
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUM_e£R_Q flJPR
-------
!0
21
12
23
**«**«»«tt«*«««««»»»«««»«««««ttft ««««««»«*»«•
» E.I.R.S. «
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (7) *
«*«««««««•«««•««•« «»«•«»«««•«•»««•«•»««««««««««»•»
DflTFi 04/01/76 CAGE* 5 LUUX6JJ-
CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
L IMPACT SUMMARY-SCO&£
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
_PJ±YJS1C.AJ LMPACJJS
16 RESOURCE IMPACTS ; 10.0 j 55* : 5.S
16 —••^•—_—_^_^—______________________________ ___________
17
18 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ; lfl.fi ; ?Q% ; 5*3
'6
n
OVERALL WEIGHTED HATING**
13
PROJECT: •' 9.2*
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE; 0.00
» WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
16
17 ** OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
1381 RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMRFR OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVFRflL MINOR tMPACTS INTO A STGNT-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN *10 OH -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
12
18
19
>3
t4
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC.»CALIF. 1974
A-19
-------
8
!C
2]
23
24
96
"I
* E.I.R.S. ' *
_«__£NV.IRQNMEMIAL_ JJlEACJ-JiEVJ EL_._i> EB V_l C£ *-
» FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (8) *
DATE! 04/01/76
EASE,;
UB.0.6BJL
CODE: 75-2 REV
CLIENT R£F: EPA-lO
-f^'VJJSIiNMENlAi IMPACT, SUMMARY SCpRES
WEIGHTED; :_
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
PHYSICAI IMPACTS J ?.ft ! 10p it : g.O !
..B£?PUJiCEL LM.PAC.LS : 1JL*.Q :_ 55% : 5.t5 L.
_E£Om!iI£_LMPAC_I$ 1 2d..*. t 2s * • - ^-«J L
_SP_CJ O^CU_LT.UR_AL „_! MP A£IS : 11^.7 L_
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING'*
PROJECT: ' 8.53
JECT ALTERNATIVE.; QTQU
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
*« OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +H> AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR TMPACTb INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.,CALIF. 19y4
A-20
-------
»**««»*«*««»««»«»««•««««•»»««««««««•««•«»»«««
» E.I.R.S. «
_* ENVIRQNMENTAI m^ACT REVJEW bERV-i-C£ *_
* FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT <9) *
DATF t Q4/01/76 '. " PAGE.: 5 (18069)
CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT REF: EPA-10
5
6 FNVIRONMENTAI IMPACT SUMMARY
_tUfclMEJL-GHl£nJ
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
2 PHYSICAL IMPAC IS ! \?t? ' 10 gi ; 1?.?
13| _ __ .
TC I
SOCIQ-CUITURAL IMPACTS ; 11,7 ; 7^». ; ft.H JL
12
23
24
>5
16
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING**
iO
"' PROJECT: ' 12. 5«
15
16
*7
18
19
>0
51
NO PRQJFTT ALTFRNATIVFi O.QU
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
«» OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
fcJJJMBFJR..J3F PRQJECTS. MAY COV.HTNIF .gFVFHAl MINOR IMPACTS INTQ A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMSt INC.»CALIF
A-21
-------
21
BESpjLJ^E_lMPAC!S . ; 10.5 : 554 L
6 ——-———————————_—_——-—————————————___—_—————__———.
«««*#»««•*««•«•«««««•««««#««««»«««««•»»«««««»»
* E.I.R.S. " «
» FOR: KITSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT ( 1 1 ) *
DATE! 04/Ql/7ft '_ PAfig; S (18Q7Q)
CODE: 75-2 REV CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
__ EMJO&QNMEMIAL IMfiACT SUMMAR.Y_-S£QR£S
tUNWE LfiHIEOJ __ L_W£_I_GJdJ£ll:
: RATING : WEIGHT*: RATING :
PHYSICAI __ LMEACXS _ ! 7.9 ;
ECONOMIC IMPACIS ___ t 20.4 ; 2flJ6 ; 5.7 !
AJ ___ IMPACTS ; 17.9 ! _ 7g» ! 13. 4 t
OVERALL WEIGHTED HATING**
J7
PROJECT: ' 12.73
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE; o.oo
* WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -o INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMB ER OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL Ml NOR _j MPAC TJL INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
42
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.vCALIF.
t
A-22
-------
APPENDIX B
SOILS
The information presented on soils in the study area is largely
derived and/or quoted from the USDA-SCS Soil Survey and interpretation
(References 6 and 7 ) and from the USGS Water Supply Bulletin No. 18
(Reference 5 ). Soils in the study area portion of Kitsap County are
relatively immature from a soil genesis viewpoint. Most soils are de-
veloped on or from the mantle of glacial drift deposited during the
last glaciation period. Thus, the properties of these soils are still
largely those of the parent materials, which in turn were derived from
a number of geological formations. Many of the parent materials origi-
nated in igneous rocks and interbedded sandstone and shales from the
north during the flow of the last glacier into the Puget Sound Basin.
These materials are intermixed with granite, basalt, conglomerates,
sandstone, shales and other locally prevalent rocks.
The environmental factors which were of greatest importance in
contributing to soil formation in Kitsap County are rainfall and vege-
tation, mitigated in part or altered by the relative resistance offered
by poor drainage, unfavorable relief and the relative hardness of par-
ent material. These interactions have resulted in the formation of a
wide variety of soils in the study area.
General Soil Characteristics and Distribution
Two distinct groups of soils are recognized in the study area:
those with strongly hardened subsoils and those with only slightly
compacted or noncompacted subsoils. Soils of the first category (i.e.,
with a hard pan) usually occur on the broad, undulating or gently roll-
ing ridges and valley slopes; whereas the other soils are found almost
entirely on the smoother plains and lower valley slopes. In addition
to these two categories, organic soils and miscellaneous land types
(rough, mountainous land and steep, broken land) comprise the remainder
of the soils in the study area (Reference 6 ).
The soils underlain by cemented hardpan or bedrock substrate in-
clude soils of the Alderwood and Edmonds series. The presence of the
hardpan, even at varying depths, generally increases water-holding ca-
pacity and reduces deep seepage of water, sewage effluent, etc. applied
to the surfaces of these soils.
-------
The second group of soils, with permeable subsoils and substrata,
include the Everett, Indianola and Kitsap series as well as undiffer-
entiated alluvial soils. These soils generally have a coarser texture
than that of soils with hardpans. Drainage is good to excessive ex-
cept where a high water table is present. The presence of these soils
is very limited in the study area.
The organic soils occur only in small, widely scattered areas and
are comprised of three types of peat and one muck. These soils have
developed through the growth, accumulation and decay of plant remnants
mixed with little or no mineral soil materials, under a high water
table or under intermittently submerged marsh and swamp conditions.
Soils in this category found within the study area include Rifle Peat
and Muck.
The distribution of soil series in the study area is shown on
Figure B-l.
Suitability of Soils for Septic Tank Filter Fields
Some of the important factors used in establishing the limita-
tions of a soil for a filter field are: (1) local experience of soil
scientists and records of performance of existing filter fields, (2)
permeability of the subsoil and substratum, (3) depth to consolidated
rock or other impervious layers, (4) flooding, (5) seasonal and annual
groundwater level and (6) soil slope. Coarse-textured soils (loamy
sand, sand and gravel) are rather poor filter field materials because
they allow sewage effluent from the septic tanks to travel unfiltered
for long distances and to contaminate nearby water supplies. Deter-
gents in solution are readily transmitted through some soils and may
pollute groundwater supplies. Sodium salts from water softeners and
other sources tend to disperse the clay particles in the soil and re-
duce its permeability, thus hampering the effectiveness of the filter
field.
B-2
-------
LEGEND
IS I
INDIANOLA
LOAMY SAND
Ks |
KITSAP
SILT LOAM
A
ALLUVIAL SOILS
(UNDIFFERENTIATED)
Mu
MUCK
As
ALDERWOOD
LOAMY SAND
Af
ALDERWOOD FINE
>o Reservation
Es
EDMONDS
LOAMY SAND
Es
EDMONDS FINE
SANDY LOAM
Source: Reference 6
Figure B-l. Distribution of soils in the study area
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
AIR QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
The information presented in this section is a summary and re-
statement of existing air quality conditions prepared by Northwest
Environmental Technology Laboratories, Inc. for the URS Company under
Phase I of a two-phase study (Reference 1). The final phase will in-
clude additional computer modelling of existing air quality conditions.
Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations, wind speed and wind direction
were measured continuously in the vicinity of Silverdale from 25 April
1975 through 13 May 1975 at a selected location within the study area.
Following is a summary of the data and a description of the existing
conditions.
AIR QUALITY MONITORING
Site Selection
On the basis of a review of the project study area, a site was
selected at which CO concentrations are expected to be representative
of worst case concentrations. The criteria used to select the site
were based on existing traffic circulation patterns within the study
area. Figure C -1 indicates the site monitoring location. Wind speed
and wind direction measurements were taken at the location of the air
quality monitoring van at a height 15 feet above ground level. Moni-
toring commenced on 25 April 1975 and continued through 1 May 1975.
Carbon Monoxide Monitor
The carbon monoxide monitor (Ecolyzer) utilized in the measure-
ments is manufactured by Energetics Science, Inc. of New York and
measures CO through the principle of electrochemical oxidation. Full-
scale range is 50 parts per million (ppm). The instrument has been
modified to automatically establish the instrument's baseline once
C-l
-------
SILVERDALE
Source: Reference 1
Figure C—1. Location of carbon monoxide monitoring station
C-2
-------
per 40 minutes.
Several separate studies have shown the Ecolyzer to be an excel-
lent instrument for the purpose for which it was used. The large and
varied list of organizations that employ the Ecolyzer to monitor the
concentrations of CO attest to its acceptance in the field of air pol-
lution. In addition, several separate studies have indicated a very
high correlation between the Ecolyzer and the nondispersive infrared
(NDIR) CO monitor, which is the reference method specified by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
Wind Measurements
Low threshold wind speed and direction monitoring equipment manu-
factured by R. M. Yound Company of Traverse City, Michigan was utilized,
Wind speed and direction were recorded continuously on a dual channel
strip chart recorder. The wind speed indicator has a starting thresh-
old of about 0.75 miles per hour (mph), and the wind direction indica-
tor has an electronic accuracy of i 1.5° azimuth.
Data Reduction
Average hourly values of wind speed, wind direction and CO concen-
trations were scaled from the strip charts. Span sensitivity and zero
level were carefully noted on the CO recordings and taken into account
during the data reduction process. The peak level of CO observed with-
in each hour was also recorded.
METEOROLOGY
The monitoring site was located just north of Dyes Inlet, 50 feet
east of Old State Route 3 and 300 feet south of Bucklin Hill Road. The
monitoring location was in a shallow north-south valley which inter-
sects with Dyes Inlet. This topography tends to channel the wind in a
north-south direction. Measurements commenced during a period of wea-
ther typified by scattered clouds and occasional sunshine. Stormy
conditions occurred during the mid-monitoring period. The latter
phase of the monitoring period experienced generally fair conditions
with low wind speeds.
C-3
-------
EXISTING CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY ON-SITE MONITORING
Figure C-2 shows a bar graph which indicates average hourly
values of CO during the course of the monitoring program. Referring
to the Ambient Air Quality Standards given in Table C-l, it is seen
that the observed values of CO concentration are well below the one-
hour and eight-hour values set by the standards.
C-4
-------
U)
I
(U
CJ
g
S-i
(U
m
(U
Pi
n
cu
o
M
O
CO
CM
i?
O>
a
O)
CM
B
o
c
o
XI
M
tfl
a
w
0)
O
n)
V-i
a)
CM
I
CO
CM
>.
.
ra
uonjiuj jad sped
o,
sped
C-5
-------
Table C-l. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, WASHINGTON STATE
Constituent
Suspended particulate
Annual geo. mean
24-hr average
Sulfur dioxide
Annual arith. mean
24-hr average
1-hr average
Carbon monoxide
8-hr average
1-hr average
Standards °
ppm c
0.02
0.1
0.4
9
35
mg/m3
0.060
0.150
0.060
0.260
1.060
10
40
Emergency episode criteria a
Alert Warning
ppm. mg/m3 .ppm .mg/m3
— 0.375 — 0.625
0.3 0.800 0.6 1.600
15 17 30 34
•Emergency
ppm mg/m3
— 0.875
0.8 2.100
40 46
Hydrocarbons (as
methane) d
3-hr average, 0.24 0.160 — —
6-9 «.».
Nitrogen dioxide
Annual arith. mean 0.05 0.100
24-hr average 0.15 0.282 0.3 0.565 0.4 0.750
1-hr average 0.6 1.130 1.2 2.260 1.6 3.000
Photochemical oxi-
dants
1-hr average 0.08 0.160 0.2 0.400 0.4 0.800 0.6 1.200
In order to activate the emergency episode plan, the value indicated must be ex-
ceeded and expected to remain so for more than 12 hours.
All standards based on 24-hr or less averaging times are not to be exceeded more
than once per year.
Volume to mass conversion factors at 25°C and 760 mm Ug are:
Sulfur dioxide one part per million equals 2.620 mg/m3
Carbon monoxide 1.150
Hydrocarbons (methane) 0.655
Nitrogen dioxide 1.880
Oxidants 1.960
The hydrocarbon standard is a guideline, not a standard. More needs to be done
to establish background concentrations of methane in the ambient air. There
are no emergency eipsode standards for hydrocarbons.
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY
APPENDIX D-l
PRINCIPAL PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Common name
Scientific name
Biotic
communities
U T3
a; to o ~v c
u _ 3 aj -
>-i 13 T3 = — "O -
c o X
o 1-1 •.-.
o 53 r
tn —
123^567
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
Hardback
Hazel
Honeysuckle
Honeysuckle
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
Indian plum
Ninebark
Ocean spray
orange
purple
evergreen
red
Alnus rubra '•< x x x x
Alnus sinuata x
Prunus emarginata x x
Crataegus douglasii '.<•
Rhamnus purshiana x x
Pseudotsuga menziesij. x x x x
Arbutus menziesii x x
Acer macrophyllum x x x
Acer circinatum x
Malus diversifolia x x
Cornus nuttallii x x x x
Salix lasiandra x x x x
Taxus brevifolia x x
Tsugra heterophylla x x x
Thuja plicata x x
Betula papyrifera x x
Pinus monticola x x x
Rubus laciniatus x x
Rubus ursinus x x x
Rubus vitifolius x x
Rubus leucodermis x x x x
Oplopanax horridus x
Spiraea douglasii x x x
Corylus cornuta var. californica x x
Lonicera ciliosa x x x
Lonicera hispidula x
Vaccinium ovatum x x
Vaccinium parvifolium x x x
Osntaronia cerasiformis x x x
Physocarpus capitatus x x
Holodiscus discolor x x x
u-l
-------
PRINCIPAL 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
Chamomile
Clover
Common horsetail
Common 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 parviflorus
Linnaea boreal is
Symphoricarpos albus
Salix hooker iana
Salix scouleriana
Salix sitchensis
Agoseris sp.
Galium boreal e
Scirpus sp.
Medicago hispida
Ranunculus repens
Ranunculus occidental is
Typha lati folia
Anthemis sp.
Tri folium sp.
Eguisetum arvense
Hypericum perforatum
Rumex crispus
Juncus drummondii
Smilacina amplexicaulis
Biotic
communities
s **i .n «
4 C
01 rH >-! 3 0> 0)
•" -o 19 => -5 3 c
•H 0] 01 4J to iH «H
C O X CO 0) CO U
O U -rl CO H (!)
-------
PRINCIPAL PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
Communities
Common name
Herbs, cont'd
Field mint
Fireweed
Forget-me-not
Foxglove
Gumplant
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
Starflower
Stinging nettle
Thistle
Vetch
Violet
Watercress
Western trillium
Scientific name
Mentha arvensis
Epilobium angustifolium
Myosotis sp.
Digitalis purpurea
Crindelia sp.
Hypochaeri s radicata
Lupinus sp.
Mimulus sp.
Convolvulus sp.
Osmorhiza chilensis
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Lathyrus maritimus
Lathyrus nuttallii
Salicornia virginica
Plantago major
Plantago lanceolata
Lactuca serriola
Prunella vulgaris
ssp. lanceolata
Claytonia sibirica
Franseria chamissonis
Lysichitum americanum
Heuchera micrantha
Sanicula sp.
Lomatium utriculatum
Trientalis latifolia
Urtica lyallii
Cirsium sp.
Vicia sp.
Viola sp.
Rorippa nasturtium-aguaticum
Trillium ovatum
to 4J ta
a) to o
)- O) U
S. O 1
o
(A S
3 k. ~>
on — .
•3 si o
a <- LI
CJ ki C O
as
-------
PRINCIPAL PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
Communities
Common name
Scientific name
w -o
00 4J ID
41 m o
l< 0) ^
o v< PS
[s. o i
li, .
0! -H
3 u-i C
o « o
i-. 4i u
a> r-t
u- -3 -a
•** a o
e o x
o Vi -H c
u =5 z: ».
14 -H
a i—
s ^
s: 3) i-l —
i u u v:
« a c
ij 3 a) i.
s j: -a ~
-u 01 -H —
tn n
-------
APPENDIX D-2
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Biotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
0) JJ
o to 3 j:
o P
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
o
at
01
O
•o
CO
o
H ft
pa t*
3
123
co a
*J U
"c" i
CO 01
•H U
ki 3
&-U
(0
•H CO
Cu
01
a:
Water-associated birds (cont'd)
Semipalmated plover
Killdeer
Black-bellied plover
Common snipe
Whimbrel
Spotted sandpiper
Greater yellow legs
Lesser yellowlegs
Pectoral sandpiper
Baird's sandpiper
Least sandpiper
Dunlin
Short-billed dowitcher
Long-billed dowitcher
Western sandpiper
Sanderling
Northern phalarope
Parasitic jaeger
Glaucus-winged gull
Herring gull
Thayer's gull
California gull
Ring-billed gull
Mew gull
Franklin's gull
Bonaparte's gull
Common tern
Caspian tern
Land-associated birds
Turkey vulture
Cooper's hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Bald eagle
Marsh Hawk
Sparrow hawk
, Blue grouse
Ruffed grouse
California quail
Mountain quail
Ring-necked pheasant
Band-tailed pigeon
Mourning dove
Barn owl
Charadrins semipalmatus
Charadrius vociferus
Squatarola squatarola
Capella gallinago
Numenius phaeopus
Actitis macularia
Totanus melanoleucus
Totanus flavipes
Erolia melanotos
Erolia bairdii
Erolia ntinutilla
Erolia alpina
Limnodromus griseus
Limnodromus scolopaceus
Ereunetes mauri
Crocethia. alba
Lobipes lobatus
Stercorarius parasiticus
Larus glaucescens
Larus argentatus
Larus thayeri
Larus californicus
Larus delawarensis
Larus canus
Larus pipixcan
Larus Philadelphia
Sterna hirunda
Hydroprogne caspia
Cathartes aura
Aecipiter cooperii
Buteo jamaicensis
Hiliaeetus leucocephalus
Circus cyaneus
Falco sparverius
Dendragapus obscurus
Bonasa umbellus
Lophortyx californicus
Oreortyx pictus
Phasianus colchicus
Columba fasciata
Zenaidura macroura
Tyto alba
0
0 0
0
C C CO
0 C 0
0 0 0 C
0
C C
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
coo
0 C 0 C
0 0
c
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
c
c
c
c
0
c
c
c
L>-6
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
communities
CO
01
M
o
£
Common name Scientific name „
3
^4
01
•H
C
U
1
4J
09
01
O
[L.
cd
0)
•H
•*>
13
0
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
communities
4J
10
IV
Common name Scientific name M
3
O
0)
14-1
•H
C
8
i
Forest
tw
<0
01
•a
o
Ui
a
2
CO
01
c
<0
•H
^
<0
a.
•H
a:
3
eadow
S3
7
cu
3
CO
CO
PL,
4
to
•H
O
^
03
-C
CO
^J
ffi
5
nH
C8
4J
C
01
•o
CO
01
6
oreline
w
CO
e
•H
^
a
7
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 townee
Slate-colored junco
Oregon junco
Savannah sparrow
White-crowned sparrow
Golden-crowned sparrow
Song sparrow
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Icterus bullockii
Piranga ludoviciana
Hesperiphona vespertina
Pinicola enucleator
Carpodacus purpureus
Carpodacus mexicanus
Spinus pinus
Spinus tristis
Loxia curvirostra
Pipilio erythrophthalmus
Junco hyemails
Junco oregranus
Passerculus sandwichensis
Zonotrichia leucophrys
Zonotrichia atricapilla
Melospiza melodia
C 0
C 0 0 0
C C C
COO
COO
0 C 0
COO
0 0
000
0
0 C 0 0
0 C 0
C 0 C 0
000
C 0 C 0 0
key to occurrence
C " common or seasonal resident
0 = occasional
Source: References 1, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22
D-3
-------
APPENDIX D-3
MAMMALS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Biotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
4J
(D 4J
II 10
U ID
O M
fa O
[K
10
3 iH
>W -O
•H
r-l ^1
M 0) O
T-l 1-1
a> en M
M 41 CD
fc. o
-------
MAMMALS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (cont'd)
Biotic
communities
4J
(DO) (OS
U fl) B ? M -H
o M (d o rt «^
Common name
Bushy-tailed wood rat
Northern bog vole
Capper red-backed mouse
Long-tailed meadow mouse
Oregon meadow mouse
Townsend meadow mouse
Muskrat
Pacific jumping mouse
Coyote
Black bear
Racoon
Ermine
Long-tailed weasel
Fisher
Mink
Marten
Striped skunk
Spotted skunk
River otter
Sea otter
Mountain lion
Bobcat
Harbor seal
Black-tailed deer
Canadian elk
Scientific name
Neotoma cinerea
Synaptomys boreal is
Clethrionomys gapperi
Microtus longicaudus
Microtus oregoni
Microtus townsendii
Ondatra zibetnica
Zapus trinotatus
Canis latrans
Euarctos americanus
Procyon lotor
Mustela erminea
Mustela fernata
Martes pennanti
Mustela vison
Martes Americana
Mephitis mephitis
Spilogale putorius
Lutra canadensis
Enydra lutris
Fells concolor
Lynx rufus
Phoca vitulina
Odocoileus hemionus columbianus
Cervus canadensis nelsoni
fa O i-t "O
[*4 M (Q
1 2 3 A
x x
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X X X
XXX
x x x x
X
XXX
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
•f (y
M 01 O
QJ **H »C
u u en
tO C
3 (U a)
j: -a e
01 -H 1-1
0; 01 M
£ M s
567
x
x
X
X
x x
X
X
x
X
Source: References 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20 and 22
-------
APPENDIX D-4
tD
III
4-1 C
O 3
C
o
e
•H
CJ
X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
E
3
•u
U E -U r-l 0) IB
•O •"•) SJl IB 3 •*< 10
O -H -H 10 U 3> O
In O O C -H t3 -1
O IB 0) .C C 3
IB IH C 0) IB E
E &> O C t» S> IB
4J 0 M
IB IB "*"i "O C C tr>
2O ^J 4J 'O 'CJ IB
-U 0 O< 0 Q J5
=c KC CK Q a. Hi EH
u ^ C 1 (0 CU
C H rH « -O C
o cu o -H o) to c
rH 4J 00 U - 1-1
10 B 01 ^
C CJ M O C ^ W
^i S QJ *H rJ >^ 1
ai x: x; 4-1 01 a x:
4J 4J 4-1 -H 4J 00
M M M O 0) C 3
cu o o co dJ n) o
3 Z Z 0. 3 > Bi
X
X X X X X
X
X X X X X X
X XX
X
-o 10 ki LI oi
4) IB 3 3 O k|
M o >c; IB 4 n.
IB IB IB IB O IB
>-l C 0 C HH C
3l IB 10 IB 3 IB
EC 05 *s o; « «
00
O
U
00
0) M
00 U
00 00
O V TJ
tJ r-l 0)
<4H 1 4J
o) -a 4->
CU 00 0) T3 O
i-i o M co a.
4-1 l-l O tO
00 U-( C* 4—1
o o u c
•H W T> 0) r-l U
u-4 u-i o; xl CB oi
•H r-l rH U 01 U
U r-f -H M W 10
CO 3 CO O Q D
CW « H Z a 3
X
X
X
10
•H
O
c
•1
kl
a,
M
3
01
r-H
0)
8
V)
3
4J
o
c
5
IH
T3
CD
N
•H
r-l
U
O
4J
CD
00
1-1
r-l
r-l
IB
C
I-i
01
Xi
4J
l-l
X X
X X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
W
01
•O -H
•3 g1
B -H
-O 0)
S -x
0 0
•H
to a, oi
0) IB
•O W 4J
•1 '-I 4J
13-8
•a ^ 0)
M -H IB
O (a -u
•U
10 W O
•1 -H X)
Us
C | -H
S £ 6
01
a
^
0)
0) l-l
(B 00
C
0)
M *O
0) i-l (B
iJ 08 O
H I XI
(0 'O
00 0) U
U 01
c xt
M •« XI
-------
APPENDIX D-5
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
Lampetra ayresi
Hexanchus griseus
Cetorhinus maximus
Lamna ditropis
Apris turns brunneus
Somniosus pacificus
Squalus acanthi as
Squatina California
Torpedo California
Raja binoculata
Raja rhina
Hydrolagus c'olliei
Acipenser transmontanus
Alosa sapidissima
Clupea harengus pallasi
Sardinops sagax
Bngraulis mordax
Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Oncorhynchus nerka
Oncorhynchus tshawytseha
Salmo clarki
Salmo gairdnsri
Salvelinus malma
Hy pomes us pretiosus
Spirinchus thaleichthys
Thaleichthys pacificus
Alepisaurus ferox
Diaphus theta
Stenobrachius leucopsarus
Porichthys natatus
Gobiesox maeandricus
Gadus macrocephalus
Merluccius productus
Miorogadus proximus
Theragra chalcogramma
Brosmophycis marginata
Lycodapus mandibularis
Lycodes brevipes
Lycodes diapterus
Lycodes palearis
Lycodopsis pzcifica
Aulorhynchus flavidus
Gasterostcus aculeatus
Syngnathus griseolineatus
Cymatogaster aggregata
Embiotoca latoralis
Phanerodon furcatus
Rhacochilus vacca
Central
Puget Sound
+
+
+
*
0
+
+
*
0
+
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
*
*
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
+
*
*
0
*
*
*
0
0
0
Port
Orchard
0
+
*
*
*
+
+
0
+
*
*
+
+
+
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
*
*
+
*
+
0
0
*
0
0
0
+
0
D-12
-------
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
Mosshead warbonnet
Decorated warbonnet
Daubed shanny
Snake prickleback
Ribbon prickleback
Bluebarred prickleback
Whitebarred prickleback
Black prickleback
Penpoint gunnel
Crescent gunnel
Saddleback gunnel
Rockweed gunnel
Wolf-eel
Quillfish
Giant wrymouth
Dwarf wrymouth
Pacific sand lance
Arrow goby
Blackeye goby
Bay goby
Pacific bonito
Pacific pompano
Ragfish
Brown rockfish
Copper rockfish
Darkblotched rockfish
Splitnose rockfish
Greenstriped rockfish
Puget Sound rockfish
Yellowtail rockfish
Quillback rockfish
Black rockfish
Tiger rockfish
Bocaccio
Canary rockfish
Redstripe rockfish
Yelloweye rockfish
Stripetail rockfish
Sharpchin rockfish
Shortspine thornyhead
Sablefish
Kelp greenling
Rock greenling
Whitespotted greenling
Lingcod
Painted greenling
Longspine combfish
Sphyraena argentea
Ronquilus jordani
Anoplarchus purpurescens
Chirolophis nugator
Chirolophis polyactocephalus
Lumpenus maculatus
Lumpenus sagitta
Phytichthys chirus
Plectobranchus evides
Poroclinus rothrocki
Xiphister atropurpureus
Apodichthys flavidus
Pholis laeta
Pholis ornata
Xererpes fucorum
Anarrhichthys ocellatus
Ptilichthys goodsi
Delolepis gigantea
Lyconectes aleutensis
Ammodytes hexapterus
Clevelandia ios
Coryphopterus nicholsi
Lepidogobius lepidus
Sarda chiliensis
Peprilus simillimus
Icosteus aenigmaticus
Sebastes auriculatus
Sebastes caurinus
Sebastes crameri
Sebastes diploproa
Sebastes elongatus
Sebastes emphaeus
Sebastes flavidus
Sebastes maliger
Sebastes melanops
Sebastes nigrocinctus
Sebastes paucispinis
Sebastes pinniger
Sebastes proriger
Sebastes ruberrimus
Sebastes saxicola
Sebastes zacentrus
Sebastolobus alascanus
Anoplopoma fimbria
Hexagrammos decagrammus
Hexagrammos lagocephalus
Hexagrammos stelleri
Ophiodon elongatus
Oxylebius pictus
•zaniolopis latipinnis
*
*
0
*
0
*
*
D-13
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (cont'd
Common Name
Scientific Name
Central
Puget Sound
Port
Orchard
Seattle
Padded sculpin
Scalyhead sculpin
Smoothhead sculpin
Puget Sound sculpin
Rosylip sculpin
Silverspotted sculpin
Roughback sculpin
Sharpnose sculpin
Calico sculpin
Mosshead sculpin
Spinyhead sculpin
Buffalo sculpin
Soft sculpin
Red Irish lord
northern sculpin
Threadfin sculpin
Spotfin sculpin
Longfin sculpin
Pacific staghorn sculpin
Great sculpin
Sailfin sculpin
Tidepool sculpin
Saddleback sculpin
Tadpole sculpin
Slim sculpin
Grunt sculpin
Cabezon
Manacled sculpin
Roughspine sculpin
Ribbed sculpin
Northern spearnose poacher
Sturgeon poacher
Smooth 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 fenestialis
Artedius harringtoni
Artedius lateralis
Artedius meanyi
Ascelichthys rhodorus
Blepsias cirrhosus
Chitonotus pugetensis
Clinocottus acuticeps
Clinocottus embruum
Clinocottus globiceps
Dasycottus setiger
Enophrys bison
Gilbertidia sigalutes
Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus
Icelinus borealis
Icelinus filamentosus
Icelinus tenuis
Jordania zonope
Lsptocottus 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
Li paris cyclopus
Li paris dennyi
Liparis florae
Liparis fucensis
Liparis pulchellus
Nectoliparis pelagious
Citharichthys sordidus
Citharichthys stigmaens
Atheresthes stomias
Eopsetta jordani
Glyptocephalus zachirus
Hippoglossoides elassodon
Hippoglossus stenolepis
0
0
0
D-14
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AR£A (cont'd)
Common Name
Butter sole
Rock sole
Slender sole
Dover sole
English sole
Starry flounder
C-0 sole
Sand sole
Ocean sunfish
Scientific Name
Isopsetta isolepis
Lepidopsetta bilineata
Lyopsetta exilis
Microstomus pacificus
Parophrys vetulus
Platichthys stellatus
Pleuronichthys coenosus
Psettichthys melanostictus
Mola mola
Central
Puget Sound
+
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
+
Port
Orchard
+
0
0
*
0
0
0
0
Seattle
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
Source: Reference 1
Legend;
+ = fewer than 10 reports
* = 10 to 49 reports
0 = 50 or more reports
-------
APPENDIX D-6
INTERTIDAL BENTHIC SAMPLING RESULTS
As a result of Phase II studies on the marine biological environ-
ment, the following sampling results are presented:
Site C - North Point Orchard, 24 July 1975
Site C - North Point Orchard, 12 August 1975
D-16
-------
2
a
CO
u
CO
u
3
CM
at
03
CM
U
CM
U
CM
J
iH
OS
«
U
U
3
STATIONS:
ft. O, Pu PL,
04 PU
PU
Pu
Pu IX
.00
T»4
a g
E 03 S
3 03 'r»
Q TO •«
VEGETATION PRESENT:
Ceramium calif orni
Enteromorpha contpr
Enteromorpha intea
Enteromorpha linza
Ulva laatuaa
Zoetera marina
ft i-l -H CM
I-l
i-l ^ CM — 1 CO
«
co.
CM CO
n-l \O i-l
CM f.
-'
. -
i-H CO OO
•S
r-k
•• t»i « «
MOLLUSCA - PELECYPODA
Clinoaardium nutta
Macoma balthiaa
Macoma nasuta
Mya arenaria
Protothaaa atamine<
Venerupia japonioa
Venerupia tennerimt
CM
.,
MOLLUSCA - GASTROPODA
Lacuna vincta
* o
1-4 i-l "*
*
BO
i-l
_ o «s _ ^
CO ^^ ^1
1 —
fM
-O
-*
Q ^3
a b
r-l CM CO 53 ~ ?
• a a. a S s, "•»
• & QQ 03 03 C3> t^
S. ffl S3 • 3
to 4l(U4)sa,t|i.
< >>r-> iS^tulJ^HQ-S
M X y :x ca a ta ^•jj S y
| « ^ ^ u o u =, a, co a
V-I7
-------
/-N
T3
O T3
•H 03 aj >-O -rl "O iH « 4)
O«r>%*H CUM«fi O *Q '^ M
hJ
0
a\
r^
^ ^
^
^
•2
CO
§
•T»
S§
o a
r*i Bvi
§ S
' 1^
3-?
EMERTEA
Cerebra
Tubular
w
m
o>
H
H
rt ^>
m ""*
«s
1
u
O
H
M
O
Pd
H
g
I
O
H
1-1
CO
1
1
IORONIDA
HI
00
«
-
CM
1-4
STATIONS:
i-l
i-4 1-4 f-4
CO ft •-<
^D ^^
co
i
MOLLUSCA-PELECYPODA
Aaila aaatrenaie
Compaomjox aubdiapha
Maaoma balthiaa
M. nasuta
Solenidae
Yoldia limatula
-
o
MOLLUSCA-GASTROPODA
Naaaariua mendioua
Trichotropaia cancel
CO
CRUSTACEA
Loxorhynahua oriepat
D-18
-------
-
0)
a
•H
4J
a
0
o
in
CTi
H
O
§
CM
t-H
1
U
o
H
H
O
Cti
H
Pi
O
1
O
w
GO
00
r.
in
-3-
n
c.
iH
STATIONS:
CM
i-l
2
O
CM
CTi
CM
•-4 i-i CM
i-l CM »H
pH PO f^ f*l
§
*V*
& 1
o 3
•S Sj ta
POLYCHAETA
Ampharetidae
Axiothella rubroain
Glyceridae
Phylloahaetopterua ;
Sabellidae
Spioahaetopterua oo
Terebellidae
iH
f-4
CO
\o
t-4
CM
i-l
sr
r-i
in
91
.*
r-i
ECfllNODERMATA
Amphiodia oaoidenta
cu
CU
CU -1
Cu
BU
eu
a- r-4
.*
CO
§
•ti
g
CNIDARIA
Ilydrozoa
PtiloaareuB giameyi
NEMERTEA
Cerebratulua aalifo
i«H
CHORDATA
Sty eta sp.
a.
a.
CU
a- cu
a
o
S
BRYOZbA
Hembranipora membra
Unidentified sp. tfl
-
^
•^
m
SIPUNCULA
Unidentified sp. #1
Unidentified sp. 92
Unidentified sp. 03
D-19
-------
r-~
P
W
o<
5!
O)
H
CO
w
W
£5
H
W
C/3
til
0
^
[jj
CQ
•O
CQ"
j5
u
CJ UU1
Or-
W *».
M "3
CO O^~
Os CO
55
M
O
sa jr vn
« i^
M g^ r-t
W Jjr ^*«»
K4 ®
2
t^
[d
_ N-3 [^
S**-
S %z
a
CM
^j
CU
CO
.
—.
4J
CD
CO
CM
4J
CU
CO
r-t
CU
CO
CM
4J
CU
CO
51
cu
CO
>c
CO
M
i •-•
!
1
i
i
1
j
:
1
j
!
1
'
1
i
gua oollei)
a
fS
|
tt!
s~*
r*
CO
•H
14-1
U
VO
-T
harengua pallaai)
^>
s~
00
c
•H
U
cu
CO
r~
i— t
^
1
03
1
K
ft
X.
e
i
CD
ca
E
U
i-H
CM
"r^
•^i
A!
Ss
,2
o
*t^
trout (Bolmo clorki
4j
CO
en •>
CD ti
<^ O
4J
u bO
0 C
cfl -H
cx &
S ^
M Cfl
£2
C «
cfl 13
C
CD Cd
CU rH
•H CD
3
4J CU
gical Baseline S
mpany, Bainbridg
o o
\ — 1 O
0
•H CO
PQ erf
*• i~~i
••
cu
o
3
O
CO
D-20
-------
APPENDIX E
BIOLOGICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Coniferous Forest
The Coniferous Forest unit on the Kitsap Peninsula is dominated
by Douglas-fir, primarily because of climate and human activity in
Puget Sound. Although western hemlock is considered to be the climax
species in this coastal vegetation zone, Dougles-fir is better adapted
to local climatic conditions such as less precipitation, hotter sum-
mers (and thus more evaporative stress) and a shorter growing season
(because of colder winters). Additionally, Douglas-fir is a pioneer
species, becoming established in open conditions after logging, fire,
land-clearing or other land disturbances. Other major tree species
found within this unit are western hemlock, western redcedar, western
white pine and red alder. Salal, ocean spray and evergreen huckle-
berry are among the major shrubs, with shade-tolerant herbs and ferns
comprising the understory. Animal life in this community is abundant,
harboring many nut- and insect-eating birds such as chickadees, nut-
hatches, creepers and jays. Larger birds include the blue and ruffed
grouse and predators such as Cooper's hawk and screech owls. Mammals
include several species that occur in more than one habitat, such as
the black bear, coyote, raccoon and red-backed vole.
Broadleaf Forest
The growth and development of deciduous hardwood forests is gen-
erally limited by climatic conditions. The mild Washington coastal
winters enable coniferous species to continue tissue growth at a time
when the deciduous trees are dormant. The relatively dry summers are
also unfavorable to broadleaf trees, which must channel large amounts
of energy and nutrients toward foliage production at a time when evap-
orative stress is high. Consequently, within Kitsap County, deciduous
trees and shrubs are more common in lowland areas which retain higher
soil moisture. The impact of human activities over the years has
stimulated and broadened the range of the Broadleaf Forest. Fast-
growing deciduous vegetation invades and successfully competes with
I-I
-------
conifers in recently cleared areas, second-growth zones and urban and
auto traffic areas. Deciduous vegetation is also aided
-------
all vireos, song sparrow and many warblers. Amphibians such as boreal
toad, rough-skinned newt and salamander, which occur seasonally in
many habitats, all return to the water habitat to mate and spawn.
Mammals frequenting the riparian habitat include the raccoon, woodrat,
deer mouse, all shrews and most bats.
Pasture/Meadow
The pastures and meadows within the study area are fairly open
areas primarily under agricultural use. Woody vegetation scattered
throughout and on drier margins includes red alder, willow, Douglas-
fir and western white pine. The meadow species include a variety of
grasses, salmonberry, blackcap, ox-eye daisy, sword fern, rushes,
self-heal, buttercup and other common species. Land areas utilized
as rural residences and developments are also included within this
unit. Grazing, agriculture and residential activity serve to check
the invasion of the drier areas by brush and woody species.
The Pasture/Meadow habitat generally is favored by seed-eating
birds such as western meadowlark, mourning dove, Brewer's blackbird
and savannah sparrow. Secretive and burrowing mammals such as white-
footed mouse, Pacific jumping mouse and pocket gopher would be common.
Varying with the degree of moisture, the boreal toad and garter snake
are also found.
Freshwater Marsh
An upland marsh area, as reported in Reference 1, may be found
along a broad swale between ridges in the northeastern section of the
study area. The marsh is probably associated with the Alderwood soil
series, which is characterized as a soil with a cemented hardpan in
the lower part of the soil profile. This hardpan is impervious, pre-
venting penetration by plant roots and water. Since it is an area of
subdued gradient, a temporary or perched water table exists, to create
marsh conditions. This wet lowland area supports a variety of grasses,
rushes, cattails, horsetails, skunk cabbage and watercress, with occa-
sional red alder, willow and Douglas-fir in the drier areas.
Marsh habitat animals may include red-winged blackbird, killdeer,
barn and cliff swallows, fox and song sparrows, vagrant and other water
shrews, raccoon, Pacific treefrog and red-legged frog.
[;• 'J
i-j J
-------
Residential
The area in the vicinity of Silverdale is characterized as resi-
dential and/or urban. Vegetation within this unit consists of native
and exotic species growing in lawns, gardens and orchards and along
roadsides and other locales. Common animals include the robin, mock-
ingbird, house sparrow, house finch, barn and cliff swallows, boreal
toad, garter snake and occasional raccoon and black-tailed deer.
Marine Shoreline
Sand-gravel-cobble beaches are typical of most shorelines in
Puget Sound. The extend of the beach area is dependent upon the
amount of beach drift material, current strength and degree of wave
action. Minimal or no back beach areas on eroded shores occur along
segments northwest of Tracyton. These shorelines have steep slopes
and bluffs resulting from a constant undercutting wave action. Vege-
tation may hang over the water, or slides may occur that expose the
underlying soil. On the other hand, accreted shorelines with moderate
to extensive back beach areas are divided into two zones: the upper
zone, generally consisting of heavier materials, with moderate to
steep slope; and the lower zone, generally consisting of lighter
materials and a shallow slope.
Shore vegetation found on the beach and upper beach areas is ex-
posed to the air but requires a saline water environment. Pickleweed,
cord grass, cat's ear, rush and bulrush are common in the shore area.
These beach plants are often found on protected accreting shorelines
which provide a gravel back beach area of sufficient width for the
plants to survive and germinate. Cord grass, rush and pickleweed help
to stabilize accreted shorelines and act as a barrier system against
severe storms which erode shorelines. This shore vegetation also pro-
vides food and shelter for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other
shoreside animals, as well as for juvenile fish (Reference 22).
The predominant wildlife covers a wide range of shorebirds and
waterfowl. Resident species include killdeer; great blue heron; sand-
piper; yellowleg; dabbling ducks such as mallards, green-winged teal,
American widgeon; diving ducks such as bufflehead, goldeneye and red-
breasted merganser; and various gulls. The primary food items for
these birds are the associations of small crustaceans, worms and mol-
luscs in the interstices of gravel, cobble and sand.
E-4
-------
APPENDIX F
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (WAC)
CHAPTER 173-201 WAC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Effective July 19, 1973 (Docket 73-4)
Amended Effective August 20, 1973 (Docket 73-22)
WAC 173-201-010 Purpose
173-201-020 Water Use and Quality Criteria
173-201-030 , General Water Use and Criteria Classes
173-201-040 , General Considerations
173-201-050 , Characteristic Uses to be Protected
173-201-060 Water Course Classification
173-201-070 , General Classifications
AMD 173-201-080 , Specific Classifications
173-201-090 Achievement Considerations
173-201-100 , Implementation
173-201-110 , Surveillance
173-201-120 , Enforcement
173-201-130 Definitions
173-201-140 Miscellaneous
-------
NEW WAG 173-201-010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is
to establish water quality standards for waters of the State
of Washington pursuant to the provisions of chapter 90.48 RCW
and the policies and purposes thereof.
NEW WAG 173-201-020 WATER USE AND QUALITY CRITERIA. The water
use and quality criteria set forth in sections 030 through 050
are established in conformance with present and potential water
uses of said waters and in consideration of the natural water
quality potential and limitations of the same. Nonetheless,
the dynamic nature of the process is also recognized. Hence,
frequent review of these uses and criteria are anticipated and
revisions will be undertaken as additional information is
developed.
NEW WAG 173-201-030 GENERAL WATER USE AND CRITERIA
CLASSES. The following criteria shall be applicable to the
various classes of waters in the State of Washington:
(1) Class AA (Extraordinary).
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this class
shall markedly and uniformly exceed the requirements for all
or substantially all uses.
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses shall
include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) Water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural).
(ii) Wildlife habitat, stock watering.
(iii) General recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (pic-
nicking, hiking, fishing, swimming, skiing, and boating).
(iv) General marine recreation and navigation.
(v) Fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing, and har-
vest.
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 50 (fresh water) or 70 (marine water) with less than
10% of samples exceeding 230 when associated with any fecal
source.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 9.5 mg/1 (fresh
water) or 7.0 mg/1 (marine water).
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point
of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - water temperatures shall not exceed
60° F. (fresh water) or 55° F. (marine water) due in part to
measurable (0.5° F.) increases resulting from human activities;
t = 75/(T-22) (fresh water) or t = 24/(T-39) (marine water);
for purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive increase and
"T" represents the water temperature due to all causes combined.
-------
(v) pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 (fresh
water) or 7.0 to 8.5 (marine water) with an induced variation
of less than 0.1 units.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 JTU natural
conditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
concentrations shall be less than those which may affect
public health, the natural aquatic environment, or the desir-
ability of the water for any usage.
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be impaired by the
presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of
natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch
or taste.
(2) Class A (Excellent).
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this class
shall meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially
all uses.
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural).
(ii) Wildlife habitat, stock watering.
(iii) General recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (pic-
nicking, hiking, fishing, swimming, skiing and boating).
(iv) Commerce and navigation.
(v) Fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing and harvest.
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
value of 240 (fresh water) with less than 20% of samples
exceeding 1,000 when associated with any fecal sources or 70
(marine water) with less than 10% of samples exceeding 230
when associated with any fecal sources.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 8.0 mg/1 (fresh
water) or 6.0 mg/1 (marine water).
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point
of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - water temperatures shall not exceed
65° F. (fresh water) or 61° F. (marine water) due in part to
measurable (0.5° F.) increases resulting from human activities;
nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t =
90/(T-19) (fresh water) or t = 40/(T-35) (marine water); for
purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive increase and "T"
represents the water temperature due to all causes combined.
(v) pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 (fresh
water) or 7.0 to 8.5 (marine water) with an induced variation
of less than 0.25 units.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 JTU over natural con-
ditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
F-3
-------
concentrat ions shall be below those of public health signifi-
cance, or which may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions
to the aquatic biota, or which may adversely affect any water
use.
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be impaired by the
presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of
natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch,
or taste.
(3) Class B (Good).
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this class
shall meet or exceed the requirements for most uses.
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Industrial and agricultural water supply.
(ii) Fishery and wildlife habitat.
(iii) General recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (pic-
nicking, hiking, fishing, and boating).
(iv) Stock watering.
(v) Commerce and navigation.
(vi) Shellfish reproduction and rearing, and Crustacea
(crabs, shrimp, etc.) harvest.
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 1,000 with less than 10% of samples exceeding 2,400
when associated with any fecal source.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 6.5 mg/1 (fresh
water) or 5.0 mg/1 (marine water), or 70% saturation, which-
ever is greater.
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any
point of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - water temperatures shall not exceed
70° F. (fresh water) or 66° F. (marine water) due in part to
measurable (0.5° F.) increases resulting from human activities;
nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t =
110/(T-15) (fresh water) or t = 52/(T-32) (marine water); for
purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive increase and "T"
represents the water temperature due to all causes combined.
(v) pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 8.5 (fresh
water) or 7.0 to 8.5 (marine water) with an induced variation
of less than 0.5 units.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 10 JTU over natural
conditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
concentrations shall be below those which adversely affect
public health during the exercise of characteristic usages,
or which may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions to the
aquatic biota, or which may adversely affect characteristic
water uses.
-------
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be reduced by dis-
solved, suspended, floating or submerged matter not attri-
butable to natural causes, so as to affect water usage or
taint the flesh of edible species.
(4) Class C (Fair).
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this
class shall meet or exceed the requirements of selected
and essential uses.
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Cooling water.
(ii) Commerce and navigation.
(iii) Fish passage.
(iv) Boating.
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 1,000 when associated with any fecal source.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 5.0 mg/1 (fresh
water) or 4.0 mg/1 (marine water), or 50% saturation, which-
ever is greater.
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% saturation at any point
of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - water temperatures shall not exceed
75° F. (fresh water) or 72° F. (marine water) due in part to
measurable (0.5° F.) increases resulting from human activities;
nor shall such temperature increases, at any time, exceed t =
125/(T-12) (fresh water) or t = 64/(T-29) (marine water); for
purposes hereof "t" represents the permissive increase and "T"
represents the water temperatures due to all causes combined.
(v) pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to 9.0 (fresh
water) or 7.0 to 9.0 (marine water) with an induced variation
of less than 0.5 units.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 10 JTU over natural con-
ditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive or deleterious material
concentrat ions shall be below those which adversely affect
public health during the exercise of characteristic usages, or
which may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions to the aqua-
tic biota, or which adversely affect characteristic water
uses.
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be interfered with
by the presence of obnoxious wastes, slimes, or aquatic
growths or by materials which will taint the flesh of edible
species.
(5) Lake Class.
(a) General characteristic. Water quality of this class
shall meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially
all uses.
F-5
-------
(b) Characteristic uses. Characteristic uses for waters
of this class shall include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(i) Water supply (domestic, industrial, agricultural).
(ii) Wildlife habitat, stock watering.
(iii) General recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (pic-
nicking, hiking, fishing, swimming, skiing, and boating).
(iv) Fish and shellfish reproduction, rearing, and harvest,
(c) Water quality criteria.
(i) Total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 240 with less than 20% of samples exceeding 1,000
when associated with any fecal source.
(ii) Dissolved oxygen - no measurable decrease from
natural conditions.
(iii) Total dissolved gas - the concentration of total
dissolved gas shall not exceed 110% of saturation at any point
of sample collection.
(iv) Temperature - no measurable change from natural
conditions.
(v) pH - no measurable change from natural conditions.
(vi) Turbidity shall not exceed 5 JTU over natural con-
ditions.
(vii) Toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material
c one ent rat ions shall be less than those which may affect public
health, the natural aquatic environment, or the desirability of
the water for any usage.
(viii) Aesthetic values shall not be impaired by the
presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of
natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch,
or taste.
NEW WAG 173-201-040 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. The follow-
ing general guidelines shall be applicable to the water quality
criteria and classifications set forth in WAG 173-201-020
through WAG 173-201-080 hereof:
(1) At the boundary between waters of different classi-
fications, the water quality criteria for the higher classifi-
cation shall prevail.
(2) In brackish waters of estuaries, where the fresh and
marine water quality criteria differ within the same classifi-
cation, the criteria shall be interpolated on the basis of
salinity except that the marine water quality criteria shall
apply for dissolved oxygen when the salinity is one (1) part
per thousand or greater and for total coliform organisms
when the salinity is ten (10) parts per thousand or greater.
(3) Except for the aesthetic values and acute biological
shock conditions the water quality criteria herein established
shall not apply:
I -6
-------
(a) Within immediate mixing zones of a very limited size
adjacent to or surrounding a wastewater discharge;
(b) In the case of total dissolved gas, when the stream
flow exceeds the 10-year, 7-day average flood;
(c) In a manner contrary to the applicable conditions of
a valid discharge permit.
(4) The total area and/or volume of a receiving water
assigned to a mixing zone shall be as described in a valid
discharge permit and limited to that which will: (a) not
interfere with biological communities or populations of impor-
tant species to a degree which is damaging to the ecosystem;
(b) not diminish other beneficial uses disproportionately.
(5) The criteria established in WAC 173-201-030 through
WAC 173-201-050 for any of the various classifications of this
regulation may be modified by the director for limited periods
when receiving waters fall below their assigned water quality
criteria due to natural causes or if in the opinion of the
director the protection of the overall public interest and
welfare requires such modification.
(6) Except where the director determines that overriding
considerations of the public interest will be served, wherever
receiving waters of a classified area are of a higher quality
than the criteria assigned for said area, the existing water
quality shall constitute water quality criteria.
(7) Whenever the natural conditions are of a lower qual-
ity than the criteria assigned, the natural conditions shall
constitute the water quality criteria.
(8) Due consideration will be given to the precision
and accuracy of the sampling and analytical methods used in the
application of the criteria.
(9) The analytical testing methods for these criteria
shall be in accordance with the most recent editions of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water,
and Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA
16020), and other or superceding methods published or approved
by the department following consultation with adjacent states
and concurrence of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(10) Deleterious concentrations of radioactive materials
for all classes shall be as determined by the lowest practicable
concentration attainable and in no case exceed: (a) 1/3 of the
values listed in WAC 402-24-220 (Column 2, Table II, Appendix
A, Rules and Regulations for Radiation Protection), or (b) the
1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards as
revised, or (c) the Radiation Protection Guides for maximum
exposure of critical human organs recommended by the former
Federal Radiation Council in the case of foodstuffs harvested
from waters for human consumption.
(11) Deleterious concentrations of toxic, or other non-
radioactive materials shall be as determined by the department
F-7
-------
in consideration of the Report of the National Technical Advi-
sory Committee on Water Quality Criteria, 1968, and as revised,
and/or other relevant information.
NEW WAG 173-201-050 CHARACTERISTIC USES TO BE PROTECTED.
The following is a noninclusive list of uses to be protected by
the various classifications in fresh and marine waters:
NEW
USES
WATERCOURSE CLASSIFICATION
LAKE AA A B C
FISHERIES
Salmonid
Migration
Rearing
Spawning
Warm Water Game Fish
Rearing
Spawning
Other Food Fish
Commercial Fishing
Shellfish
WILDLIFE
RECREATION
Water Contact
Boating and Fishing
Environmental
Aesthetics
WATER SUPPLY
Domestic
Industrial
Agricultural
NAVIGATION
LOG STORAGE & RAFTING
HYDRO-POWER
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F M
F M
F
F
F
F M
F M
M
F M
F M
F M
F M
F
F M
F
F M
F M
F
F M
F M
F
F
F
F M
F M
M
F M
F M
F M
F M
F
F M
F
F M
F M
F
F M
F M
F
F
F M
F M
M
F M
F M
F M
F M
F
F M
F M
F
F M
F M
F M
F M
F
F M
F M
F
WAC 173-201-060 WATER COURSE CLASSIFICATION. The
various waters of the State of Washington are classified as
follows, except as noted herein:
F-8
-------
NEW WAG 173-201-070 GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS. (1) All
surface waters lying within the mountainous regions of the state
assigned to national parks, national forests, and/or wilderness
areas, are hereby designated Class AA or Lake Class.
(2) All lakes and their feeder streams within the state
are hereby designated Lake Class and Class AA respectively.
(3) All reservoirs with a mean detention time of greater
than 15 days are classified Lake Class.
(4) All reservoirs with a mean detention time of 15 days
or less are classified the same as the river section in which
they are located.
(5) All reservoirs established on preexisting lakes are
classified as Lake Class.
(6) All other waters within the state are hereby desig-
nated Class A.
WAG 173-201-080 SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATIONS. Various
specific waters of the State of Washington are classified as
follows:
(1) Dyes and Sinclair Inlets west of Class A
longitude 122°37' W. Special conditions -
Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows
West of longitude 122°37' W. and south of lati-
tude 47°35'20" N. Total coliform organisms -
shall not exceed median values of 1,000 with less
than 20% of samples exceeding 2,400 when associ-
ated with any fecal source.
(2) Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Class AA
Sound through Admiralty Inlet and South Puget
Sound, South and West to longitude 122°52'
30" W. (Brisco Point) and longitude 122°51'W.
(northern tip of Hartstene Island), Hood Canal,
Possession Sound south of latitude 47°57' N.
(Mukilteo) and all North Puget Sound west of
longitude 122°39' (Whidbey, Fidalgo, Guemes
and Lummi Island) except as otherwise noted.
F-9
-------
NEW WAC 173-201-090 ACHIEVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. To fully
achieve and maintain the foregoing water quality in the State
of Washington, it is the intent of the department of ecology
to apply the various implementation and enforcement authorities
at its disposal including the development and implementation of
the continuing planning process required under section 303(e)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
and applicable federal regulations thereunder. It is also the
intent that cognizance will be taken of the need for information
as contemplated under section 304 of the federal act with
emphasis on silviculture and agriculture, and for participation
in cooperative programs with other state agencies and private
groups with respect to the management of related problems. The
Washington department of ecology's planned program for water
pollution control will be defined and revised annually in
accordance with section 106 of said federal act and regulations.
Further, it shall be required that all activities which dis-
charge wastes into waters within the state or otherwise adverse-
ly affect the quality of said waters be in compliance with the
wastes treatment and discharge provisions of state or federal
law.
NEW WAC 173-201-100 IMPLEMENTATION. (1) Discharges
from Municipal, Commercial and, jndustrial Operations. The
primary means to be utilized for controlling municipal, com-
mercial and industrial waste discharge shall be through the
issuance of waste disposal permits as provided for in RCW
90.48.160 and following.
(2) Miscellaneous Waste Discharge or Water Quality Effect
Sources. The director shall, through the issuance of regula-
tory permits, directives, and orders as are appropriate, con-
trol miscellaneous waste discharges and water quality effect
sources not covered by subsection (1) hereof. It is noted that
from time to time certain short-term activities which are
deemed necessary to accommodate essential activities or to
otherwise protect the public interest may be specially author-
ized by the director under such conditions as the director may
prescribe even though such activities may result in a reduction
of water quality conditions below those criteria and classifi-
cations established by this regulation.
NEW WAG 173-201-110 SURVEILLANCE. A continuing sur-
veillance program to ascertain whether the regulations, waste
F-10
-------
disposal permits, order, and directives promulgated and/or
issued by the department are being complied with, will be con-
ducted by the department staff as follows:
(1) Inspecting of treatment and control facilities.
(2) Monitoring and reporting of waste discharge charac-
teristics.
(3) Monitoring of receiving water quality.
NEW WAG 173-201-120 ENFORCEMENT. To insure that the
provisions of chapter 90.48 RCW, the standards for water qual-
ity promulgated herein, the terms of waste disposal permits,
and other orders and directives of the department are fully
complied with, the following enforcement tools will be relied
upon by the department, in cooperation with the attorney gen-
eral as it deems appropriate:
(1) Issuance of regulatory notifications, orders, and
directives as provided for in RCW 90.48.120. Under this
section, whenever it is the department's opinion that a person
is polluting or is about to pollute the state's waters, the
department shall notify said person of the department's deter-
mination. Within thirty days said person shall notify the
department of the action he has taken with regard to said
notification, whereupon the department shall issue such order
or directive as it deems appropriate. Thereafter any person
feeling aggrieved may request a department hearing relating to
said order or directive; the same being conducted in accord-
ance with chapter 43.21B RCW, and chapter 371-08 WAC. Any
party to the hearing may request review of the department's
order issued after said hearing in a superior court of this
state, if the hearing is informal, or to the court of appeals
if the hearing is formal.
(2) Initiation of actions requesting injunctive or other
appropriate relief in the various courts of the state as pro-
vided for in RCW 90.48.037.
(3) Levying of civil penalties as provided for in RCW
90.48.144. Under this section, the director of the department
may levy a civil penalty up to five thousand dollars per day
against a person who violates the terms of a waste discharge
permit, or who discharges without such a permit when the same
is required, or violates the provisions of RCW 90.48.080. If
the amount of the penalty, which is subject to mitigation or
remission by the department, is not paid within fifteen days
after receipt of said notice, the attorney general, upon
request of the director, shall bring an action in superior
court to recover the same.
(4) Initiation of a criminal proceeding by the appropri-
ate county prosecutor, as provided for in RCW 90.48.140.
F-ll
-------
(5) Issuance of regulatory orders or directives as pro-
vided for in RCW 90.48.240.
NEW WAG 173-201-130 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this
chapter, the following definitions are applicable:
(1) "Natural condition" means the resulting water quality
in the absence of any measurable pollutional effect due to
human activities excepting only the effects of depth, volume,
surface area or shoreline configuration resulting from the
legal physical alteration of a water body.
(2) "Acute biological shock condition" means that dose or
circumstance which has been demonstrated by field or laboratory
observations to directly result in mortalities of food, game,
or commercial fish species.
(3) "Permit" means a document issued for a wastes source
specifying the wastes treatment and control requirements and
wastes discharge conditions.
(4) "Total coliform organisms" mean total coliform organ-
isms per 100 milliliters.
(5) "Temperature" means temperature expressed in degrees
Fahrenheit.
(6) "pH" means the negative logarithm of the hydrogen-ion
concentration.
(7) "Turbidity" means the optical property of a sample
demonstrating the scattering and absorption of light caused by
suspended material as expressed in Jackson Turbidity Units
(JTU).
(8) "Mean detention time" means the time obtained by
dividing a reservoir's mean annual minimum total storage by
the 30-day ten-year low-flow from the reservoir.
NEW WAG 173-201-140 MISCELLANEOUS. (1) The water quality
criteria adopted in this chapter shall be the sole criteria for
the various waters in the State of Washington.
(2) The criteria, classifications and achievement consid-
erations established by this chapter shall be reviewed from
time to time by the department to insure that the quality of
the waters of the state may be enhanced wherever possible
through appropriate modifications of this chapter.
(3) These rules contemplate and it is the specific intent
of the department of ecology to evaluate the watercourse
classifications under WAG 173-201-060 through 080 hereof in the
near future, with special emphasis placed on those waters con-
stituting reaches of streams in nonurban areas, and, if deemed
appropriate, initiate rule-making proceedings by September 1,
1973, as to any needed changes in classification. Addition-
ally, the department shall, in light of concerns expressed
F-12
-------
both for high water quality and for the carrying on of activi-
ties on land which have an effect on certain water reaches,
continue with expedition to examine all waters of the state,
the needs for the protection of the same and related concerns,
and if after such evaluation, it appears appropriate, initiate
rule-making procedures to modify this chapter.
(4) Chapters 372-12 and 372-64 WAC are repealed.
F-13
-------
APPENDIX 6
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE IN THE CLEAR CREEK DRAINAGE,
EASTERN KITSAP PENINSULA
by
Charlotte L. Benson
prepared for URS/Hill, Ingman, Chase & Co.
and the Kitsap County Commissioners
in support of the environmental impact statement
for the Brownsville — Silverdale — Meadowdale
Sewerage Facilities and the Clear Creek
Sewer Interceptor System
University of Washington
Office of Public Archaeology
Reconnaissance Reports No. 3
Seattle
February 3, 1975
G-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
In anticipation of the proposed construction of sewage treatment and transmission
facilities in the Brownsville - Silverdale vicinity (Kitsap County, Washington), an archaeo-
logical survey was conducted to determine the nature and extent of cultural resources
which might be adversely affected by construction activities. The scope of this investigation
was developed through conversations between Messrs. Larry Sullivan and Steve Fusco, of
URS/Hill, Ingman, Chase & Co., and Mr. Jerry Jermann of the University of Washington's
Office of Public Archaeology; formal contractual arrangemnets between these two parties
being initiated on December 1, 1975.
Installation of the proposed sewer system involves the construction of sewage treatment
facilities, trunk lines, and associated pump stations in an area which involves the lower
Clear Creek Valley iorth of Silverdale, the north beach of Dye's Inlet, the north side of
Bucklin Hill Road between Silverdale and Brownsville, and the waterfront in thy vicinity of
the Brownsville Marina on Burke Bay. A preliminary review of both the National Register
of Historic Places and the University of Washington's Site Survey Records for Kitsap
County revealed an absence of any known sites of archaeological, historical, or architectural
significance within the immediate project area. However, further documentation was deemed
necessary, as this area had not been the subject of any prior systematic cultural resource
inventory.
In mid-December, 1974, the area to be directly impacted by the proposed construction
was intensively scrutinized by a reconnaissance archaeologist for evidence of any significant
cultural resources. The resulting survey of all available horizontal and vertical surface
exposures resulted in th: locating of but a single archaeological site (formally designated as
sits 45-Kp-17), a shell midden near the Brownsville Marina on Burke Bay. Modem use of
this area (e.g. road construction, historic occupation, and dredging operations) has resulted
ir. the removal of so much cultural material from the site that its potential to contribute
significantly to the area's prehistory has been considerably diminished. Based upon these
findings, further archaeological work is deemed unnecessary at this time; both in the
immediate vicinity of the shell heap and elsewhere in the surveyed area.
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Kitsap Peninsula is part of the glacially-scoured Puget Trough, a large partially-
submerged depression owing much of its present topography and geology to an extension
of the Cordilleran ice sheet into northwestern Washington during the late Pleistocene. In
particular, the large moraine of which Kitsap Peninsula is a part slopes towards the Sound,
containing many lakes and poorly-drained depressions underlain by glacial drift.
The Kitsap Peninsula has a long irregular coastline serrated by bays and inlets; the
present survey area lying between two such features, Burke Bay and Dye's Inlet (see Fig.
1). Overall relief in the area is characterized by rolling uplands and flat to slightly
depressed areas. The latter is exemplified in the project area by the Clear Creek Valley (see
Fig. 2).
• Gear Creek is one of the few perennial streams on the peninsula, where a prominent
feature of the drainage system is a lack of developed lateral or tributary watercourses.
Gear Creek is fed by several short intermittent tributaries flowing down the gentle valley
slopes.
G-2
-------
Fig. 1. Project area vicinity showing location of proposed sewer system
with respect to eastern Kitsap Peninsula.
-------
The general topography of the eastern peninsula consists of broad ridges rising between
main stream valleys. However, there is no evidence to suggest the kind of dissection
characteristic of a dendritic drainage system. In fact, the properties of the main stream
valleys and the absence of an established network of tributary streams are probably the
result of prior glacial agencies.
The depth, slope, meanders, and irregular width of valleys (which do not conform to
their occupant streams) all suggest that the valleys antedate their associated streams (U.S.
Soil Conservation Service 1939). In this regard Clear Creek apparently shifts its channels
and varies in volume dramatically, since it was observed during this survey to flow around
large trees that obviously had not always been in the main channel.
Taken as a whole, the project area includes a transect of the longitudinal ridge and
valley system that so characterizes the eastern Kitsap Peninsula area. Thus results obtained
as a direct result of the present survey should be somewhat indicative of what could be
expected in the immediate vicinity.
SOILS
The soils of Kitsap Peninsula and of the Puget Sound Basin in general were derived
from glacial materials under the influence of a coniferous forest vegetation and a humid
temperature climate; being most commonly ofthe brown podzolic type (Franklin and
Dyrness 1973). The parent material consists of unconsolidated glacial debris (largely outwash
sands and gravels) that were deposited over Miocene age formations during late Pleistocene
glacial episodes.
Soils in the project area are of two distinct types: those that overlie a nardpan or
bedrock substrata and those developed on permeable subsoils. Representatives of the former
include soils of both the Alderwood and Edmond series, while the latter includes represen-
tatives of the Everett, Indianola, and Kitsap series.
Indiancla loamy sand and Everett gravelly loam predominate both in the Silverdale
vicinity and along Bucklin Hill Road. The most striking features of these soils are their
porosity and mildly acidic surface horizons. The small arcus of Edmonds fine sandy loam
found in the project area are characterized by high organic content and an associated high
water table; those Edmonds loams occurring near Silverdale' also contain a large amount of
gravel which results in further poor drainage.
Alderwood loamy sand is found in the Brownsville area around the margins of Burke
Bay. It is characterized by a top layer composed largely of decayed forest litter which
overlies an indurated (hardpan) sandy subsoil.
The channel of Clear Creek and its immediate drainage margins (100 — 200 feet wide)
consists of undifferentiated alluvium; Kitsap silt loam being represented in the lower valley.
In several areas a layer of muck or peat overlies these alluvial soils, resulting in further
poor drainage. At present the alluvium is thickly forested in alder, willow, and conifers, as
well as dense understory comprised of grasses and hydrous plants. The accumulation of
decayed plant matter derived from this vegetative cover has resulted in a layer of woody
peat as much as 8 feet thick in parts of the Clear Creek drainage; the largest bed of this
type being the Rifle peat found at the headwaters of the stream.
-------
VEGETATION
The project area is located within the Tsuga heterophylla zone (Franklin and Dyrness
1973), or the Coastal Western Hemlock zone of Krajina (1965). Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii), however, is the dominant species of the climax forest, and not the western
hemlock.
Much of the surveyed land, specifically the Clear Creek Valley and broad areas be-
tween Silverdale and Brownsville, have been cleared for pasturage and other agronomic
pursuits (see Fig. 2).
The virgin forest was dominantly Douglas fir interspersed with western hemlock,
spruce, western red cedar, willow, alder, Oregon maple, vine maple, and madrona (U.S. Soil
Conservation Service 1939). Virtually all the original timber has been removed in historic
times by lumbering practices or fire. The conifers and deciduous trees both have reseeded
in most cut-over or fire-scarred areas, and second growth is relatively rapid.
The thick understory is comprised of a variety of plants, many of which grow to four
or six feet in height (see Fig. 3). Commonly found in the project area are salal, ferns,
huckleberry, Oregon grape, rhododendron, various vines, and coarse grasses. Fireweed thrives
in cleared and burned areas.
Many marshy areas on the Kitsap Peninsula are treeless, but the marsh of the lower
Clear Creek supports both arboreal and herbaceous vegetation. Common marsh plants
include mosses, cranberry bushes, wire grass, reeds, rushes, sedges and ferns.
Generally, conifers dominate the growth on the deep sandy soils of the Everett and
Indianola series, and deciduous trees are dominant on the soils with a higher water reten-
tion capacity (e.g., the Kitsap and Alderwood series). In wetter sections such as the lower
Gear Creek alder grows among evergreens, and in some such locales second growth alder is
actually the dominant species.
CLIMATE
The climatic regime of the Kitsap Peninsula is temperate and oceanic; modified by the
Puget Sound, the Pacific Ocean, and the Olympic Mountain Range.
Annual precipitation on the eastern side of the peninsula ranges from 30 — 40 inches,
which distributed annually would be sufficient for most agricultural purposes. However, the
uneven distribution of rainfall (average summer rainfall is 2.5 inches) renders it inadequate
for many crops. Pasturage like that in the survey area is likely to dry out in the summer.
The possible benefits accruing from the inordinately long growing season (216 days) are
negated by a disproportionate number of cloudy days, which affects crop growth.
The pastures of Clear Creek area are located on bottomlands where moisture condi-
tions are most favorable in the summer for grasses.
The stump land adjacent to cleared fields is often used for grazing. Herbage includes
native grasses and legumes as well as coarse grasses, weeds, reeds, and sedges.
In the survey region (T.25N., R.1E.) timbered areas are larger than cleared and culti-
vated areas, and much of the land is revening to second growth forest.
-------
Fig. 2. Valley of the Clear Creek, looking west.
Fig. 3. Vegetation of project area -- lower Clear Creek.
-------
ETHNOHISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The first white man known to have arrived on the Kitsap Peninsula was the English
explorer Captain George Vancouver in 1772. Homesteading of the area began some 50
years later. The earliest settlements were along the coast, leaving the interior and upland
areas only sparsely settled.
The selection of sites for historic settlement often seem to have been conditioned by
the same variables that determined the locations of prehistoric settlements. Evidence suppor-
tive of this postulate is seen in the project area. Prehistoric population centers were
generally located along major waterways and at the heads of bays and inlets; areas now
overlain by more recent cultural material.
The survey area is often not included within any of the specific tribal boundaries of
ethnographically known Puget Sound native groups. It lies just east of the Twana area
which centered around Hood Canal, and south of the Sn.uamish tribal lands. Previously
recorded sites in the area have been assigned a Suquamish affiliation (Kitsap County Site
Survey Records, Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Washington), and all are shell
middens located on major waterways.
The aboriginal subsistence system in the area can best be described as a seasonal
pattern; i.e. summer dispersal to fishing stations, hunting camps, and root and berry gather-
ing stations, and winter clustering into larger and more permanent villages. Summer houses
were temporary, while the structures occupied in winter were more substantial (Haeberlin
and Gunther 1930). Villages were invariably located on the coast or along rivers and
streams. The nature of these winter sites (e.g. longer duration of occupation, frequent
reuse, and larger size) render this type of site more readily observable than the smaller
more transitory camps associated with food accumulating operations.
The abundant wild food resources of the coastal and estuarine environment provided a
large and diverse subsistence base for prehistoric as well as historic inhabitants of the
region. Communities were able to lead a semi-sedentary existence relying wholly on procure-
ment of foodstuffs without food production.
Major utilized resources included fish, sea mammals, molluscs, waterfowl, land game,
roots, and berries. Economic differences between tribal groups often involved only the
proportion of seafood to meat in the diet; the inland groups evidencing a heavier reliance
on land game.
The seasonal pattern included shellfish gathering in the spring, gathering of roots and
berries by women and hunting by men in the summer, fishing in the fall, and spending a
sedentary winter in the village, with occasional forays for waterfowl (Elmendorf 1960,
Haeberlin and Gunther 1930).
Four species of Pacific salmon were utilized, as well as smelt, herring, flounder, and
trout.
Land game included blacktail deer, elk, black bear, raccoon, otter, beaver, mountain
marmot, muskrat, hare, and mountain beaver. Sea mammals sought were seal and harbor
porpoise.
-------
Roots commonly used were those of the braken fern, wood fem, dandelion, wild
sunflower, and cattail. Camas and tiger lily bulbs were also dug.
Berries commonly gathered included the salmonberry, huckleberry, blackberry, rasp-
berry, salalberry, serviceberry, wild strawberry, and blackcaps. Occasionally gathered were
wild carrots, acorns, hazelnuts, green shoots, mushrooms, and seaside arrowgrass.
Shore-gathered food included oysters, crabs, geoducks, littleneck or rock clams, and
butter clams.
Most of the kinds of resources used by prehistoric and ethnographic groups are still
available in the area. Changes that have taken place in the availability of resources were
culturally induced and include such factors as depletion of clam beds by over-exploitation,
the retreat of land mammals to more inaccessible areas, and changes in vegetation caused
by deforestation and the introduction of weeds by farming.
The archaeological and ethnographic evidence indicates that if prehistoric material were
to be found in the project area it would include functionally distinct sites used in the
exploitation of specific microenvironments (e.g. alluvial bottomlands, bogs, and upland
forests), and winter villages which are manifest as shell mounds. The shell middens as the
larger, more permanent, and more durable features will be more likely to have weathered
the natural and cultural degradation that is expected to have accrued since deposition.
Based upon extant ethnographic and archaeological information concerning the nature
and distribution of aboriginal settlements on the Kitsap Peninsula, we would expect at least
two such shell middens to occur in the immediate project area - one on Burke Bay near
Brownsville, and one on Dye's Inlet near Silverdale.
RECONNAISSANCE TECHNIQUES
Since there has been little modification of the landscape in the study area since the
deposition of glacial material, derivation of its soils, and the formation of present surfaces,
evidence of aboriginal utilization was expected to be visible on the surface of the ground.
Consequently the assessment of the potential adverse impact that might accrue to the area's
cultural resources through the implementation of the proposed sewer system could best be
accomplished by an on-foot investigation of the surface (and subsurface exposures) over the
project area.
The corridor for the proposed sewage system was surveyed by a reconnaissance
archaeologist in December of 1974. If individual, isolated artifacts were located they were
to be collected, plotted on a 7.5 minute USGS map, and catalogued. Clusters of artifacts
or sites were to be plotted on existing maps and assessed in terms of their potential for
contributing to the knowledge of the prehistory of the area. Recommendations were then
to be formulated regarding the value of further testing, surface collection, or excavation of
such sites to assure the preservation of this nonrenewable resource.
RECONNAISSANCE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project area is here divided into four sectors to facilitate discussion of reconnais-
sance results, as the logistics involved in each were somewhat different. The sectors are:
G-o
-------
1) Clear Creek, 2) the Silverdale waterfront, 3) the Silverdale — Brownsville corridor, and 4)
the Brownsville waterfront.
1) The banks of the Clear Creek were examined from several access points for
approximately two miles of its lower extent. The creek is fast-flowing and has a
swampy area surrounding the main stream in the lower reaches, and more
heavily-wooded banks as one moves northward. The stream presently does not
flow in precisely the same channel as previously, as evidenced by large trees
growing in the current flow.
The tendril-like conformation of the stream flowing through marshy and heavily-
wooded areas may have prohibited occupation on its shores; i.e. swampy
conditions, varying (though adjacent) channels, and flooding, as well as dense
vegetation are inconducive to any but sporadic and temporary use of the banks.
If these conditions obtained prehistorically, they would have rendered aboriginal
occupation unlikely. If, on the other hand, the vicinity of the stream was more
hospitable in the past, then any evidence of occupation or utilization has been
eradicated by the current characteristics of the creek.
2) Examination of the Dye's Inlet beach where the smaller fork of Clear Creek
enters the bay showed evidence of considerable fill and dredging, and no
aboriginal material was visible. Where the main stream of Clear Creek enters the
inlet the stream is ponded and conducted by pipe under Bucklin Hill Road. Again
filling and/or dredging operations have erased any evidence of prehistoric activities.
3) Survey of the Silverdale - Brownsville corridor involved the inspection as an
existing ditch that parallels the Bucklin Hill Road on its north side. The trench
proposed for implantation of the sewer line presently contains a water main as
well as buried cable, and thus yielded only modern debris.
4) Inspection of the Brownsville waterfront resulted in the location of a shell heap
on Burke Bay (site 45-Kp-17) in the vicinity of the existing marina. Historic and
modern activities have all but obliterated the mound, and only a thin layer of
shell and fire-cracked rock is visible. This material is scattered over the beach
front and into the water. A test pit of approximately 1.5 meters square was
previously dug in the midden, and investigation of this pit revealed the vertical
extent of the debris to be shallow (less than .5 m). The upper part of the
mound is reported to have been bulldozed. The horizontal extent of the site is
indeterminate, as the inland side has been obscured by modern dwellings and road
building and the bay side has been dredged and/or aggraded.
The judgement of the investigating archaeologist is that the value of cultural informa-
tion forthcoming from further work on 45-Kp-17 is dubious, and such investigation is not
recommended at this time. It is suggested, however, that an archaeologist be present at any
future dredging operations in the vicinity of the site.
It is further judged that implementation of the proposed sewer line will have no
negative effects on cultural resources in the project area. If artifactual material is encounter-
ed during the course of the construction, personnel should contact the Office of Public
Archaeology in Seattle, Washington to insure proper documentation and disposition of arti-
facts.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hmendorf, W.W.
1960 The Structure of Twana Culture. Washington State University Research Studies,
Monographic Supplement No. 2. Vol. XXVIII. No. 3.
Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness
1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report PNW-8.
Gunther, Erna
1973 Ethnobotany of Western Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle and
London. Revised Edition.
Haeberlin, Hermann and Ema Gunther
1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press. Seattle and London.
United States Soil Conservation Service
1939 Soil Survey for Kitsap County, Washington. Series 1934, No. 12.
G-1U
-------
APPENDIX H
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SHEET FOR PROPOSED
HANSVILLE ROAD SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Title of Proposed Action
Nature of Report:
Sponsor;
Type of Action;
Summary of Action:
Summary of Impacts;
Land Form:
Soils:
Water Resource;
Vegetation:
Proposed Hansville Road Solid Waste
Disposal Site
Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment
Board of Commissioners
Kitsap County
Kitsap County, Courthouse
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
Administrat ive
Construction, maintenance and oper-
ation of the existing Hansville
Road disposal site and proposed ex-
pansion as a sanitary landfill to
serve northern Kitsap County. Pro-
posed action includes existing 60-
acre site plus proposed 20-acre
expansion.
Alteration of existing topographic
features to provide ultimate grade
of three percent.
Disturbance of existing soil with
reuse as compacted cover for land-
fill operations.
Potential impact from leachate to
be mitigated through collection and
disposal.
Removal of existing, on-site vege-
tation consisting of second growth
conifers, deciduous varieties and
H-l
-------
Wildlife & Habitat;
Air Resource:
Land-Use:
Noise:
• Aesthetics:
Health and Safety:
• Area-wide Effects:
underbrush and grasses indigenous
to the local area to be mitigated
through application of a new vege-
tative cover upon completion of
landfill operations.
Conversion of the existing natural
habitat with native fauna to a man-
made habitat. Ultimately, new bio-
logical regime will develop if
filled area is not used for human-
use activities.
Use of a sanitary landfill opera-
tion reduces potential for fire and,
therefore, potential impact on air
quality.
Use of the proposed site is compat-
ible with the existing on-site zon-
ing (agriculture). Property acqui-
sition of the additional 20 acres
finalized and may not be necessary.
Potential acoustical impact from
on-site machine noise to be miti-
gated through both distance to clos-
est receptor and provision for a
timbered buffer zone at site bound-
aries.
Potential visual impact to be miti-
gated through use of a timbered
buffer zone at site boundaries. In
addition, conversion of existing
modified landfill operation to san-
itary landfill will reduce air-
borne material and litter on-site.
Conversion of existing modified
landfill operation to a sanitary
landfill will minimize potential
health and safety problems associa-
ted with solid waste disposal.
Project will tend to concentrate
traffic on nearby roadways, though
this impact is expected to be minor.
H-2
-------
Project will allow for orderly de-
velopment through provision of a
needed public service, solid waste
disposal.
Implementation of County-wide Com-
prehensive Solid Waste Management
Plan will increase the cost of ref-
use disposal to the public.
H-3
-------
APPENDIX I
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT
The combination of climate and soils in the study area makes the
possibility of land disposal of wastewater effluent rather restrictive.
In the main, this is due to the water budget which prevails in the
area, as shown on Table 1-1 with data pertaining to Grapeview, whose
natural setting is somewhat similar to that of the study area. The
root zone water-holding capacity of the soil-vegetation groupings in
the study area falls largely in the mid-region between the two extremes
shown on Table 1-1. Thus, the amount of wastewater effluent that can
be applied to the soil for disposal by evapotransplration is only about
seven inches per year, requiring over 8,000 acres for the projected 5.3
mgd of wastes generated in the area in the year 2000. Furthermore, the
effluent would need to be stored during the period of water surplus, in
structures with adequate capacity (nearly one billion gallons). For
this type of disposal, nearly all soils in the area except for those
with steep slopes, poor drainage and high erosion hazard can be uti-
lized.
Another possibility worthy of consideration is year-round disposal
of wastewater effluent at higher rates than can be absorbed and consump-
tively used in the water deficit period. Depending on application rates
and scheduling, a portion of the wastewater effluent, filtered through
the soil and treated by the biological, chemical and physical reactions
in the soil, accrues to the groundwater. The level of groundwater table
—both perched and confined—is rather high in many parts of the study
area. In the southern extremity of the area confined groundwater is
under artesian pressure, and in the northern parts static water depths
in some of the drilled wells exceed 100 feet. There are great varia-
tions in groundwater depth due to the rather uneven distribution of
the various layers of glacial till aquifers in different parts of the
study area. Hence, the importance of the existence of an adequate
thickness of unsaturated materials in the land disposal area should be
borne in mind in the selection of a site for land disposal of waste-
water effluents.
As far as soil properties are concerned, those without a hardpan
can generally be considered to be suitable, as long as application
rates, scheduling and irrigation method used are adapted to the exist-
ing soil and vegetation requirements. Soils that can be utilized for
land disposal of effluents include Indianola loamy sand (Is;). Kitsap
silt loam (Ks) and the undifferentiated alluvial soils (A), as shown in
-------
Table 1-1. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND
WATER BALANCE WITHIN SOIL ROOT ZONE a'
(cumulative depth of water per year)
Parameter
Precipitation, in. (cm)
Potential evapotrarispira-
Soil (root zone) water-holding capacity c
10 in.
51.98
26.48
(25 cm)
(132)
( 67)
2 in.
51.98
26.48
(5 cm)
(132)
( 67)
tion, in. (cm)
Actual evapotranspiration 21.77 ( 55) 16.93 ( 43)
tion, in. (cm)
Soil moisture recharge/ 6.83 (17) 1.99 ( 5)
utilization, in. (cm)
Water deficit d, in. (cm) 4.71 ( 12) 9.55 ( 24)
Water surplus e, in. (cm) 30.21 ( 77) 35.04 ( 89)
a Adapted from "Water Supply Bulletin No. 18," Division of Water Re-
sources, State of Washington, 1965.
Data relate to Grapeview, Mason County, with similar natural setting
to that of the study area.
Water-holding capacity for a given soil is mainly a function of soil
texture, soil depth limitations, plant rooting depth, soil structure
and organic matter content. In the study area, water-holding capa-
city varies between 4 and 8 in. in most areas. Extremes are pre-
sented for ready application to all soil-vegetation combinations.
This is the amount of. water which plants could consumptively use in
addition to the amount naturally available during May, June, July,
August and most of September.
g
This is the amount of water which exceeds the ability of plants to
transpire and soils to absorb from late September through April.
1-2
-------
Figure 1-1. Existence of continuity between surface and ground waters
is not used as a limiting criterion to land application in Figure 1-1
and must be considered independently.
Soils as a Natural Resource
Soils in the study area presently support a vast variety of natu-
ral vegetation, including evergreen and deciduous forests, meadows and
pastures, as well as Christmas tree farms and a minor area of other ag-
ricultural activities (poultry and dairy farms, etc.). The soils with
hardpans are somewhat less productive than those with friable subsoils
due to the restrictions that the former soils impose upon root penetra-
tion. Generally, most of the soils are of limited agricultural value.
Soils in the study area are classed into standard productivity or capa-
bility units, briefly described in Table 1-2.
1-3
-------
PouKbo
LEGEND
SUITABLE SOILS
%\>; I I UNSUITABLE SOILS
mm x
Figure 1-1. Soils suitable for high-rate water application
1-4
-------
tO
g
I
o
S!
CO
H
M
23
CO
rJ
0
H
CJ
to
J3
O
H
F^
M
C^
M
CO
CO
4H •
O CO
d
1 *
rl
0
01
M
CO CO
rl B
3 O
4-1 -H
rH 4-1
3 10
U 4J
•H -H
60 -S
< rH
M
10
b
3 01
4-1 3
rH rH
3 10
U >
•rl
rl
CO
•^
X
4-1 Jl
•H
rH 0)
•H en
XI co
CO rH
0. O
CO
O
rH
V ^
U
O 01
•J IJ
tO 3
VM J-l
rl X
3 01
C/3 4-1
to
01
•H
rl
01
C/l
rH
O
a
B
0
iH
to -o
0 rl
rl CO
Ol N
0,5
rl
01
01
to
u
o
o
o.
X
rl
01
01
M
M
^
01
•c
CO
CO
N»,
e
3
i
I-l
0)
Tt
^j
$
B
0
•rl
to
0 T>
rl rl
01 CO
N
0) ID
4-1 J=
(d
0)
•0
§
rl
•H
id
UH
0)
>
M
UH
<
g
g
rH
^
•o
B
id
to
g
*H
U-4
•g
§
0)
•o
Jj
-•
B
o
•H
tO T3
O rl
rl CO
01 N
«JS
I-l
I
09
rl
0
O
u
0)
01
M
I—I
^
rH
<
E
10
O
rH
•g
§
01
•a
"i
(N
Ol
a
Tt
n
•H
_,-
u
4-1
n)
TS
01
iJ
10
•H
4J
B
01
rl
0,
U-.
UH
•H
•o
B
•3
•O
O
i
I-l
2
"l
'H
1
.^
rH
rH
Id 43
•H 60
4J -H
01
.U
O.
S
M
M
M
W
e
S
M
X
"3
10
to
01
B
iH
to
•s
O
3
w
I-l
•o
n)
N
Ol CO
4-1 .C
J_( c
01 O
o to
B 0
rl
IH
O
O
D.
O
£
10
<4H
•J5
M
>
M
T)
B
CO
to
X
e
1
M
O
It
•g
,5
«
"**.
id
N
o) to
4-> A
(0
4) O
T3 iH
O 10
e o
^
M
-1 4S
CO 00
M iH
0) -C
B
U
Ol
M
M
M
!*!
e
§
rH
4J
M
IH
to
&
X
j2
**
•n
01
rH
10
•H
rl
id
>
CJ
rH
J3
10
•H
rl
10
1
<
^•t
•o
0)
^
43
4J
B
Ol
l-l
01
u-l
UH
iH
TJ
B
3
>^
rH
td
•H
>
<-l
^
H
00
rj
-rl
•o
O T3
O rl
UH N
«ji
IH
V
to
x
rH
rH
CO X!
iH 60
u iH
Ol
4J
C.
3
M
M
S
O
TH
B
CO
CO
rl
O
_^
O
S
««
V
bO
g
•H
•g-a
O M
^M N
2J
>
ID
X
rH
rH
43 -5,
U -rl
B -C
0)
4-1
n.
a
M
M
OC!
5
B
id
60
14
O
4J
id
V
01
"H
•H
ai
•
a
g
B
es i-l
r-. o
o« o
rH
f** 5
U 4J
S U
§ S
>•> B
S. 5
i:
i ^
PU 4J
01
01 rl
co a.
3 rl
0)
•g S
Id ^
X
rl rH
0 <4H
<4H 01
•rl
to u
rH rQ
•rl
O •
C/l ID
01
UH 09
o to
td
B M
o u
•rl ft
td a
4J
01 "O
rl B
a. id
rl
01 10
4VJ 01
M S
= 5
u o
^^
U] T3
1 rl
<: M
S -8
^3t (0
§ "
rl IB
MH ••
« S
0) M
4J 1
a, <
« 0
-------
APPENDIX J
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.
J-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 each 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, three models
were used to study water quality and mixing within the study area. A
mathematical ecologic model applied by EPA to a part of Puget Sound,
the University of Washington's physical model of Puget Sound and
mathematical dispersion model used by Parametrix, Inc. Each of the
models is described briefly below, together with a discussion of its
limitations and the conclusions regarding a comparison of potential
discharge sites that can be drawn from its use.
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 hydrodynamic model in order to predict water quality and
biological characteristics 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." In addition the treatment/regionalization strategies tested
in the model are broad in scope and do not correspond directly with the
alternatives for Central Kitsap County. For these reasons it is con-
cluded that the ecologic model is of little or no value in comparing
outfall sites for Central Kitsap County.
The Physical Model
The second model used in the study was the University of Wash-
ington 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
J-2
-------
were made with vessel-mounted current meters and drogues in order to
verify the model results.
The study area for the physical hydraulic model encompasses an
area about 12 miles wide, from the edge of Dyes Inlet eastward to
Point Jefferson, and about 16 miles long, from Sinclair Inlet eastward
to Point Jefferson and beyond. Given the horizontal scale ratio for
the Puget Sound model, this area represents a rectangular grid 19
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 lead to ques-
tionable results from some of the outfall locations studied.
There are three major limitations of this model which cannot be
avoided. Because of the effects of surface tension and land 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
possibility 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.
The summary of results contained in the modeling report include
the following statements:
"Model observations showed that discharge of waste
into the main basin of Puget Sound is more desirable
than discharge into the Port Orchard system."
"The central portion of Port Orchard channel was shown
to have a low net transport and slow flushing in
the absence of winds."
J-3
-------
The Dispersion Model
A third model, a mathematical model of dilution and dispersion at
three potential outfall sites, was developed for URS by Parametrix, Inc.
and reported on in November 1975. The three sites modeled were Dyes
Inlet, North Port Orchard and Point Monroe. This model aggregated
several mathematical models of dilution and dispersion and used them
as a means of calculating the dilutions that would occur if waste were
discharged at each site and if water movements and density structure
were as measured by the University of Washington during the summer
of 1975.
The principal limitation of the model stems from the fact that the
mathematical formulations on which it is based derive from experiments
conducted in laboratory tanks which provide a simplified simulation of
reality. The methods used to take account of water movements is not
entirely satisfactory. In addition the information used as an input
to the model may not be representative of worst case conditions.
The use of the model led to the conclusion that dilution at a
Point Monroe discharge would be 2 to 4 times greater than at a Port
Orchard discharge.
Conclusions
The modeling studies in general support the conclusion that
dispersion at Point Monroe is greater than in Port Orchard Channel,
a fact that might be expected in view of the relative exposure to large-
scale water movements of the two sites.
It is apparent, however, that a discharge at either site will
comply with the applicable water quality standards. Thus, any further
analysis of the sites should focus on the costs and benefits associated
with the higher degree of dispersion obtainable at Point Monroe.
J-4
------- |