EPA 910/9-75-015
EPA-10-WA-FIERCE-CHAMBERS CREEKr
-------
EPA-10-WA-Pierce-Chambers Creek-WWTP £ INT-75
EPA 910/9-75-015
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
CHAMBERS CREEK SEWERAGE SYSTEM
(ULID 73-D
PROJECT # C-530565-01
PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Prepared by
WILSEY 6 HAM, INC.
Washington Plaza
Tacoma, Washington
and
EPA REGION X
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Washington
Approved by:
Regional Administrator /Date
/'
-------
PREFACE
Pierce County, the grant applicant, is proposing to construct
an interceptor along the Chambers Creek Canyon and a sewage treat-
ment plant near the Chambers Creek estuary, with a submarine outfall
into Puget Sound. The proposed service area includes ULID 73~1 , the
Town of Steilacoom, and the Westside Water District.
Because of the size and controversy surrounding this project,
a draft environmental impact statement was prepared and released
on October 3, 1975- This final EIS serves to identify the most
cost-effective and environmentally favorable alternative and miti-
gative measures associated with this alternative. In addition, the
final EIS answers comments from agencies, groups, and individuals
on the draft ElS.
Major differences between the draft and final EIS include the
addition of this preface, Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and IX and Appendix
V. The first three new chapters describe the project favored by EPA
and its unavoidable adverse impacts, mitigative measures, short-term
use and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable
resource commitments. The last new chapter responds to letters of
comment on the draft EIS; a description of the public hearing is
also featured. Appendix V is a preliminary report of an archaeo-
logical survey of the Chambers Creek area. This survey took place
as a result of State and Federal agency comments on the draft EIS.
The final archaeological report will be available in the beginning
of January. This survey determined that changes in location of
project features are not required to protect historic or architec-
tural sites.
After a careful analysis of the project, EPA recommends the
grantee's proposed project and the route location 200 feet or
more from Chambers Creek along the canyon wall.
The grantee's proposed project is favored above the other al-
ternatives because it is the most cost-effective and the most envi-
ronmentally sound. In spite of the lack of data in some areas, it
is valid to postulate from comparable areas that existing conditions
in the Chambers Creek sewerage area are conducive to an evolving
deterioration in groundwater quality and to an onset of health pro-
blems. These potential problems encompass the entire service area,
making the broad interceptor approach the most cost-effective and
appropriate.
The two feasible interceptor route alternatives, outside the
canyon and along the canyon wall, were given careful consideration.
In fact, because of criticism from the comment letter and at the
public hearing against locating the interceptor route along the
canyon wall, a special additional study was undertaken and a com-
parative impact analysis was made0 The Canyon Wall route, Alter-
-------
native Route 1, proved to be the most environmentally acceptable
alternative because:
* It is more cost-effective. The Canyon Wall route requires
two additional pump stations; the outside canyon route requires
four. One of these four has to lift the sewage from the entire
service area 150 feet. The extra yearly operation and maintenance,
including energy use, of these two extra pump stations is $130,000
per year. Over the 50 year design life of this facility, it would
amount to $6% mi 11 ion,
* It will not cause irreversible environmental damage. Though
from afar the Chambers Creek Canyon looks like virgin forest, it is
not. A closer look reveals an early successional forest with a pre-
ponderance of brush species. (There is also a preponderance of
trash.) These brush species are quick to return after any construc-
tion. It is obvious that the Canyon's north slope was severely
logged around the turn of the century.
* Adverse impacts can be mitigated. Strict construction pro-
cedures and monitoring will minimize and probably eliminate any
significant adverse environmental impacts.
" It can even improve the canyon. A bicycle or nature trail
atop the interceptor route can make the canyon accessible. Acces-
sibility may produce a demand to create a park in the canyon, thereby
preserving the open space character of the canyon. Trash and debris
could be taken away. Replanting with selected native species will
accelerate the natural succession process, resulting in an estab-
lished forest sooner.
In order that this recommended action remains environmentally
sound, stringent mitigative measures on construction must be ad-
hered to. The mitigative measures currently planned are described
in Chapter VI.
In addition to these mitigative measures, EPA will add two grant
conditions as follows:
1) The grantee shall contract for the services of a landscape
architect consultant with demonstrated environmental expertise.
This consultant will coordinate with the County's engineering
consultant to formulate a plan to reseed and replant the con-
struction area. In addition, the consultant will monitor the
construction on a once a week basis or when conditions dictate,
more frequently (e.g. during periods of inclement weather),
reporting any significant environmental impacts to the County,
the County's engineering consultant, and to EPA. The consul-
tant will observe impacts on all environmental areas including
water quality, air quality, wildlife and vegetation, soil and
slope stability, and archaeological and historical resources.
2a
-------
2) The County shall provide assurances that key contractor personnel
associated with excavation during construction of the project will
undergo an orientation course from a qualified archaeologist on
identification of archaeological resources. If an archaeological
site is found during construction, the excavations involved will
be delayed, the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preserva-
tion and the Washington Archaeological Research Center will be no-
tified, and arrangements will be made with a qualified archaeolo-
gist to either detour around the site or excavate the site. This
course of action will also be followed if the archaeological survey
reveals the presence of an archaeological site on the interceptor
route.
The Environmental Protection Agency submits this final EIS for
a public review period of 30 days. Following this review period, the
Regional Administrator of EPA will make his final determination con-
cerning a grant for ULID 73-1.
2b
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
SUMMARY
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
LOCATION 1*
PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1*»
Water Quality Problems To Be Solved 1**
IDENTIFICATION OF GRANT APPLICANTS AND PLANNERS 16
TYPE OF PROJECT PROPOSED BY APPLICANT 17
HISTORY 17
Prior Attempts To Solve Waste Disposal Problems in
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin 17
Septic Tank Construction Ban 18
Relationship to Previous Studies 19
EPA'S ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES 20
Authority and Responsibility 20
Decision To Require An Environmental Impact Statement 21
SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED 21
CHAPTER I I SEWERAGE AREA NEEDS
PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS 25
Septic Tanks 25
Westside Water District 25
Stei lacoom 28
Western Slopes System 29
Fircrest 29
Other Institutional Systems 30
Pacific Lutheran University
Franklin Pierce High School
Lakewood Industrial Park
Boise Cascade West Tacoma Mill
Other Existing Water and Sewer Districts 31
Summary 32
DESIGN CRITERIA 32
Population 32
Service Needs 3*»
Character of Waste Water
Infiltration/Inflow Quantities
Summary of Waste Water Flow Criteria
CHAPTER III STUDY AREA ENVIRONMENT
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS k2
DRAINAGE 1^
FUNCTIONING OF GEOLOGICAL AND SOILS FORMATIONS ^
Formation Of Gravels And Glacial Till 1^
Surface Soil Formations i^-j
Requirements for Effecitve Septic Tank 51
Systems - Permeability
Suitable for Septic Tank Use
Unsuitable for Septic Tank Use
Questionable for Septic Tank Use
-------
Page
Requirements for Effective Septic Tanks - Purification 53
Groundwater Formations 5*»
Existing Groundwater
Relationship of Groundwater to Surface Waters
Groundwater Movement
WATER QUALITY 57
Existing Surface Waters And Their Uses 57
Creeks
Lakes
Wetlands
Marine Waters
Disposal Of Wastewater To Surface Waters 62
Point Sources
Non-Point Sources
Water Quality Problems 65
Pathogenic Organism Contamination
Chemical Contamination of Water
Extent of Surface Water Contamination
in Study Area
Relationship of Water Quality Problems to
Surface Geology
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES 75
Vegetation '5
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 75
Archaeological/Historical 78
MAN MADE ELEMENTS 78
Historical Land Use Patterns 78
Existing and Future Land Use 79
Population Trends/Demographic Characteristics 82
Population
Economic Characteristics
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SENSITIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS 90
Surface Water and Groundwater 90
Wetlands and Estuaries 90
Flood Plains 90
Steeply Sloping Lands 91
Forest and Woodlands 91
Prime Agricultural Lands 91
Significant Habitats 91
Recreation Areas 91
Sensitive Geologic Areas 92
Archaeological and Historic Sites 92
CHAPTER IV ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACT Sk
GENERAL DISCUSSION 94
Selection Of Alternatives 9/t
Impact Evaluation Process 9^
ALTERNATIVE I - "NO-ACTION" 96
Groundwater Impacts 96
Surface Waters Impacts 97
Biological Impacts 98
Air Quality and Acoustics 99
-------
Page
Land Use and Economics 99
Costs and Risks 100
Mitigating Measures 101
ALTERNATIVE II - PIERCE COUNTY'S PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR
TO A CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT
Description 102
Groundwater Impacts 104
Surface Waters Impacts 108
Marine Waters 110
Biological Impacts 112
Air Quality Impacts 114
Noise Impacts 118
Impacts on Land Use and Growth Patterns 119
Impact on Traffic 120
Economic Impacts 123
Cost and Risks 124
Mitigating Measures 125
ALTERNATIVE III - REGIONAL COMMUNITY TREATMENT SYSTEMS 12?
CHAPTER V PLANS, POLICIES, AND PROJECTS 13/t
RELATIONSHIP OF ALTERNATIVES TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND 135
CONTROLS
CHAPTER VI MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF 136
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CHAPTER VII SHORT TERM USES AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF 140
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CHAPTER VIII IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS 144
OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CHAPTER IX COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIS 14?
APPENDICES 232
A-1 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES SUBSYSTEM A-
A-2 ALTERNATIVES DERIVED FROM POSSIBLE SUBSYSTEMS A- 3
B GROUND WATER B-
C FLOOD HAZARDS C-
D SEISMIC HAZARDS D-
E WATER QUALITY STANDARDS E-
F WATER QUALITY DATA F-
G SPECIES LISTS G-
H BIBLIOGRAPHY H-2
I REFERENCES I-
J PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL J-
SURVEY
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Location Map 15
2. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 26
3- Peaking Factor Curve 38
4. Drainage Areas 45
5. Groundwater Regions and Surface Soils 48
6. Simplified Cross Section of Relationships Between Impermeable 50
Till and Permeable Gravels
7- Surficial Geology and Ability to Absorb Septic Tank Effluent 52
8. Groundwater Movement as Indicated by Water Table Contours 56
9- Existing Surface Waters 58
10. Relationship of Water Quality Problems to Surficial Geology Ik
11. Habitats 76
12. Proposed Land Use 80
13- Census Tracts of Low Income 85
14. Census Tracts of Elderly 86
15- Simplified Selection Process for Alternatives 95
16. Traffic County at Selected Intersections 122
APPENDIX
A-l Alternative Interceptor Route 1 4-15
A-2 Alternative Interceptor Route 2 4-17
A-3 Alternative Interceptor Route 3 4-20
A-4 Alternative Locations for Proposed Treatment Plant 4 - 22
-------
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER 11
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
CHAPTER II
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
A
B
C
D
E
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
TABLE
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
TABLE N
0
P
Q
R
CHAPTER IV
TABLE S
TABLE T
CHAPTER IX
TABLE U
TABLE V
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Chambers Creek Basin Population Forecasts
Stage I and II Projected Wastewater Flows
Sewerage-Flow Criteria
Alternatives Considered Within Pierce County's
Proposed Project
Drainage Areas
Project Area Lakes , and Wetlands
Local Wastewater Dischargers
Nutrients and Coliform in Human Excretion
State of Washington Standards for Coliform
Trends in Coliform Organism Concentrations in
Project Area Streams
Fecal Col i form of Lakes
Trends in Coliform Organism Concentrations in
Project Area Streams
Trends in Coliform Organism Concentrations in
Project Area Ditches
Population Characteristics
Characteristics of Population by Age
Occupational Status and Percent Employment
Income Characteristics of Families and Unrelated
Individuals
Features of Alternative II Pierce County's Proposed
Interceptor and Single Treatment Plant
Chambers Creek Basin Projected Air Quality
Written Comments
Public Hearing Testimony
PAGE
27
33
35
37
39,^0
60
63
65
66
69
70
71
72
83
8*t
88
89
103
117
-------
SUMMARY SHEET FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR CHAMBERS CREEK SEWERAGE SYSTEM
(ULID 73-1)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of statement: Draft ( ) Final (X)
2. Administrative Action
3. The subject action for this environmental impact statement is the
awarding of grant funds to Pierce County for the construction of a
sanitary sewer system in Pierce County, Washington, to service the
area designated as Stage I of the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek
Basin Sewerage General Plan. State I is comprised primarily of the
ULID 73~1, which includes the unincorporated communities of Lakewood,
and portions of Parkland and Spanaway. Also, the existing systems
of the Westside Water District and the town of Steilacoom will be
incorporated into Stage I. Stage II will include such communities
as Fircrest, portions of University Place, Tillicum, American Lake
Gardens and the remaining portions of Parkland and Spanaway.
Pierce County's Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Chambers
Creek ULID 73"! was used as a major resource document for the prepar-
ation of this environmental impact statement.
k. The present total estimated project cost for Stage I Sewerage Plan
Construction for Facilities as defined under ULID 73~1 Assessment
District Proceedings is $72,000,000 including all construction and
incidental development costs. The proposed project will include
collection sewers, trunk lines, interceptors, a secondary biological
treatment plant and a submarine outfall in Puget Sound.
5. The proposed project will result in: (a) the elimination of septic
tank use in the project area, (b) the elimination of inadequately
treated wastes from various institutional and municipal facilities,
and (c) the removal of the constraint on growth and development
represented by a lack of adequate sewer service.
6. Major adverse primary impacts and mitigative measures are:
(a) The construction of the main interceptor line down the Chambers
Creek Canyon could constitute a major and potentially detrimental
impact on the stability of that watercourse. Mitigation of this impact
has been provided for by selecting an alternative route higher on the
canyon wall and outside of the creek bed itself.
-------
Elsewhere, the nature of sewerline installation is such that insertion
into existing roadways will not be highly destructive to native and
ornamental vegetation. Mitigation of impact to vegetation will be
accomplished by restoring all roads and landscaping along the right-
of-way to its original or better condition.
During the construction period, traffic will be disrupted to a minor
extent in the Parkland/Spanaway area and to a greater extent in the
Lakewood area because of the long winding roads and lack of a grid
pattern to facilitate detours. Particularly affected will be Custer
Road, Steilacoom Blvd., and Bridgeport Way. Pierce County will
maintain access to all private property, allow for emergency vehicle
access and will generally maintain a minimum of congestion.
(b) There is the potential for a lowering of the groundwater table by
6 to 8 inches due to the elimination of septic tank effluent as a source of
recharge. In other words, water now reaching the shallow aquifers
will be collected, treated and discharged to the Puget Sound. The
anticipated lowering of the groundwater will not affect vegetation,
because vegetation is primarily maintained by precipitation. It is
not anticipated that lowering of the shallow groundwater table will
be sufficient to necessitate importing domestic water. Lowering of
the shallow groundwater table; however, may cause a minor reduction in
the mean lake levels of those lakes which are recharged primarily by
groundwater, such as Gravelly Lake. American Lake and Steilacoom
Lakes are less dependent on subsurface inflow. There are no
mitigating measures for this impact.
(c) It is expected that 16 million gallons per day will be discharged
from the proposed secondary wastewater treatment plant and that such
effluent will be equal to or better than the current requirements for
secondary effluent. The Puget Sound in the vicinity of the outfall is
capable of diluting and absorbing the increased load of nutrients and
oxygen demand. However, residual chloramines may be toxic to salmonid
fish using Chambers Creek Basin for spawning. This adverse impact could
be minimized by dechlorination, or using other disinfection methods such
as ozonation or ultraviolet.
(d) No adverse impacts are anticipated on archaeological, historical
or cultural resources; however, a preliminary survey of the construction
right-of-way shall be made before construction begins to determine if
any unique sites would be damaged by the proposed construction. If
any areas are identified, measures will be taken to avoid irreparable
damages.
Major adverse secondary impacts resulting from growth and development
in the Chambers Creek project area are:
(a) There will be a long-term decrease in coliform and nutrient loading
of streams and lakes. It should not be expected that surface waters
will become "pure" after the sewer system is completed. Contaminants
will continue to reach surface waters from such sources as: fertili-
zation of lawns, livestock usage of areas draining towards creeks,
waterfowl usage of water bodies, and perhpas most importantly, the
continued intorduction of contaminants washed off paved surfaces as
development proceeds. There are no truly acceptable means for reducing
the impact of the first three sources; however, frequent cleaning of
-------
paved surfaces is generally recognized to reduce contaminants from
this source.
(b) As the general development of the area proceeds, it is expected
that concentrations of total suspended particulates and carbon
monoxide will increase. Worst case projections for the general area
do not indicate that State of Federal air quality standards will be
exceeded. However, in particular locations such as a busy intersection
or at shopping center parking lots, excesses could occur. Mitigative
measures could include improved mass transit.
(c) There is a potential for loss of wetlands, vegetation and
wildlife habitat, given the present local land use plans. Mitigation
of this impact could be provided by amending these plans or by the
acquisition of wetlands and other sensitive areas by local governments,
conservation agencies or societies. The environmental effects of
specific projects, including future interceptor extensions,
would be subject to evaluation in accordance with provisions of the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, or both.
(d) Needs associated with growth and development permitted by local
land use plans include sewer service, water supply, transportation,
power, schools, open space and recreational facilities, shopping areas,
fire and police protection, health facilities, and solid waste
collection. Any impacts of provideing these facilities and services
could be minimized with proper planning by local governments.
8. Alternatives considered were the "no-action" alternative, and construc-
tion of a regional community treatment facility or community
package treatment facilties.
9. The following State, Federal and local agencies and interested groups
were invited to comment on the environmental impact statement.
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Region X
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Dept. of Defense, Dept. of the Army
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Region X
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region X
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Region X
10
-------
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Members of Congress
Henry M. Jackson, U.S. Senate
Warren G. Magnuson, U.S. Senate
Julia B. Hansen, U.S. House of Representatives
Floyd V. Hicks, U.S. House of Representatives
STATE AGENCIES
Governor of Washington
Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management
Dept. of Ecology
Dept. of Fisheries
Dept. of Game
Dept. of Highways
Dept. of Natural Resources
Parks and Recreation Commission
Dept. of Social and Health Services
Office of Community Development
Washington Future Program
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Puget Sound Governmental Conference
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
River Basin Coordinating Committee
Pierce County
Town of Steilacoom
Westside Water District
INTERESTED GROUPS
Washington Environmental Council
Sierra Club
Friends of the Earth
The League of Women Voters
Tahoma Audubon Society
Concerned Citizens of Pierce County, Inc.
11
-------
Lakewood Sewer and Water Committee
P.L.A.N.
Washington Air Quality Coalition
Green for Tomorrow
THE DRAFT EIS WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNCIL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQ) AND THE PUBLIC ON OCTOBER 3, 1975.
THIS FINAL EIS WAS RELEASED JAAI 5 1976
12
-------
-------
LOCATION
The proposed sanitary sewer system will serve the area designated as
Stage I of Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin Sewerage General Plan.
Stage I is comprised primarily of the ULID 73~1 which includes the unincor-
porated communities of Lakewood, and portions of Parkland and Spanaway. Also,
the existing systems of the Westside Water District and the town of Steilacoom
will be incorporated in Stage I. Stage II will include such communities as
Fircrest, portions of University Place, Tillicum and American Lake Gardens,
and the remaining portions of Parkland and Spanaway. As shown on Figure 1,
ULID 73-1 is approximately 25 square miles and represents the most urbanized
portion of the approximately 170 square mile area Chambers Creek - Clover
Creek Drainage Basin.
The Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Drainage Basin generally drains
toward the northwest with discharge via Chambers Creek into the Puget
Sound. It represents the largest unified drainage system within State
Water Resoureces Inventory Area No. 12.
The relationship between the planning requirements for the ULID 73~1
and the State Water Resources Inventory Area No. 12 are described
subsequently under the heading of Relationship to Previous Studies. The
topographic and drainage features of this basin are described in greater
detail in the subsequent chapter on the study area environment.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Water Quality Problems to be Solved
The water quality problems in the area which have been of recent
concern are summarized below. A detailed explanation may be found in
Chapter III.
Lake Contamination
Conditions existing in Chambers Creek, Clover Creek,
Flett Creek, Leach Creek, Ponce de Leon Creek, Lake
Louise, Carp Lake, and Lake Steilacoom exceed the
water quality criteria contained in Washington Admin-
istrative Code (WAC) 372-64-030 (1) (c) (i) and (3) (c)
(i) which provide: "Total Co1iform Organisms shall
not exceed median values of 240 with less than 20%
of samples exceeding 1,000 when associated with any
fecal source".
The conditions in Lake Steilacoom exceed the standard
provided by WAC 372-64-030 (l)(c)(vii) which provides:
"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".
-------
-------
Surface Water Contamination
The evidence indicates that drainage ditches, storm
drains, and standing waters not in natural watercourses
are being contaminated with septic tank effuent in East
Parkland, Midland, and other locations scattered through-
out the area in question. This situation constitutes
pollution within the meaning of chapter 90.48 RCW, in
that there are discharges which will, or are "likely to
create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detri-
mental or injurious to the public health, safety or
welfare, . . ." Revised Code of Washington (RCW)
90.48.020).
Groundwater Contamination
Septic tanks as well as a variety of non-point sources appear
to be contaminating the shallow groundwaters within the
subject area. It is thought that this contamination is likely to
extend to deeper groundwater resources. Contamination of
groundwater supplies is pollution within the meaning of RCW
Chapter 90.48.
IDENTIFICATION OF GRANT APPLICANTS AND PLANNERS
The grant applicant for Federal Funds to solve wastewater problems
for the Chambers Creek ULID 73~1 is Pierce County, which is granted
authority to be the agency responsible for constructing facilities in
the unincorporated areas of the County under the State of Washington
Community Services Act (RCW 36.94).
Pierce County has assumed the role of wastewater planning and
management in the proposed project area and has satisfied the legal
requirements of plan implementation with the adoption of the Sewerage
General Plan in 1969, and the formation of the ULID 73-1 in 1973.
Initially Pierce County was awarded a loan by the State Department
of Ecology for the engineering, planning, and design of the proposed
facilities. Subsequent to that the County has applied for a Step 1
Facilities Planning Grant for the project and anticipates following this
with Steps 2 and 3 design and construction grant. The grant application
number for Pierce County for this project is 267308026. EPA's project
number C.530 565-0!.
Along with Pierce County are other agencies with similar but
limited jurisdictional authority. These agencies are additional
potential grant applicants for work associated with the project as
proposed by Pierce County and include the Town of Steilacoom and the
16
-------
Westside Water District for improvement and connection of their existing
systems. Should an alternative project be approved, other potential
service areas to be included include: The City of Tacoma, or the
Town of Dupont.
TYPE OF PROJECT PROPOSED BY APPLICANT
Pierce County, the grant applicant, is proposing to construct an
interceptor to a central treatment plant in order to solve the wastewater
disposal problems which occur in the proposed service area. The
applicant's proposed project is the first stage of the officially and
legally adopted Chambers Creeks - Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan.
The applicant's proposed service area includes ULID 73~1> the Town
of Steilacoom, and the Westside Water District. The present institutions
or industries within this area which have some form of treatment
facilities and which will also be served include: Pacific Lutheran University,
Franklin Pierce High School, Lakewood Industrial Park, and the
Boise Cascade Mill. These areas, as mentioned above, comprise
Stage I of the officially and legally adopted Chambers Creek - Clover
Creek Sewerage General Plan.
The applicant's proposed project includes connection sewers, trunk
lines, interceptors, a secondary biological treatment plant, and a
submarine outfall. See Appendix for Alternative II for greater detail.
Stage II of the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General
Plan would serve presently developed but unsewered areas
surrounding the Stage I area. The entire Chambers Creek - Clover Creek
Basin, which includes the Stage I and Stage II areas, has been designated
as the Ultimate Sewerage Service Area. Treatment capacity and sewers for
the Post Stage II area, however, would not be provided until necessary in
the future. See Figure 1 for Stage I and II sewerage service areas.
HISTORY
Prior Attempts to Solve Waste Disposal Problems in
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin
In 1939 the Washington State Health Department published a report
expressing concern over the serious pollution of Clover Creek which was
attributed to waste disposal from "a. . . thickly settled population
within the watershed of 3,000 people." This report concluded that
" . . . the shallow groundwater in the drainage area is also grossly
polluted."
17
-------
Since 1939 the basin population has grown to over 90,000 plus a
major military installation. The Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin
is considered to be one of the largest unsewered, urbanized population centers
in the United States. There have been attempts by individual districts to
construct sewer systems within various areas of the basin. The sewage
collection system and interim disposal facilities completed in March, 1969,
by the Westside Water District were the first community sewerage
facilities to be constructed and operated completely within the basin.
The Town of Steilacoom, which provides sewer service to areas within the
basin, has had a sewer collection system for over 50 years. In 1965,
a plant was constructed to provide primary treatment, which ended direct
discharge of raw sewage to Puget Sound from this source. The Town of
Fircrest sewer system and portions of the City of Tacoma sewer system
which lie within the basin, pump out of the basin into the Central Tacoma
system for treatment and disposal.
Most of the sewage disposal in the unsewered area of the basin is
by septic tank and drainfield. Because of the ability of much of the
basin soils to hydraulically accept septic tank effluent, residential
and business development have grown rapidly and for the most part are
dependent on septic tank systems. The extent to which these coarse
basin soils are providing treatment to the septic tank effluent is
unknown, as explained in Chapter III.
Attempts to solve waste disposal problems in the area have extended
back many years. In the early 19^0's, contamination of some shallow
wells led to construction of deep wells, indicating the partial loss of
a resource. The Parkland Sewer District was formed in 195^ and the
South Suburban Sewer District in 1965, but attempts to gain the public
support needed to institute plans into actual sewer systems failed in
both cases. In 1967, the Lakewood Water District prepared a
comprehensive plan for sewers and held a bond issue for sewer
construction for the Lakewood area in November, 1968 which was rejected
by the voters.
During the same period, passage of the County Services Act by the
State Legislature in 1967 provided the vehicle by which the County could
construct and maintain a basin-wide sewerage system.
At the request of the County Commissioners, a comprehensive
basin-wide sewerage plan meeting requirements of the County Services Act
was prepared and was adopted September 15, 1969- Subsequent to the
adoption of the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin Sewerage Plan a
utility local improvement district was proposed by the County but
rejected by the property owners in January, 1971-
Septic Tank Construction Ban
Failure to solve waste disposal problems in the Chambers Creek -
Clover Creek portion of the basin combined with the concerns of local
and state public health officials over evidence of water quality
problems led to the State Department of Ecology placing a ban on the
construction of septic tanks in the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek
portion of the basin in 1971- The ban restricted development which
18
-------
was dependent upon use of septic tanks or any degree of treatment less
than tertiary for local disposal. Efforts to form a ULID continued
at the citizen level. The evidence of concern over the economic impact
of the ban and the evidence of water quality problems associated with
continued reliance upon septic tanks led to the passage of a Resolution
of Intent by the County Commissioners to form Utility Local Improvement
District, ULID 73-1, in April 1973- Protests by property owners against
formation were less than one-half those in the previous attempt and well
below the required A0% for preventing the formation of the ULID.
ULID 73-1 was formed on June 18, 1973-
The approval and formation of ULID 73"! was based on the acceptance
by the property owners of their portion of the financial responsibility
for such a system which was predicted on a certain level of Federal and State
assistance toward the construction costs of the sewerage facilities to
serve the area.
In August 1973, based on the formation of ULID 73-1, the Department
of Ecology modified the original ban on construction of septic tanks in
the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin, and issued a new order, Docket
No. DE 73-172 which established certain criteria that would allow
limited construction with the use of individual septic tank installations
or community interim sewage treatment systems. The modified order was to
remain in effect as long as Pierce County proceeded with the design and
construction of the system outlined in the 1969 Chambers Creek - Clover
Creek Sewerage General Plan.
Relationship to Previous Studies
Inasmuch as the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin is a major part
of the State Water Resources Inventory Area No. 12 (see Figure 1
and previous location discussion), plans for the ULID 73~1 must meet and
be consistent with the requirements applicable to this larger area.
Originally the Water Resources Inventory Areas (WRIA) were areas
designated by the State in 1967 for the purpose of area-wide basin
planning. Such planning had been initiated in 1971 for WRIA No. 12,
however, subsequently significant changes began to take place throughout
the United States in regard to water quality and wastewater management
planning. The most important changes were brought about by the passage
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This act
emphasized Basin Management Planning as well as area wide facilities
planning at national, state, and regional levels, and placed requirements
on state agencies to develop a continuing planning process for water
pollution control. At the same time the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency was charged with the responsibility to develop
regulations and guidelines to implement the provisions of the act.
Although the 1969 Basin Plan meets the requirements of the County
Services Act (RCW 36.9*0 and has been adopted by Pierce County as an
19
-------
element of the County's generalized comprehensive plan, it was determined
in late 1971 that further studies would have to be completed to meet the
latest Federal requirements for water quality management planning as
outlined in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
The 197^ Chambers Creek Basin Water Quality Management Plan was developed
in response to both these new Federal requirements and to satisfy State
and Federal eligibility requirements for the acquisition of governmental
assistance for construction of water quality management projects in this
basin.
Since the 197^ Chambers Creek Basin Water Quality Management Plan
takes into account the entire WRIA No. 12, it includes plans for areas
not originally included in the 1969 General Basin Plan as well as
additional substantive analysis.
EPA'S ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Authority and Responsibilities
The National Environmental Policy Act of 19&9 (NEPA), Public Law
91"190, required all Federal agencies to, "... utilize a systematic,
interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning
and in decision-making which may have an impact on man's environment
. . ." Section 102(2) (C) of that Act also requires the agency to prepare
an environmental impact statement (EIS) on, ". . . major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment . . ." This
is to be accomplished in consultation with the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), established by Title II of the Act.
One of the major EPA programs involving actions which are candidates
for EIS's is the construction grants program as authorized by Title II -
Grants for Construction of Treatment Works, Section 208(g)(l), of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (FWPCA), (Public
Law 92500).The Act authorizes the Administrator, EPA, ". . . to make
grants to any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency
for the construction of publicly owned treatment works . . ." The
regional offices, in turn, have been delegated the authority to fund
State-approved wastewater treatment projects.
Concurrent with all of these authorities is the responsibility to
assure Federal funds will produce a project which will have maximum
beneficial effects on the environment and minimum adverse effects.
The public laws quoted above, along with the CEQ and EPA regulations,
constitute the authority and responsibility for the preparation of
environmental impact statements on wastewater treatment works or
facilities or 208 plans when deemed necessary by the regional offices of
EPA.
20
-------
Decision to Require and Environmental Impact Statement
If approved, Pierce County's proposed project for ULID 73-1 would be
financed by a combination of Federal and State funds as well as by a local
financing plan under procedures adopted as part of the ULID 73~1 formation.
In order for Federal funds to be granted, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) must independently review the information submitted by Pierce
County and decide whether to prepare an environmental impact statement,
in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
The magnitude of the controversy and the nature of the issues
involved made it clear that an EIS was needed. After the Notice of
Intent to prepare an EIS was issued (December 30, 197*0, EPA's plan
was to participate with Pierce County in preparation of a joint County
Environmental Assessment/EPA EIS in a single document. The purpose of
this technique was to save time and money, both for the agencies involved
and for the public who would be reading the document. Under the laws of
the State of Washington, an EIS prepared pursuant to NEPA also satisfied
SEPA. During subsequent legal review by EPA Region X , however, it was
decided that a joint document, prepared principally by the same county
consultant who prepared the comprehensive plan would not satisfy the
requirement for "active participation" by EPA in preparation of the EIS
as clarified by court decision. Consequently, EPA decided that the County
should prepare its own separate assessment and the Region X office
proceed to retain its own consultant to assist in the preparation of a
separate EPA EIS.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED
In the course of satisfying requirements under the State Environmental
Policy Act, a public hearing was held on Pierce County's environmental
impact assessment for the proposed project for ULID 73~1 on March 17, 1975,
at the Public Utilities Building in Tacoma. The purpose of the hearing
was to gather additional data and information pertaining to the environmental
impact on the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin. The County's draft
environmental impact statement was made available for review at branch
libraries and at the County offices. The review period was extended for
30 days beyond the date, during which time written comments were solicited.
All written and verbal comments made during the review process were
considered by the EPA in the analysis leading to the preparation of the
present document. The following is a summary of issues and problems
raised to date (page numbers are given to enable the reader to readily
locate information regarding issues in this document):
21
-------
A. Many citizens feel that there is lack of Page
evidence of specific contamination source
locations and questionable need for such a
comprehensive (and expensive) solution to rather
scattered and isolated water quality problems.
Areas have not been identified where septic 51 - 53
tanks do work.
Pollution of groundwater will continue because 55
sewage from other unsewered areas will continue
to reach the drainage area.
Appropriateness of proposed service boundaries kk
has been questioned.
B. Geology and soils structure allow septic tanks to 51 - 53;
work satisfactorily in many parts of the proposed 128 & 131
service area. Also, other alternative treatment
methods could be effective, less expensive, and
offer less impact (i.e. regulation of septic tank
operation, community treatment systems,
etc.) than the proposed project.
C. The relationship between storm drains and sanitary 101
sewers has been much discussed among citizen groups.
Many feel that storm water collection systems in
some areas alleviate drain field saturation and
would allow septic tanks to function properly.
D. There is potential with the proposed project for
lowering the groundwater table. There is concern
that:
The lake levels would be lowered. 104 - 105
It would then be necessary to import water 107
for domestic needs.
Trees and vegetation would be lost. 113
E. The documentation of water quality sampling data
has been questioned as to adequacy, methods,
sampling period, and what established standards
mean. It is thought by citizens that:
That non-human sources may be important sources 65
of contamination.
That surface waters may not be contaminated 66 - J2
in many areas, (or)
Well tests do not indicate pollution. 73
22
-------
F. Concern has been expressed regarding the location
of interceptor lines and how specific areas will be
affected by construction. The project may involve
greater impact during construction than originally
anticipated. Meaning of Short-term impact is not
clear. Specifically there is concern for:
Impact of trunk line construction down the 112
creek bed itself;
Aesthetics; 125
Traffic congestion along construction routes. 120, 122 and 125
G. Concern has been expressed regarding the impact of
natural disasters on the project, specifically:
The danger of failure of pipes installed around 92
the lakes.
Impact of raw sewage on Puget Sound if treatment 110
facility is by-passed in an emergency.
H. There is a lack of programs to lessen economic impacts 123, 124 and 126
upon elderly and fixed income persons who would be
affected by direct costs from ULID assessments or
indirectly through higher rents and/or property taxes
and monthly service fees.
I. There has been concern for all impacts associated
with the urban growth which will be made possible.
Specific concerns include:
The water quality impact from urban runoff; 6k
Air quality; 11 it - n6
Quality of life. 119-120
In view of the extensive and detailed studies relating to this area
and the major concern for these issues, this document will focus on
these key issues for the purpose of review by interested citizens.
Accordingly, some technical data is omitted because they exceed the
objectives of the study. The specialists concerned with further details
should be able to obtain such information from materials cited in the
Bibliography of Studies Relating to Chambers Creek.
23
-------
r;#'
*,- , s
L*«?.. ^«»^ l»» *%*? ' ^«Jfc. -r*^3
"f " ''
aw?
iff'
«Wf
M
-------
PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING SYSTEMS
Although most areas within ULID 73-1 depend on septic tanks, there
are a number of existing wastewater treatment facilities which will be
affected by either Stage I or Stage II of the applicant's proposed
project or by possible alternatives. These existing systems include
septic tanks, systems which are outdated, interim facilities serving
limited areas, industrial waste treatment facilities and old institu-
tional systems which do not provide the required degree of service. As
explained in greater detail below, these systems are generally
inadequate or were only designed as interim facilities. The existing
systems are summarized in Table A, and their locations are shown in
figure 2.
In addition there are wastewater treatment facilities within State
Water Resources Inventory Area No. 12, which are not discussed further
in this document but which are discussed in greater detail in the 197**
Chambers Creek Water Quality Management Plan.
Septic Tanks
The Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin, excluding any military
areas, upper Leach Creek or Southwest Tacoma, contains a population of
about 98,500 persons. Nearly all these persons depend upon septic tanks
and drainfields for sewage disposal. The exceptions (Pacific Lutheran
University for example) are discussed below. As a result an estimated
9,000,000 gallons of sewage are discharged into the groundwater each day
after it has been treated by septic tanks and drainfields.
Westside Water District
The Westside Water District is located south of the University
Place North area and north of Chambers Creek. The District was formed
in 1965 and began construction of collection and treatment facilities in
1968. The treatment facility is an aerated lagoon. The District also
took over operation of some private systems in this period.
The system, as far as is known, is in good condition. The interim
treatment facility is an aerated lagoon having two cells. The effluent is
chlorinated and then flows to Puget Sound in a combined sewer pipe to an
outfall about 360 feet in length and 29 feet deep at median lower low
water (MLLW).
The District covers an area of 706 acres. The area is mostly
residential with some commercial and multi-family zoning adjacent to
Bridgeport Way.
The Westside Water District System is an interim facility which was
constructed in conformance with the objective stated in the 1969
Sewerage General Plan under the interim sewerage facilities plan. This
plan encourage such interim facilities which can easily be connected to
sewers at a later date.
25
-------
-------
CO
o
LLlLU
OCpo,
t"
52
UJ_J
fe=
i
to
x
c
E
TO
Q
^J
t/> (/)
E 0)
0) Ol
^ J ^
TO
CN
to
C
O
4-1 4J
U (ft
0) .
o
o c
o a)
Ol
<
01
c
4-)
TO
-
O
4-1 C
C fl)
U L.
0) O
to
4-1
TO
:s
(1) 4->
-o o
__
(/) 1-
M -M
(/) t/)
(U
3 Q
-3-
csl
E
O
O
O
TO
.«
(1)
1 1
to
y-
O
c
Q
h-
y
E
8
o
ro
_
a)
4-J
to
14^
O
c
Q
1-
0.
L^
^~
to
E
O
O
O
TO
PA
_
0)
4J
to
O
O
0
TO
~
<0
4J
to
O 1
u
c
*
4-1
u
a
3 ^
3 >.
_l 4-1
"O »^
O O in
O * u
2 >»-
J^ «- U
TO TO TO C
I Q- O_ =>
1 1 1 -3-
cg
4J
I/)
(U
u
U
u
U-
to u-
o u o
x oo co
1 1 C
0. £ Z 2
ul s 3 i-
CL Q. Z
TO
E
O
O
ro
h-
M-
o u o
I CO CO
1 1 >>
Q- Z Z 4-»
1 ^-* i Jn
u- 3 3c o
_
=*b
O-
t-
fD
£
o
0. 0. Q- U
1- »- 1- TO
to to to t
<0
o
i. (U (U
aj ._ -a T3
Z TO Z TO
O- O O U *
O
o ro o TO <_> t/>
to I 1 H- 1
-o
a)
TO
o
c
a)
i
w
10 2
TO'
in
O> <"
.Eo
c <"
TO O
"*" T3
tt) LlJ
TO-^
>TO
u o.
a. u
a. ^
« O
"TO"
.E"-a
.^TO
C^
2- 1_
I TO a)
Z °- O)
i ro
.. TO
(I) ~
-O ^ C
o ">
oi-
01 (U
Q) W l/l
TO § <0
"1"°
f~ (0 JIITI^
ro ' -Q
TO
Q- -C -Q
n °
4-1 O i_
C -Q Q.
TO > 3
2 ^-i
27
-------
Planned future developments when completed and connected, will bring
the total connections to the system up to about 1,800 residential equivalents.
This is considered to be the maximum capacity of the treatment facilities.
Presently, the Westside Water District has a Step I Grant from EPA for
further modifications to correct operational difficulties and to correct BOD
overloadings.
Steilacoom
The Town of Stei lacoom is the oldest incorporated community in the
State of Washington. The community is principally surburban residential
with a small, services oriented commercial area. The rate of growth has
greatly accelerated over the past two decades. The estimated 1973
population within the incorporated limits is 3,150 and the population
within the projected Stei lacoom sewerage service area is 5,900. The
present service area includes Western Washington State Hospital which is
served on a contractural basis.
The ultimate service area of Stei lacoom is determined by the
natural boundaries of Puget Sound on the west and Chambers Creek to the
north and by the Fort Lewis boundary to the south. The service area
limits to the east are established in part by topography and in part by
the boundaries of Pierce County U.L.I.D. 73~1 and the service areas
recommended in the 1969 Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General
Plan.
Sewers were originally constructed in Stei lacoom well over 50 years
ago. Major additions to the sewer system were made in 1921, 1953> and
1965. Smaller projects were added to the sewer system at other times.
The advanced age of portions of the Stei lacoom collection system has
resulted in high infiltration rates which contribute to the overloading of
the treatment plant. Stei lacoom has a Step I Grant from EPA and will be
proceeding with infiltration and inflow rehabilitation. The plant was con-
structed in 1965, ending the discharge of raw sewage into Puget Sound from
Stei lacoom. It provides primary treatment. The plant was designed with
provision for future expansion in three stages which could include secondary
treatment.
The present marine outfall is 2k inches in diameter and klQ feet
long and was designed for the ultimate service area. Recommendation for
construction of a diffuser section onto the outfall was made in an
engineering report to the Town in 1970, (see Bibliography of Studies
Relating to Chambers Creek P. G-12) but this has not been carried
out to date. Plans such as these involving short term construction
projects for the Town's treatment and disposal facilities are being
delayed pending results of various studies now underway, specifically
the possibility of consolidating with the proposed Chambers Creek
wastewater treatment plant.
28
-------
Western Slopes System
The City of Tacoma Western Slopes Plant is located just south of the
Tacoma Narrows Bridge. This plant serves the western part of Tacoma that
is naturally tributary to the Narrows, including University Place North
and South. This area is generally outside of the Chambers Creek - Clover
Creek Basin; however, this area is within the area studied in the 1969
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan, and was part of the
Stage I construction program. Construction of the system has now been
completed.
An adjacent area west of University Place North and West of Fircrest
is presently considering the formation of an ULID. This area, called
University Place East, would be mostly served by the Western Slopes
Plant but some portions, located in the Leach Creek drainage area, will
eventually be served by gravity to the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin
System during Stage II.
Fi rcrest
Fircrest is a residential area in the upper Leach Creek area, which
consists of both single family and multiple family residences and
related commercial areas. The total sewered area contributing to the
main pump station is 1010 acres and the population about 6,200. There
are also over 100 sewer connections in unincorporated areas outside the
town limits which are provided sewer service by Fircrest.
Fircrest and Tacoma have had an agreement providing for disposal of
Fircrest's wastes through the City's system since World War II. This
was in response to action by the State Health authorities halting
further development in Fircrest, where a separate sewer system had been
discharging to a swamp at the head of Leach Creek. As part of the
agreement with the City, the area north of Fircrest lying within the
City of Tacoma is served through Fircrest to the main pump station. The
sewage is pumped to Tacoma's collection system and ultimately is treated
in Tacoma's Central Treatment Plant.
The condition of the Fircrest sewers is not known. There are
indications that the capacity of one of the smaller pump stations is
exceeded during storms. The pump stations do not have standby power.
Overflows discharge to storm drains leading to Leach Creek. Operational
improvements for the main pump station are being considered.
Under the agreement between Fircrest and Tacoma, Fircrest
reimburses Tacoma for its proportionate share of the cost of operating
and maintaining the Central Sewage Treatment Plant. Tacoma shares in
the costs relating to the main Fircrest pumping staion, including
construction costs. The agreement is reviewed at five-year intervals
and can be renegotiated at those times.
The 1969 Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan
recommended that Fircrest and the Tacoma area in the Leach Creek
drainage eventually be served by gravity interceptor to the regional
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin System (as explained above).
29
-------
Other Institutional Systems
Several small sewerage facilities within the Chambers Creek -
Clover Creek Basin are owned and operated by individual entities.
These facilities include systems that serve Pacific Lutheran University,
Franklin Pierce High School, Lakewood Industrial Park, and Boise Cascade
West Tacoma Mill.
Pacific Lutheran University
Pacific Lutheran University is served by a small activated sludge
plant which discharges through two polishing lagoons into a bypassed channel
of Clover Creek which is now normally dry. The second lagoon was added in
1970 and an aerator added to that lagoon in 1972.
The design capacity of the plant is 1,500. The University has a popu-
lation of about 3,500 students in the day with 1,800 resident.
Pacific Lutheran University was notified in September, 1971, by the
Department of Ecology that the treatment facility was not in compliance
with Chapter 90.48 RCW and DOE Regulations. Upgrading to advanced waste
treatment was required, unless an alternative was going to be available
such as connection to a regional system. Formation of ULID 73"! will allow
PLU to connect to the Chambers Creek Sewerage System since PLU is within
the improvement district area. Thus, this treatment plant and other insti-
tutional plants within the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin are short-
term interim facilities.
Franklin Pierce High School
The school has a peak daytime population of 2,500 and serves the high
school, junior high school, and a nursing home. Design capacity of the
activated sludge secondary treatment plant, built in 1952, is 5,000 persons.
The plant is difficult to operate because of the extreme flow variation. A
new chlorination unit was recently installed. The effluent is discharged
to a small drainage ditch which is tributary to the North Fork of Clover
Creek.
Notice of failure to comply with State discharge requirements was filed
with the school district in 1971 in a concurrent action with regard to other
private facilities in the basin which do not comply with requirements. With
the construction of the Chambers Creek Sewerage System, it is anticipated
the plant will be abandoned.
30
-------
Western Slopes System
The City of Tacoma Western Slopes Plant is located just south of the
Tacoma Narrows Bridge. This plant serves the western part of Tacoma that
is naturally tributary to the Narrows, including University Place North
and South. This area is generally outside of the Chambers Creek - Clover
Creek Basin; however, this area is within the area studied in the 19&9
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan, and was part of the
Stage I construction program. Construction of the system has now been
completed.
An adjacent area west of University Place North and West of Fircrest
is presently considering the formation of an ULID. This area, called
University Place East, would be mostly served by the Western Slopes
Plant but some portions, located in the Leach Creek drainage area, will
eventually be served by gravity to the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin
System during Stage II.
Fi rcrest
Fircrest is a residential area in the upper Leach Creek area, which
consists of both single family and multiple family residences and
related commercial areas. The total sewered area contributing to the
main pump station is 1010 acres and the population about 6,200. There
are also over 100 sewer connections in unincorporated areas outside the
town limits which are provided sewer service by Fircrest.
Fircrest and Tacoma have had an agreement providing for disposal of
Fircrest's wastes through the City's system since World War II. This
was in response to action by the State Health authorities halting
further development in Fircrest, where a separate sewer system had been
discharging to a swamp at the head of Leach Creek. As part of the
agreement with the City, the area north of Fircrest lying within the
City of Tacoma is served through Fircrest to the main pump station. The
sewage is pumped to Tacoma"s collection system and ultimately is treated
in Tacoma's Central Treatment Plant.
The condition of the Fircrest sewers is not known. There are
indications that the capacity of one of the smaller pump stations is
exceeded during storms. The pump stations do not have standby power.
Overflows discharge to storm drains leading to Leach Creek. Operational
improvements for the main pump station are being considered.
Under the agreement between Fircrest and Tacoma, Fircrest
reimburses Tacoma for its proportionate share of the cost of operating
and maintaining the Central Sewage Treatment Plant. Tacoma shares in
the costs relating to the main Fircrest pumping staion, including
construction costs. The agreement is reviewed at five-year intervals
and can be renegotiated at those times.
The 1969 Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan
recommended that Fircrest and the Tacoma area in the Leach Creek
drainage eventually be served by gravity interceptor to the regional
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin System (as explained above).
-------
Other Institutional Systems
Several small sewerage facilities within the Chambers Creek -
Clover Creek Basin are owned and operated by individual entities.
These facilities include systems that serve Pacific Lutheran University,
Franklin Pierce High School, Lakewood Industrial Park, and Boise Cascade
West Tacoma Mill.
Pacific Lutheran University
Pacific Lutheran University is served by a small activated sludge
plant which discharges through two polishing lagoons into a bypassed channel
of Clover Creek which is now normally dry. The second lagoon was added in
1970 and an aerator added to that lagoon in 1972.
The design capacity of the plant is 1,500. The University has a popu-
lation of about 3,500 students in the day with 1,800 resident.
Pacific Lutheran University was notified in September, 1971, by the
Department of Ecology that the treatment facility was not in compliance
with Chapter 90.48 RCW and DOE Regulations. Upgrading to advanced waste
treatment was required, unless an alternative was going to be available
such as connection to a regional system. Formation of ULID 73"! will allow
PLU to connect to the Chambers Creek Sewerage System since PLU is within
the improvement district area. Thus, this treatment plant and other insti-
tutional plants within the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin are short-
term interim facilities.
Franklin Pierce High School
The school has a peak daytime population of 2,500 and serves the high
school, junior high school, and a nursing home. Design capacity of the
activated sludge secondary treatment plant, built in 1952, is 5,000 persons.
The plant is difficult to operate because of the extreme flow variation. A
new chlorination unit was recently installed. The effluent is discharged
to a small drainage ditch which is tributary to the North Fork of Clover
Creek.
Notice of failure to comply with State discharge requirements was filed
with the school district in 1971 in a concurrent action with regard to other
private facilities in the basin which do not comply with requirements. With
the construction of the Chambers Creek Sewerage System, it is anticipated
the plant will be abandoned.
30
-------
Lakewood Industrial Park
The facility, which consists of a small Imhoff tank and chlorinator,
receives flow from the industrial park and is owned by Newport, Inc. However,
the plant is operated by the Clover Park School District which utilizes most
of the plant capacity to serve the school district administrative offices
and vocational school. The total population served in the industrial park
is not known. The vocational school and the Clover Park School District
offices have a peak population of 1,600-1,700 students and staff. Treat-
ment is provided by an Imhoff tank and the effluent is pumped to a storm
drain discharging to Flett Creek.
The plant serving the industrial park area was also declared "not in
compliance" in 1971, as were the other facilities discussed above.
This area, too, will be served by the regional system proposed under ULID
73-1.
Boise Cascade West Tacoma Mill
Boise Cascade West Tacoma Mill operates a pulp mill adjacent to Chambers
Bay which utilizes a mechanical process in its newsprint production. A
flotation recovery unit and a primary clarifier are used to reduce the
amount of solids in the mill effluent before discharge to Chambers Bay.
Average flow from the plant is about 5 million gallons per day. The
Department of Ecology has determined that the degree of treatment presently
provided is inadequate and has directed that treatment be upgraded to
reduce effluent B.O.D. to less than 1700 Ibs/day.
Although the effluent from this facility could be accommodated by the
proposed project, Boise Cascade may ultimately make other arrangements for
providing adequate treatment.
Other Existing Water and Sewer Districts
Lakewood Water District, South Suburban Sewer District, Westside
Water District and Univeristy Place Sewer District are located within
the study area boundaries and have considered installation of sewers.
Lakewood Water District provides water service to an area of 9,580 acres
with a present estimated population of approximately 42,000. The
District operates an extensive system of wells and distribution
pipelines throughout its service area. South Suburban Sewer District
and University Place Sewer District have no existing facilities.
Westside Water District facilities have been previously mentioned.
All of these districts have prepared studies and preliminary plans
for the establishment of sewerage service as authorized under the
applicable provisions of the Revised Code of Washington Titles 56 and
57- Other than Westside Water District none of these plans has been
implemented.
31
-------
Summary
The previous discussion reviewed the existing wastewater treatment
facilities which could be incorporated into plans for the proposed
project either as part of Stage I or ultimately as part of Stage II.
Except for these systems, most of the area is served by septic tanks.
Although these systems serve a relatively small portion of the proposed
service area, they are significant in that they currently have wastewater
disposal problems which could be solved by the proposed project.
For example, the Westside Water District was allowed as an interim
facility which can easily be connected to a regional treatment system.
The Town of Steilacoom connection system was constructed over 50 years and
as a result of high infiltration rates, the treatment plant is overloaded.
This treatment plant provides primary treatment only. The institutional
systems operated by PLU, Franklin Pierce High School, the Lakewood Industrial
Park, and Boise Cascade's West Tacoma Pulp Mill were designed as interim
facilities. None of these systems presently provide adequate treatment and
can be accommodated within Stage I of the proposed project. Other areas
tributary to the Chambers Creek may be served within Phase II, such as
Fircrest, and the remaining portions of Midland, Parkland, and Spanaway
and Frederickson not included within Stage I.
The rationale for incorporating these elements into the proposed project
are further detailed in Appendix A-l.
The service area boundaries for Stage I have been selected to consolidate
the majority of those areas which presently experience wastewater disposal
problems either in terms of septic tank problems or municipal and institu-
tional treatment facility problems.
DESIGN CRITERIA
Population
Growth Projections
The characteristics of sewage (quantity and quality) depend on the
type of land development and water use in the contributing area. The
Chambers Creek project area has been changing from basically rural
development to urban. In 1939, population of the basin was estimated to
be approximately 3,000 in the Lakewood Area plus approximately 3,000 in
the Parkland-Spanaway area and the remainder of the Clover Creek Basin.
Present population (1975) of the applicant's proposed Stage I service
area now exceeds 78,000 people. This growth in population has primarily
been related to expansion in suburban housing serving the Greater Tacoma
area and the Fort Lewis-McCord Air Force Base. Table B identifies the
communities inlcuded in each stage and presents a summary of population
projections for the Stage I, Stage II, and ultimate sewerage service
areas.
32
-------
TABLE B
CHAMBERS CREEK BASIN
POPULATION FORECASTS
BY SUB-SERVICE AREAS
Sub-Service Area
1975
1980
1990
2000
Holding(4) Area
Capacity (Acres)
STAGE I:
Lakewood
Parkland/No. Spanaway
University Place South
Steilacoom
STAGE I SUBTOTAL
STAGE II:
Pearl St.-19th St.
Fircrest (1)
University Place South(2)
University Place East
Bridgeport
Leach Creek
Brookdale
South Spanaway (3)
Tillicum
American Lk. Garden
STAGE I I SUBTOTAL
POST STAGE I I:
South Spanaway (3)
Upper Clover Creek
Frederickson
POST STAGE II SUBTOTAL 13,850
ULTIMATE SEWERAGE
SERVICE AREA
46,300
23,600
2,500
6,200
48,600
25,400
2,700
7,100
57,200
30,500
3,250
8,700
6k ,200
35,800
3,700
9,600
87,400
53,100
5,300
13,600
9,960
6,110
1,170
1,840
78,650 83,800 99,650 113,300 159,400 19,080
2,800
6,300
2,550
1 ,200
1,600
1,250
1,000
3,050
2,200
1,700
3,500
6,400
2,700
1,500
1,700
1,400
1,150
3,550
2,300
1,900
4,500
6,500
3,250
2,600
2,300
1 ,800
1,900
4,800
2,500
2,000
5,200
6,700
3,700
3,600
3,500
2,600
3,000
5,800
2,700
2,100
6,500
10,500
5,300
4,800
5,800
6,100
7,500
14,200
4,600
6,400
710
970
1,170
490
880
1,010
1,000
1,410
350
350
23,650 26,100 32,150 38,900 71,700 8,340
3,050
8,100
2,700
3,550
8,900
3,400
4,800
12,800
5,800
5,800
19,000
10,000
14,200
73,500
23,500
1,410
12,210
12,300
15,850 23,400 34,800 111,200 25,920
116,150 125,750 155,200 187,000 342,300 53,340
(1) Fircrest is the only area within Stage II that has sewerage service
(2)Treatment capacity at the Chambers Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant for University
Place South is proposed to be provided in two phases, first for the Westside Water
District in Stage I with the remainder of University Place South served in Stage II.
(3) Sewerage service for South Spanaway is proposed to be provided in two phases, first
service provided for half of South Spanaway in Stage II with the remainder of South
Spanaway served by any Post-Stage II sewerage service area expansion which may occur.
(4) Holding Capacity is the ultimate population density which could be expected if
is to continue to develope according to current land use plans and poUcfes.
33
-------
The density of development ranges from 4.4 persons per acre in 1980
to 5-9 persons per acre in 2000. For Stage II, the densities are 3.1 in
1980 and 4.6 in 2000.
See Page 82 for further information relating to population projections.
Design Implications of Growth Projections
Originally in the 1969 Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General
Plan, it was proposed to size sewerage facilities to accommodate the
ultimate population expected in the service area. In response to subse-
quent Federal requirements, the facilities are sized to accommodate flows
generated by the year 2000 (20-25 year population projections).
It is assumed that any feasible alternatives considered (see Chapter IV)
would also be sized to accommodate the population which could be expected
in 20-25 years.
Service Needs
Character of Wastewater
Domestic Flows. Because of the light but uniform and widespread nature
of land use in the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Drainage Basin, it can
be expected that overall density will increase but the overall character of
the area will not change. Basically, the area is residential with supporting
commercial activity and services. Some light industry will continue
with nominal increases (see below). Consequently, domestic sewage will
constitute the major portion of sewerage service needs in the basin. It
is also expected that per capita sanitary sewage quantities will continue to
increase because modern housing provides more water using devices such
as dishwashers, garbage grinders, and automatic washing machines.
industrial Flows. The basin wastewater management plan and the
land use projections used as a basis for that plan assume negligible
additional industrial growth in the basin of such a nature which would
provide either for a high bio-chemical oxygen demand type waste
generation or heavy water-using and waste-producing industry. It is
assumed that the industrial development of the basin will be
predominantly of the light industrial type with wastes limited to those
which would be compatible with the otherwise predominantly domestic
flow. To further support this assumption the current administrative
code restrictions of Pierce County would require either substantial
industrial pretreatment or limitation of toxic and high BOD wastes.
Stage I or 11 grant would require resolution supporting this restriction.
Projected wastewater flows from these two sources are summarized in
Table C. For greater information on forecast population refer to the
1974 Chambers Creek Basin Water Quality Management Plan.
34
-------
TABLE C
STAGE I AND II
PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS (MGD)
SUB-SERVICE AREA 1978 1980 1985 1990 2000
Lakewood 4.49 4.62 5-03 5.44 6.10
Parkland-North 2.34 2.42 2.66 2.90 3j
Spanaway
sui-DT£!(SU9e" ^ i-» *« *» "*
University Place South - 0.51 0.56 0.62 0.70
Leach Creek - 0.13 0.15 0.1? 0.25
Fircrest - 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.64
Pearl St.-19th Street - 0.33 0.38 0.43 0.49
University Place East - 0.14 0.19 0.25 0-34
Bridgeport - - 0.19 0.22 0-33
Brookdale - - 0.14 0.18 0.28
South Spanaway _j; _j 0.80 0.9V 0.10
Stage I s II TOTAL 6.83 8.76 10.71 11.74 13.63
35
-------
Infiltration/Inflow Quantities
Infiltration is groundwater inflow that enters the sewers through
leaks in manholes, pipe joints, cracked pipes, and substandard house
laterals. Infiltration is nominal when a system is initially
constructed, however, as the sewer system gets older, leaks begin to
occur and eventually some infiltration does occur in the sewers.
Modern construction methods and new materials have greatly reduced
infiltration but an allowance for it must be made at the time of
design. Inflow, on the other hand, is storm water that may enter
directly to the system through manhole covers and roof and yard drainage
connections that have not been eliminated. Roof and yard drainage
connections to the sewer are prohibited by the Pierce County Utilities
Administrative Code. Both infiltration and inflow must be considered
within the proposed service area.
The planned sewerage service area within ULID 73~1 is presently
unsewered with the exception of the existing private facilities of
Pacific Lutheran University, the Franklin Pierce School District, the
Lakewood Industrial Park, and other minor interim public facilities. Of
these the existing interim public sewerage facilities, all have been
constructed more recently than 1970 and all were constructed to modern
specifications of Pierce County which provide for rubber gasketed joints
and construction conforming to rigid leakage tolerance based on air test
of completed pipeline. The area to be newly sewered in the ULID 73~1
will be constructed to modern leak-tight construction specifications.
The inclusion of the Town of Steilacoom and the Westside Water
District service areas will be a factor with regard to
infiltration/inflow quantities. The Westside Water District, which is
presently served by an interim treatment facility, is a collection
system of relatively recent construction having been constructed
since 1968. The Westside Water District sewer facilities are
also constructed of pipeline with rubber gasketed joints and meeting modern
leakage requirements. No significant infiltration from this system is
apparent or will be provided for. The Town of Steilacoom, on the other
hand, has been constructed over a 50-year period and is subject to a
significant amount of infiltration/inflow. Refer to the recent
infiltration/inflow survey performed for the Town of Steilacoom by
Harstad, Associates and Engineers. Although the infiltration within
the Town of Steilacoom system is significant, this additional flow will
not be a major problem in the consolidated Chambers Creek Sewerage
System. The Town of Steilacoom will be proceeding with measures to
bring system infiltration within reasonable limitations.
36
-------
Summary of Wastewater Flow Criteria
The size of sewers, pump stations, interceptors, treatment
facilities, and outfalls is based on the calculation of sewage flows.
Average per capita flow, infiltration per acre, and direct storm inflow
projections were developed in order to forecast design flows.
The sewage flow criteria used for the 1969 Chambers Creek Report
were reviewed and compared with available local data and reports. The
analysis included data from Steilacoom, Central Tacoma, Fircrest, North
Tacoma, Ruston, Seattle Metro Systems, a 1968 Comprehensive Sewerage
Plan for Lakewood Water District, Lakewood Water District water consumption,
a 1957 Metro Tacoma Report, and a 1969 Fort Lewis Report.
The estimated average winter per capita water use of 110 to 120 gpcd within
the Lakewood Water District can also be used as an indication of the maximum
probable dry weather sanitary component of the per capita flow. Thus, an
analysis of the Fircrest, North Tacoma, and Ruston average dry weather flows (ADWF)
and peak wet weather flows (PWWF) was made. It was concluded that for
these areas which are similar to Lakewood, that an ADWF of 95 gpcd can
be expected.
Adopted sewerage system planning criteria provides for an
infiltration allowance of 250 gallons per day per acre in normal soils
areas and up to 600 gallons per day per acre in high groundwater areas.
Design criteria for direct storm water inflow that may enter the system
is AOO gallons per acre per day.
The flow criteria are shown in Table D below which is from the 1969
Basin Sewerage Plan.
TABLE D
SEWAGE FLOW CRITERIA
Dry Weather Flow 95 gal./capita/day
Infiltration - Moderate Zone 250 gal./acre/day
- Wet Zone 600 gal./acre/day
Direct Storm Inflow ^00 gal./acre/day
Peaking factors are used to predict the ratio of peak flows to
average dry weather flows and reflect the influence of water use
schedules, population served, conduit storage, and other complex
factors.
The peaking factor curve which was developed in the 1969 Basin
Sewerage Plan is shown in Figure 3-
37
-------
FIGURE 3
PEAKING FACTOR CURVE
CO
tz
O
13
z
u
O.
Peaking Factor Curve
AVERAGE FLOW, GALLONS PER DAY
The preliminary sizing of the treatment facilities is based on an average
dry weather flow of 95 gal./capita/day. The sewer system and pumping station
design based on the average dry weather flow adjusted by the indicated
peaking factor plus the indicated infiltration and inflow rates as applicable.
Summary of Sub-systems Considered Within Applicants Proposed Sewage
Treatment Facilities
A variety of sewerage facility sub-system alternatives were considered
by Pierce County to solve the waste disposal problems in the ULID 73~1-
These are summarized in Table E. Greater detail may be found in Appendix A.
38
-------
00
LU
h-
^
I
O
<
LU
LU C3
^c
LU O£
1 LU
03 13
< LU
1- 00
Lu
O
>-
o:
^c
2Z
3C
^3
00
z.
o
h-
^£
cc
o
LU
I- -z.
0 0
LU
-1 H-
o <
C£.
Q- -3
o
CC
Q.
to
>-
^
o
o
LU
O
o£
LU
^_
o.
z.
Q3J_33P3y
!£
I
^~
^g
O
LU
g Q31d300V
o
^
to
Zi
0
o
to
LU
^»
1-
^£
z.
C£.
LU
h-
_l
^
z:
LU
h-
to
^
to
OQ
~^
to
y
LU
K-
00
>-
to
oa
:D
to
c
o
4-1
4-> D.
U 4)
3 O
TJ X
0) tt>
u
^3
0) (U
N 1-
._ ft)
2
ID tt)
o> in
u.
(0
O tt)
4-1 1-
ID
>>
4->
c "TO
3 E
4-1 in
s_
O >-
CL
Q. C
O O
TJ tt)
tt> m
4-> 3
ID
E 0
.- U)
-I X)
X
m m
tt) E
U. 0)
3 4-»
in in
ID >-
tt) in
z:
0)
c c
o
4->
4-1 in
0
3 X
TJ tt)
o£ 2
O
0) <4-
1 J ^
ID
3 ^
0) C
4-> O
in
ID ^
3 ID
U
TJ 4->
C ^
ID
M-
BC
w
^_
Lu
0) 2
o 6
3
TJ M-
0) C
1_
O i-
4-1 0)
4-1
C ID
0 2
'M E
U U
3 O
4-1 in
in
C 4J
O 0
u o>
E »-
8TJ
c o
O ID
ID
C .
O) C
V O
4-1 m
to tu 4-1
TJ ID
14 L.
O 1- 4-1
(U
> a
4J O M-
U. C
o a.
x
in
E
a>
4-1
in
>*
in
^5
IU
in
0
CL
O
u
a.
2
Q
rw.
H-
C
x^
C
O
4_>
ID
!_
4-1
§«
_
14-
C
.^
in
4->
o
u.
4->
in
^
"TQ
u
a>
4-1 in
ID »-
3 3
4J
c O
3 >
O
a) o x:
TJ CO
O 0)
o o x:
i_
>. (I) U.
XI O
Q. M-
TJ
0) 14- (I)
4J O O1
^ Ui
X) >» ID
ox:
x: o
o v-
1- O 3
Q. Q- 00
X X
c in
O 0)
O)
4-> 1-
ID ID
> x:
V- 0
0)
in u
C 0)
O m
O 3
u u,
Q} 0)
4-> 3
ID 0)
"3- oo
in
ID
u.
^
0)
O
>
u.
0)
OO
in
i
0)
3
0)
to
L_
O
O.
(U
O
u
0)
c
_
Q
c
ID
t.
O
o
0)
^_
o
o
f
o
4^
c
o
4-1 C
in o
^* *~
in 4->
3
C ^~
~» «
o
0) Q-
TJ
3 U
> to
+->>-
O XI C
0) O
14« TJ "**
M- o) in
3 ">
O 0)
I ^
g
O
0
ID
H
M-
O
^H
4_l
^
O
^s
X) 0) 0) 0)
c
O 4-1 4-1 .4-1
u o a) o
4-1 (U (0 > 4)
3 14- 14- .- l|_
14- IU. 4-1 14-
O ID tt) O tt)
in tt>
tt) 4-* 4-* ^ 4-^
i- in in >4- in
O O Z.
XXX X
X
0)
o
c >
ID t-
tt)
CL in
in TJ
tt) tt>
O.TJ
o c
ID
E 00 Q.
tt) X
4-1 C tt)
in u
>- 0) «-
M E *-> O
in M-
ID ID tt)
§E 3 -u 4J
O c c
O O ID ID ID
ID ID E
H- 1 O O- Q-
0
V4_ 4J ID in in
O in t-
0) 32
>-rs M- O 1 1
D
O TJ >- 4-1 4->
ID -l-l U. U.
U 0 O O
O in o LU LU
U- ID
O C tt) C
<4- O TJ O
Q) ^ ^D ^D TU
in c i- c
ID CO ID
tt) O XI Q.-D
oc CQ <; r3 <£
m
tt>
3
o
1_
o
4-1
a.
tt)
o
tt)
4^
C
TJ
C
ID
u.
O
0
tt)
I
I
O
o
tt)
^
4-1
ID
C
tt)
4-J
t
^£
|
tt)
O
c
ID
>*
tt)
^
C
O
o
L-
tt)
4-1
ID
tt)
4_l
in
ID
3
i
<*-
O
i
in
4-1
x:
01
u.
O
^~
XI
3
a.
c
^
TJ
tt)
4-1
ID
O
O
li
O
4-1
in
u.
0) .
3 >-
0) ID
oo 3
X
in
u.
tt)
3
tt)
to
u.
O
O
tt)
,.
P_>
O
TJ
tt>
u.
tt)
TJ
^
in
c
O
o
0)
X)
o
4-1
in
tt)
4-1
3
0
u.
tt)
»
4->
ID
C
tt)
4-1
^
ID
tt)
tt)
u.
-C
H-
X
u.
O
4-1
Q.
tt)
O
U
tt)
4-J
C
_
\S
a)
0)
L.
U
in
L.
tt)
X)
E
ID
O
tt)
.>
+-)
d) U
> 03
^ 'I
4-> 14-
O tt)
tt)
14 4-1
>4- in
tt) O
O
in 4->
O O
o z.
X
X
TJ
O
^
Q)
a.
c
en
_
>- in
4-> TJ tt)
o TJ
o
ID u in
a. tt) a)
ID CL
O 4-1
C ""
TJ en m
c c
ID in tt)
tt) TJ
^O "O
O C
0 O
L. ^5 *
4) 04-i
Q- CS| (D
1_
C 1-3
cn ro 4->
.- d) fO
in >- oo
0)
o
39
-------
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
The area which will be served by the proposed Chambers Creek sewer
system is thought to be one of the largest unsewered urban areas in the
country. The area has experienced widespread residential and commencial
development with some light industry, most all of which rely on the use
of septic tanks to dispose of wastewater. There are also some municipal
and institutional systems serving limited portions of the proposed service
area which do not now meet applicable Federal and State regulations. This
area is also dependent on deep aquifers for municipal water supply. The
relationship between the land uses which have occurred in the service area
and the geological setting, which allows such extensive reliance on septic
tanks and which is also capable of producing water supplies is complex.
The overview briefly summarizes problems in the area.
The extensive septic tank dependent development which has occurred
over much of the proposed service area has been possible because of the
permeable and rapidly draining surface soils hydraulically accept the
effluent. Although these gravelly soils accept large quantities of effluent,
there has been much concern that they do not adequately purify septic
effluent. Elsewhere in the service area another type of problem occurs.
In some areas, particularly in Parkland and Spanaway, the surface soils
consist of relatively impermeable glacial till which does not readily
accept septic tank effluent. In such areas septic tank failures are
frequent and unpurified septic tank effluent is often found in roadside
ditches and drainage courses. With both of these types of areas, there is
the potential for water quality problems and health hazards.
In those areas where the surface soils do not readily accept septic
tank effluent because of impermeable soils, the nature of the resulting
water quality problems is obvious. The surface waters draining from
developed areas often indicates pollution. This surface drainage eventually
reaches the streams and creeks which feed into some of the lakes in the
service area. The streams and the lakes in the service area also receive
recharge from the groundwater table. Consequently, septic tank effluent
discharged to soils which hydraulically accept the effluent without
necessarily purifying it may reach and contaminate groundwater table.
The groundwater table recharges the streams and lakes in the project area
and the deeper groundwaters are the primary water supply for the project
area communities.
While it is apparent from the functioning of the geological formations
in the area that extensive reliance on septic tanks contributes to surface
and groundwater quality problems, it is not certain that septic tank usage
is the entire or even the major portion of the water quality problems.
Other major sources of water quality problems in the area include: 1) the
extensive use of fertilizers necessary to support lawns and ornamental
vegetation on the relatively unproductive gravelly soils, which is high in
coliform bacteria; 2) drainage from agricultural areas; 3) The widespread
use of the project area waterbodies by waterfowl; and A) street surface
contaminants washed from paved surface which is typically high in nutrients
and coliform bacteria.
-------
Thus, although surface water quality problems occur in the service
area, it is not known to what extent these problems are directly attri-
butable to use of septic tanks (except of course in those areas where septic
effluent drains directly into roadside ditches). Also, the extent to
which unpurified septic tank effluent threatens the groundwater resources
is unknown. Nitrogenous compounds have been increasing in concentration
in shallow wells in the service area; however, the extent to which this
increase is due to septic tank effluent or to some of the factors mentioned
above, is unknown. To date there is no evidence to indicate contamination
of the deep groundwater tables which are used for municipal water supplies.
The extent to which these resources are threatened is unknown. Throughout
much of the service area, an impermeable layer of glacial till separates
shallow groundwaters and the deep groundwaters. However, this impermeable
layer may have breaks or discontinuities which would allow contact between
the shallow and deep groundwaters, which could be serious. The shallow
groundwaters are highly contaminated with septic tank effluent.
If septic tank effluent is contaminating surface and groundwaters,
there is concern both for the health hazards posed and for the detrimental
effects on the stability of the aquatic systems of the lakes and streams.
At present, no specific studies have been conducted to correlate occurences
of health problems of residents of the service area to occurences of
water quality problems. In general terms, there is the potential for
exposure to disease causing bacteria and viruses through bodily contact
with polluted drainage ditches, streams, and lakes. The standard method
of indicating possible contamination is to measure fecal coliform levels.
When levels exceed applicable standards, the recreational potential of
such water bodies is limited. In addition, increasing nitrogen compounds
(particularly nitrates) present a potential health hazard if the acceptable
limits for drinking water is exceeded for waters used as a water supply.
Although there is no evidence of contamination of deep groundwaters,
some of the wells tapping the shallow groundwaters are approaching the
acceptable limits for nitrates. Excessive nitrates in drinking water can
cause a kind of poisoning known as methemo globinemia, where the oxygen
carrying capacity of the blood is reduced due to oxidation of hemoglobin
by nitrates (infants are particularly susceptible to this disease) (2).
In addition, excessive nitrogen compounds in surface waters can cause
algae blooms which in turn can produce substances that are toxic to many
forms of aquatic life.
-------
DRAINAGE
The study area is the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Drainage Basin.
The area which Pierce County proposes to serve represents Stage I of the
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin Sewerage General Plan. Ultimately,
the plan specified that sewerage treatment facilities be provided for the
entire Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Drainage Basin.
The Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Drainage Basin, and hence, ULID
73-1, lies entirely within State Water Resources Inventory Area No. 12.
Within WRIA No. 12 there are four general types of surface drainage areas:
1) Direct drainage to adjacent marine waters, 2) drainage to a developed
system of streams, 3) drainage to lakes and swamps, which primarily drain
to groundwater, and 4) drainage to streams outside of the study area.
Table F lists and identifies the drainage areas by type. These areas are
shown in Figure k.
Drainage of the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin is generally
towards the northwest with discharge via Chambers Creek into Puget Sound
just north of the Town of Steilacoom. There are portions of the south and
eastern extremities of the Clover Creek Basin in which the surface
drainage pattern is indistinct. Due to irregular topography and permeable
soil, there is no assurance that surface drainage in these bordering areas
is truly tributary to Clover Creek. Consequently, boundaries are often
set by the developed system of storm drains rather than natural topography
in such places.
The Chambers Creek ULID 73-1 is largely within the Chambers Bay or
Clover Creek Drainage areas, but a small southern portion of the ULID
drains to American Lake.
The Chambers Creek ULID 73"! is largely within the Chambers Bay or
Clover Creek Drainage areas, but a small southern portion of the ULID
drains to American Lake. Direction of drainage is a major factor in
selecting service boundaries of a regional treatment facility. It is
desireable to design sewer lines to flow by gravity as indicated by the
slope of land to a single point and to minimize reliance on pumping.
FUNCTIONING OF GEOLOGICAL AND SOILS FORMATIONS
Formation of Gravels and Glacial Till
The Chambers Creek ULID 73-1 shares with the rest of western and
central Pierce County a common glacial history which is the predominant
influence on the geology of the basin. These glacial processes are
largely responsible for the formation of the lakes, wetlands, and
extensive water yielding ground formations within the study area. Surface
soils and subsurface formations of unconsolidated gravels, sands, silts,
clays, and mixtures of these materials laid down by a succession of
glaciers. All zones of normal engineering interest are in these glacial
materials.
The most recent glacial epoch was the Vashon Age which ended about
13,500 years ago. The Vashon materials account for the upper layers which
-------
h
EBEND
WATER BODIES
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY
DIRECTION OF
SURFACE DRAINAGE
' iLM-~*J
CHAMBERS CREEK U.L.I.D. 73-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
DRAINAGE AREAS
prepared by WILSEY a HAM, INC
for:E.P.A. region X Seottle.Wosh.
-------
ro
0)
V. U)
< 01
0) ~
_!_! y
ro
£ 0)
u
X <0
O 3
i- a
a. to
a.
*^
-is
0)
a
CO
co
CM
COsQ-3-O f-»\O P
p** PN. -^- 0*\ oo CA r**o
\o
1
J
a)
-* u
rf\ r~* \o c
CT^ 0)
r*** r"*» LT\ \^ E
fj% CM ff~ ^ E
O
O
<"> TJ
C
3 ro
a
c.
3
«S
+j
4)
O)
3
a.
c
0
>4 2Z 3: Z Z: IO IO CO to -JO O)
to
UJ
eS
U. <
UJ
1 1 1 f>T
-1 <
m -z
\- <
Q
i-
c
o
4J
C
c
1
m
fc
8
ro
C t-
O
4-1 4J
I/) I/I
3 0)
a: 2e
u^ cd ^
0)
ro a) o)
E O L-
O ro o
o
ro ^ 3 *" «-^
j o) ro o) ji^ ^
c
0)
"0
L.
o
-O
tn
ro
(U
u
^^
i
y
^*
nl
Cd I/I
< 3
O
0) Q
> -^ Z3 O
0 m 1- «*-
>. E j± 4-1 o)o>o>aQ ro i in to
4-> O U O i- 0) 0)
t> . O 4-1 4J <_> U 1_
4-1 . in
n o c 3 i ro
U)
E
ro
a)
L-
4-1
in
0)
_a
ro
O
c
^*
c
ro
w
c
«
E
O
M-
4-1
3
Q
4J
3
in
t-
0)
4-1
ro
3
a)
c
L-
E
a)
4-1
I/)
^>»
I/I
E
0)
4->
in
V
0)
0)
l_
O
a>
O
0
i
0)
a>
tj
in
i_
0)
jQ
E
ro
(O
0)
f~
4-1
O
4-1
in
0)
^^
fO
p..
O
ro
0)
u
ro
>,
-o
3
4-1
in
0)
4-1
0)
-a
in
4-1
3
O
in
E
ro
0)
1
4-J
o) »- ro 3 «-
u JD o _i I- "a
jc a) ro to o> 4J _c .£» 3 . o o>
4-1 > 3 >4->O£ CO «- 4-> h- C
E
O
i_ ._ a) cr oo>roro w
(U
^-»
3
_Q
_ .
L«
t-
in
ro
0)
<
i
to
^
ro
4-1
3
o
L.
4-1
ro
0)
<
i
-1
^
ro
3
o
^
L.
4-1
ro
0)
**
i
o
0)
-------
are of primary concern for surface drainage and groundwater occurrence.
Vashon drift consists of a typical sequence of sediments: water-laid,
stratified, granular material deposited in front of the advancing glacier
(advance outwash); overlain by unsorted clay, silt, sand, and gravel
(till); in turn overlain by another blanket of granular stream deposits
(recessional outwash).
Both types of outwash materials are typically medium to coarse sand
with gravel or moderately loose to moderately compact coarse sandy gravel.
This material usually drains well except where the groundwater table is
high. Glacial till generally is compact to very compact with a very low
infiltration capacity.
In addition to the layering action of advancing and retreating
glaciers, major dicontinuities in material occured as a result of the
sudden outflow from temporary lakes impounded by glacial damming. One of
these ice-dammed lakes, occupying the valley of the Puyallup and Stuck
Rivers during the retreat of Vashon ice, apparently discharged across the
plain between Tacoma and Eatonville. Deep channels, as much as a mile
wide, were carved by the torrential discharge streams, and a layer of
coarse-grained, poorly sorted material was laid down at various locations
in a fan-shaped area from Chambers Creek and Clover Creek on the north to
the Nisqually River and Muck Creek on the south. Within the study area,
these local channels of coarse, permeable material are responsible for
exceptionally high yield wells and have a major influence on surface
runoff as wel1.
Following the glacial retreat, a number of smaller lakes were formed
in depressions in the topographic surface. Since the retreat of the
Vashon Glacier, geologic processes have included weathering of the glacial
drift, reworking and redeposition of the drift by streams, and peat
accumulation in local depressions.
Surface Soil Formations
As previously discussed, the topography of the study area is a
consequence of glacial action, remaining to this day as it was left by the
last glaciers with relatively minor modifications by weathering. The
approximate extent of predominant surface soil which are of concern in
present analysis are shown in Figure 5. The following discussion relates
to surface soils designated in Figure 5.
All surface soil materials having rapid draining characteristics are
grouped together and designated as "upland sand and gravel." Upland sand
and gravel includes the following soil types:
Vashon Recessional Outwash;
These materials exist in two types, coarse materials consisting of
sand and gravel which are unconsolidated and well drained, and fine
materials which consist of impermeable clays.
-------
UPLAND SAND AND
GRAVEL SURFACE SOIL
VASHON GLACIAL TILL
SURFACE SOIL
PEAT SURFACE SOIL
0 2000 400
SURFACE SOIL FORMATIONS
prepared by WILSEY8 HAM, INC.
for :E.P.A. region X Seattle. Wash.
V f/fcCAMP MURRAY
»l /M-- -^JrF-
-------
Steilacoom Gravel:
A uniformly graded sandy gravel, of loose texture.
Vashon Advance Outwash:
A very dense compact gravelly sand.
Materials of low draining characteristics such as dense mixtures of
gravel, clay, or sand are grouped together as Vashon Glacial Till on
Figure 5-
Small areas of peat are also noted. These are formed primarily by
local vagetation.
A detailed study of surface soils is available in the 1955 report
"Pierce County, Washington, Soil Survey" by the Soil Conservation
Service(3). Soils data on the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek area are also
presented in a report prepared by Dames and Moore for the 1969 "Chambers
Creek - Clover Creek Basin Sewerage General Plan.(lt)
The assortment of glacial materials in the Chambers Creek - Clover
Creek Basin accounts for the observed local variability of surface
permeability and well yields. Despite the irregularity of these glacial
materials, some generalities are possible.
A sandy surface layer exists over much of the Chambers -Creek DUD
73-1 project area. This highly permeable (rapidly draining) surface layer
is generally underlain by a layer of glacial till which has low
permeability. Below the glacial till layer are the advance outwash
formations in which the deep aquifers are contained. In other words, the
glacial till which has little or no permeability is generally sandwiched between
the shallow aquifers and the deep aquifers which are a valuable
groundwater resource providing municipal water supplies. The glacial
till, due to its little or no permeability could theoretically provide an
effective barrier between the shallow aquifers which are contaminated (see
subsequent discussions) and the deep aquifer used for water supply.
However, the glacial till is irregular, thin or discontinuous in many
places, which would allow water from the shallow aquifers to reach the
deeper ones. This problem is depicted in Figure 6.
The rapidly draining outwash and gravel materials dominate the
majority of the project area, especially in areas tributary to streams and
lakes. One notable exception to this is the eastern portion of the
Parkland area which is slow draining because glacial till forms the
surface layer.
Parkland is presently unsewered, however, the generally permeable
surface soils of the project area permit favorable hydraulic performance
of septic tank drainfield disposal systems.
-------
-------
Requirements for Effective Septic Tank Systems - Permeability
The prerequisites for designing a drainfield for septic tank effluent
are summarized below to acquaint the reader with the parameters which
control design. Of primary importance is the determination of the
suitability of the soil to absorb the septic tank effluent. This is
indicated by the percolation rate or permeability of the soil obtained by
field tests, at the proposed site. In general granular soils, such as
sands and gravels have a medium to high percolation rate and are more
"suitable" for absorbing effluent. Cohesive soils such as clays and silts
or mixtures of clays, silts, sands, and gravels have a low to very low
percolation rate and will not absorb effluent readily. In addition the
soil used for the drainfield must not be in close proximity to impermeable
subsurface strata (such as the glacial till previously mentioned) or in
close proximity to local groundwater supplies.
With this brief background on septic tank design criteria, a comment
can be made about the suitability of the soils in the proposed project
area to absorb septic tank effluent and operate efficiently. By a review
of the surficial geologic map of the project area, surficial geologic
units can be delineated and characterized in relation to their ability to
absorb effluent (5), see Figure 7. This will give some indication of
where septic tanks could or could not function properly and where their
function may be questionable. The map is divided into areas in which: 1)
Septic systems should function properly (white); 2) septic systems should
not function properly (dark red) and 3) septic system's function is
questionable (light red). The following is a discussion of each type
of area.
Suitable for Septic Tank Use (shown as white on Figure 7)
Those places where septic tanks and drainfields should function
properly necessarily have soils with high percolation, no near-surface
impermeable layers or groundwater. In the project area, these places
occur in the Steilacoom Gravels and/or Recessional Outwash as incidated on
the map. Steilacoom Gravels are composed of pebble to cobble gravel with
thicknesses ranging from a few feet to 60 feet (3). Permeabilities of up
to .61 ft./min. have been recorded in these gravels which would be
considered highly permeable. The recessional outwash is principally
stratified sand and gravel with local lenses of silt and clay. The
permeabilities in this material should be less than in the Steilacoom
Gravels but still sutiable for absorbing effluent. However, because of
the local occurrences of clay and silt, drainfields would have to be
considered on a case by case basis.
Unsuitable for Septic Tank Use (shown as dark red on Figure 7)
Those places where septic tanks and drainfield should not function
properly have soils of low to negligible permeabilities or soil profiles
with near-surface impervious soils or groundwater. In the project area,
these places correspond to mapped deposits of glacial till which is
composed of compact unstratified clay, sand and gravel, and peat which is
organic material usually confined to topographic lows. Glacial till
usually has permeabilities of less than .0002 ft./min., and for the
51
-------
h
LEGEND
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
ONSOITABLE-GLACIAL
TILL AND/OR PEAT
QUESTION ABLE-SHALLOW
GRAVELS, IMPERMEABLE
LAYERS OF GROUNDWATER
SUITABLE-STEILACOOM
GRAVELS AND/OR
RECESSIONAL GRAVELS
CHAMBERS CREEK U.L.I.D. 73-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SURFICIAL GEOLOGY a
ABILITY TO ABSORB
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
prepared by WILSEY S HAM, INC.
for :E.P.A. region X Seottle.Wosh.
FIGURE 7
-------
purpose of this can be considered nearly impermeable. Because of the low
permeability of this material, drainfields cannot function properly, i.e.
the effluent cannot infiltrate at an acceptable rate through the compact
material. In addition, septic tank failures would cause the effluent to
pond and saturate the near-surface soils. Septic systems sited in permeable
soils (Recessional Gravels) which are underlain by near-surface impermeable
soils like clay or glacial till also should not function properly. Although
the effluent may infiltrate quickly at first, an eventual buildup of effluent
will occur above the impermeable soil saturating the material and causing
septic failures. The slope of the soil is an important consideration in
drainfield functioning. However, in this discussion the slope is assumed to
be relatively flat as in the project area and is not considered a major
factor for dissipating effluent.(5) The presence of near-surface groundwater
can impede the operation of septic systems. With high water table levels,
there is not a large enough soil section between the drainfield and the water
table for infiltration of the septic effluent. An eventual buildup and sat-
uration will occur around the drainfield causing failure. More importantly,
the effluent will enter the water table directly without the benefit of the
filtering process through unsaturated soil which is needed to purify the
effluent. For this reason septic tank systems should not be permitted in
areas of near-surface groundwater.
Questionable for Septic Tank Use (shown as light red on Figure 7)
Those areas where the function of septic systems is questionable have
soil and groundwater characteristics ranging between the 2 categories des-
cribed above. Variations in the thickness of permeable soils, in the eleva-
tions of impermeable soils and/or groundwaters, and surface gradients can
cause septic systems to function inefficiently. These areas are delineated
along contacts between the glacial till and Recessional Gravels where accurate
measurements of soil sections have not been made, and within pockets of
gravels whose physical extents are not known.
The areas described above have been based on interpretations of the sur-
ficial geology and apply to near-surface soils only.(5) The greatest per-
centage of the project area is mapped as Steilacoom Gravel which as pre-
viously discussed is suitable for drainfields. However, the possibility
exists that in this area the gravels, locally, could thin appreciably and,
therefore, have questionable suitabilities for septic systems. A more
accurate analysis of this subject would require a study of drillers longs
and any subsurface explorations to delineate groundwater levels, soil pro-
files, and gradients throughout the project area.
Requirements for Effective Septic Tanks - Purification
For effective septic tank functioning, the receiving ground formations
must be capable of purifying effluent as well as be permeable. It
appears that little is known about the filtering and purification
properties of aquifers on polluted groundwaters. In a recent report for
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, several field studies are
discussed relating expected distance traveled by bacteria to the grain
size and the moisture conditions of the filtering soil.(6) It is in-
dicated that fine grained soils remove suspended particles much quicker
than do coarse grained soils. In addition, bacterial travel is sub-
stantially greater in saturated soils than unsaturated soils. The con-
clusion being the survival and travel of organisms in soil varies as a
53
-------
function of soil moisture, soil temperature, and type of organisms. Other
parameters may be involved within the study area; consequently, each soil
type should be studies individually as to its filtering and purification
capaci ties.
Requirements for Effective Septic Tanks - Percolation
Percolation rates less than 1 min/inch are declared excessive in the
Department of Social and Health Services regulations. Lot sizes of one
acre (minimum) are required where there is a public water supply and two
acres for a private supply. Therefore, much of the area is probably un-
suitable or severely restricted for septic tank/drainfield use. This con-
stitutes one of the major problems in the area.
A large part of the reason for the ban (page 18), which also included
the lower basin was the excessive percolation rate and the resulting PO. ,
NO and other contaminants carried into the groundwater and sometimes even
into surface waters.
Groundwater Formations
Existing Groundwater
In the area, outwash sand and gravel deposits and the underlying
pre-Vashon unconsolidated deposits include the most productive aquifers.
Glacial till and the older semiconsolidated sediments generally yield only
small amounts of water to wells. Although till of the Vashon glaciation
is not a productive aquifer, but where it is sufficiently thick (20~30
feet), it will generally yield small supplies of perched groundwater to
large diamerer wells (7). The aquifers beneath the project area are re-
charged by precipitation.
The water table fluctuates with the amount of rainfall. Individual
periods of heavy precipitation tend to cause an abrupt rise in deeper
aqui fers (5)-
Groundwater in central Pierce County and the Chambers Creek Basin is
described in greater detail in the U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply
Bulletin No. 22. (5)- Four groundwater regions described in this bulletin
occur within the vicinity of the project site. A summary of groundwater
conditions and water yields for these areas may be found in Appendix B.
Relationship of Groundwaters to Surface Waters
There is considerable interchange between surface and groundwater in
the project area.
In general, most rivers and streams in central Pierce County gain
water from groundwaters and are perennial streams. Clover Creek is the
main drainage of the proposed project area and reportedly does not have a
strong influence on the water table; however, Clover Creek looses
considerable water to groundwater above Steilacoom Lake (6). This fact is
important in the relationship of surface and groundwater quality in this
area. Note that the Clover Creek drainage is within the very permeable
Steilacoom Gravels.
-------
Many of the small lakes and ponds are fed by groundwater discharged
from semiperched or perched aquifers downward percolation from the ponds
and semiperched and perched aquifers in turn recharges to the lower
aquifer (7). For example, American, Gravelly and Steilacoom Lakes are
recharged by aquifers to the east. American and Gravelly Lakes, which
have no surface outlets, lose water by evaporation and seepage back to the
aquifers to the west (Steilacoom drains to Chambers Creek). In
particular, the western edge of American Lake is slightly above the
adjacent aquifer, resulting in a large amount of outflow.
Thus, at this time, the above mentioned lakes appear to be in
approximate balance with the water table (6), and fluctuations in the
water table could affect lake water levels. For example, Gravelly Lake is
a groundwater lake, the level of which represents the position of the
water table in that area of Lakewood (6). In 1970, the level of Gravelly
Lake changed by approximately 5 feet between wet and dry seasons (8). The
changes in water level in Gravelly Lake reflect the seasonal changes in
recharge quantities from rainfall.
Groundwater Movement
Groundwater moves in the direction of the steepest gradient, but is
slow because of the resistance offered by the interstitial voids through
which the water must pass. Groundwater movement in the project area
appears to be to the northwest towards Puget Sound following that of the
major drainages; Clover Creek, Flett Creek, Leach Creek, and Chambers
Creek.
Some concern was expressed by local citizens over the possibility of
unsewered areas outside of the project area polluting the proposed sewered
area through movement of contaminated groundwaters. For the most part,
this problem involves such factors as: the direction of groundwater flow
through the project area as described above and the rate of flow;
contamination of groundwaters in unsewered areas up gradient from the
project area and the quantities; the ability of aquifers to purify
effluent from septic systems over time; and groundwater pumping.
Groundwater flows from southeast to northwest through the proposed
project area in the Steilacoom Gravels of the Clover Creek drainage. This
directional movement is shown In Figure 8 by the groundwater contour
lines, as with surface water, groundwater will generally flow from high
levels to lower levels (7). This is significant for a regional sewerage
system because contaminated groundwater could enter the project area from
this direction. In addition, contamination by septic system failures along
contacts between glacial till and the Steilacoom and Recessional Gravels
could also introduce pollutants to the groundwater system in the area.
Because of the .highly permeable nature of the gravels, even at the
relatively flat gradients in the area, widespread dispersal of pollutants
could occur.
55
-------
5 Q =
I *S
w
I
u
w
a
O *
H "
cc
CQ
o
Q
w
H
U
W
CO
O3
O
W
Ed
J
M
&P
u» i
-------
Although there is some indication that aquifers have the ability to
degrade contaminants, at the present it appears that there are no studies
which quantitatively deal with this subject.
Less obvious, but of importance, is the pollution of groundwaters by
septic systems discharging effluents into materials which have a low
filtering capacity. Although septic tank effluent is not considered safe,
the process of filtration through unsaturated soil removes some bacteria
while other bacteria die out because of the unfavorable environment, and
in time purification of the effluent results. With gravels the filter
capacity is reduced but how this effects the effluent is not known.
Briefly in review, the possibility exists for unsewered areas to
contribute pollutants to the water table which could enter the proposed
project area. However, to make an accurate assessment of this situation,
the quantities and locations of polluting sources would need to be
estimated, in order to assess the magnitude of this possibility. From this
information, some estimates could be made delineating areas where contami-
nation could occur.
WATER QUALITY
Existing Surface Waters and Their Uses (See Figure 9)
Creeks
The Chambers Creek ULID 73-1 contains a major stream system which
drains the area within the ULID boundary as well as surrounding areas.
The stream system is known as Chambers Creek below Steilacoom Lake and
Clover Creek above Steilacoom. Chambers Creek and Clover Creek receive
flows from many smaller tributary streams such as Flett Creek and Leach
Creek which drain areas north of the Lakewood portion of the ULID. A
small reach of Flett Creek is within the ULID boundary. Flett Creek
extends easterly and then curves north into the City of Tacoma draining
the valley between South Tacoma and Manitou. The area of the valley
within the City of Tacoma is commercial and industrial. Leach Creek
extends north toward Fircrest mostly through undeveloped or lightly
developed residential areas.
In addition, there are a number of streams tributary to the lake
system found in the study area. Streams tributary to Steilacoom Lake
include Ponce de Leon Creek on the southeast end of the Lake and Clover
Creek on the south end of the Lake. The major surface inlet to Steilacoom
Lake is Clover Creek which extends from Steilacoom Lake southeasterly
through McChord Air Force Base to drain the Spanaway and Parkland areas
and the sparsely developed area southeast of the project area.
Spanaway Creek and Morey Creek, which are surface outlets of Spanaway
Lake, are tributary to Clover Creek at points just east of McChord AFB.
The area southeast of the ULID drained by Clover Creek and its branches
east of McChord AFB is presently low density residential or undeveloped
rural land. Clover Creek in the developed residential Parkland area has
been realigned in recent years and now flows in an asphalt-bottomed channel
57
-------
WATER BODIES
WETLANDS
CHAMBERS CREEK U.L.I.D. 73-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
EXISTING SURFACE WATERS
irepared by WILSEY 8 HAM, INC.
or: ERA regionX Seattle, Wosh.
FIGURE I
-------
The surface streams within and around the Chambers Creek ULID 73~1
have some use at present for recreational activities as they provide an
area for children and adults to enjoy nature walks and provide an area for
some fishing and bird watching. An exception is the industrial use of
water drawn from the lower Chambers Creek reservoir by the Boise Cascade
West Tacoma Mill and by Glacier Sand and Gravel Company. The Chambers
Creek reservoir is created by a dam across lower Chambers Creek near the
Chambers Creek Road crossing. Also, Chambers Bay is used as a log storage
area for a paper mill and sawmill located adjacent to Chambers Bay.
Chambers Creek empties into the Puget Sound at Chambers Bay.
The lower reach of Chambers Creek has been noted for its flood
potential by the U.S. Geological Survey(9). The Environmental Protection
Agency requires that federally funded programs or projects in flood hazard
areas be evaluated in terms of potential influence on land use with the
intention of precluding uneconomic or unnecessarily hazardous use of flood
plains. (10). Inasmuch as the lower reach of Chambers Creek is designated
as open space and is also protected by the Shoreline Management Program,
there should be no conflict. Additional flood hazard information relating
to project area streams may be found in Appendix C.
Lakes
In addition to the previously mentioned lakes, Steilacoom Lake and
Spanaway Lake which are associated with surface streams, there are several
lakes which have no major surface inlets or outlets such as Gravelly Lake
and Lake Louise. The significant lakes within or adjacent to the Chambers
Creek ULID 73~1 are listed with their respective surface areas in Table G.
Land use surrounding project area lakes is mainly suburban residential
development. An October 1970 house count of structures within 300 feet
of the water's edge at American and Steilacoom Lakes reported 250 and 287
structures, respectively(8). Based on the length of shoreline and the
1970 house counts, American Lake had an average of approximately 250 feet
of shoreline per structure and Steilacoom Lake had approximately 105 feet
of shoreline per structure indicating the high degree of development.
Gravelly Lake is also highly developed but with generally more land area
per home with many homes set back from the shore by as much as 600 feet
with lawns extending to the lake shore. The vegetation associated with
shoreline areas of these lakes consists of lawns and scattered stand of
deciduous and conifer trees. The shoreward edges of the above mentioned
lakes is mainly gravel.
All of the project area lakes provide aesthetic amenities to the
residences and parks which border them. The larger lakes, such as American,
Steilacoom, Gravelly, and Spanaway have significant recreational use and
present the opportunity for swimming, fishing, and small boating. On
Steilacoom, American, and Spanaway Lakes, sports such as water skiing
and sailing are pursued. None of the lakes or streams are used for domestic
water supply, although lakes are used as a source of irrigation water by
some bordering properties.
59
-------
TABLE G
PROJECT AREA LAKES
Name
American
*Steilacoom
*Gravelly
*Louise
Waughop
*Carp
*Boyles
*Lost
Spanaway
Tule
*Charlton
Sequalitchew
Emerson
Wh i tman
Baxter
Shane
Lament
Location
Lakewood
Lakewood
Lakewood
Lakewood
Lakewood
Lakewood
Lakewood
Lakewood
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Area
Parkland
Parkland
Parkland
Fort Lewis
American Lake Garden
Tract
McChord AFB
McChord AFB
McChord AFB
McChord AFB
Area in Acres
1,125
319
148
38
22
11
2.8
1.5
262
8
14
79
4.6
6
10
1.4
6
PROJECT AREA WETLANDS
Name
Boyles Lake
Carp Lake
Crawford Marsh
Owens Marsh
Unnamed
Unnamed
Farrell Marsh
Area in Acres**
2.8
11.0
63.3
32.0
6.4
4.6
11.3
* Lakes within Chambers Creek ULID 73-1. Others are
adjacent to or within study area.
^'^Approximate area planimetered from 1:24,000 USGS
Topographic map.
60
-------
Wetlands
The total area covered by wetlands in the ULID 73-1
-------
From Point Defiance southward to Sunset Beach, shoreline use is
primarily recreational. Public beaches, waterfront residences, small boat
harbors, and launching facilities predominate. Except within Point
Defiance Park, the shoreline is traversed by tracks of the Burlington
Northern Railway. Steep bluffs within the Park prevent unlimited beach
access. Point Defiance Park now has approximately four miles of marine
frontage which will be increased with the approval of a planned southward
extension to Salmon Beach.
Between Sunset Beach and Chambers Bay, shoreline use is mostly
industrial. In close proximity to the beach are two large gravel
quarry pits and a papermill and sawmill. The waters of this bay are used
by the mills for log storage. Because of unique warmer waters, the State
Department of Game located its South Tacoma Hatchery on Chambers Creek and
placed a steelhead trap at the tidewater limit of Chambers Bay.
Most of the steelhead eggs for the Department of Game's Steelhead Manage-
ment program originate from this hatchery.
Marine frontage from Chambers Bay to the Fort Lewis Military
Reservation is included in the Steilacoom Township and receives limited
recreational use from its residents. The county operated ferry to
Anderson Island docks at Steilacoom. South of Steilacoom, the beachfront
is within the Fort Lewis boundaries and receives no significant
residential, recreational, or industrial usage.
Disposal of Wastewater to Surface Waters
Point Sources
Point sources of wastewater are generally those which result from a
particular activity and have an identifiable "point" from which effluent
is discharged to or reaches surface waters. In this sense, the existing
wastewater treatment facilities described in Chapter I would be considered
"point" sources. In addition, effluent associated with the mining, wood
products, and dairy operations which occur in the study area are point
sources. Such discharges must be issued National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits by the Department of Ecology. Local
wastewater discharges with NPDES permits are listed.
62
-------
in Table H. Although such dischargers are important in terms of overall
water quality objectives in the study, they do not directly contribute to
the major water quality problems in the study area either because of
location or the limited number of such dischargers. For greater detail
refer to Pierce County's Environmental Impact Assessment for Chambers
Creek ULID 73-1.
TABLE H
LOCAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS
WITH NPDES DISCHARGE PERMITS
Discharger's Name
Adjacent
Waters
Principal
Use of Water
Boise Cascade Corp.
(West-Tacoma Mill)
Glacier Sand and Gravel Co.
Puget Sound Rendering
Tacoma Narrows Lumber Co.
Chambers Creek Fish Hatchery
(Also serves Lakewood
Industrial Park)
Clover Creek Education Center
Town of Steilacoom
Westside Water District
Puget Sound-
Chambers Bay
Puget Sound
Flett Creek
Chambers Bay
Chambers Creek
Flett Creek
Puget Sound
Puget Sound
Process
Washing
Cool ing & Cleaning
Cool ing
Process
Sewage
Sewage
Sewage
63
-------
Non-Point Sources
There has been concern that shallow groundwaters may be contaminated
by septic tank effluent. It should be noted that this contamination may
be due to a variety of other sources such as lawn fertilization and
contaminants carried in storm runoff. Such sources of contaminants are
called non-Point sources.
For examples, because of the gravelly soils covering much of the
project area, lawns require considerable amounts of fertilizer and
watering. Consequently, a substantial amount of nutrients is undoubtedly
being carried to the water table. Groundwater monitoring in this area
shows that some wells have relatively high nitrate concentrations. (H).
Whether these nitrate levels are coming chiefly from septic tank drain
fields or from lawn fertilization is not known. A centralized sewerage
project would not solve a nitrate contamination problem caused by lawn
ferti1ization.
Storm runoff carries many pollutants into streams, lakes, and Puget
Sound. The variety of these pollutants in an urbanized area is great.
Typically, urban runoff may carry sediment, nutrients, litter,
surfactants, oil, pesticides, bacteria from animal wastes, chemicals,
trace heavy metals, and other wastes generated by a complex society. The
ability of runoff to carry surface contaminants is increased as
development proceeds. Impervious surfaces (roofs, streets, parking lots)
collect and cause contaminants to build up in dry periods, which are then
washed off in rainfall. Because such surfaces are impervious, the runoff
during a storm is increased which further scours and washed off such
contami nants.
Contaminants from paved surfaces eventually reach the natural water
bodies. For example, large portions of the project area drain towards
Clover Creek, which empties to Lake Steilacoom. Steilacoom Lake serves as
a settling pond for suspended materials carried by Clover Creek.
Phosphorus, a nutrient, carried in the sediment load of Clover Creek would
accumulate in Steilacoom Lake and may contribute to the vegetation growth
in the lake. Accordingly, a sewerage system may not significantly
reduce this source of phosphorus to the lake, because it will not intercept
it.
Due to the unpredicabi1ity of occurrence and the generally ill-defined
flow patterns of runoff in unsewered areas such as the Chambers Creek
Basin project area, studies of runoff quantity and quality are generally not
available. The Chambers Creek ULID 73-1 is presently less developed and,
therefore, less covered by an impervious layer of roads, parking lots, and
buildings that highly urbanized areas such as downtown Tacoma or Seattle.
Furthermore, because of reliance on open roadside ditches or open joint storm
drains and because of the permeable soil in most parts of the ULID, the
quantities of contaminants in surface runoff in the
-------
ULID area are probably minimized. In other words, the quality of local
surface runoff may be better than that found in highly developed areas
such as downtown Tacoma. This is not to imply that localized surface
runoff quality problems related to erosion, solid waste dumps, or other
site-specific problems cannot occur in the ULID. However, such situations
need to be studied on a case by case basis, which illustrates the diffi-
culty involved in making any quantified estimates of present or future
surface runoff problems. The approach taken to solve water quality pro-
blems in most communities has historically been to first eliminate the
obvious dangers related to untreated discharges of domestic or industrial
wastes and then to attempt to quantify and control specific surface
runoff problems.
Water Quality Problems
The Lakewood-Parkland Basin is primarily a medium density residential
area with a few point sources as previously described. The major concern
with the sewage system proposal is that human wastes from these residences
be adequately treated to eliminate possible adverse effects to the water
quality of the basin. The human wastes of primary concern are feces and
urine. The average normal human excretion for a 24-hour period is shown
in Table I.
TABLE I
NUTRIENTS AND COL I FORM FROM HUMAN EXCRETION
2k HOUR PERIOD (15) (16)
URINE
Cl- 3-5 - 10 gm
N 6 - 18 gm
P .7 - 1.6 gm
FECES
Wet Fecal Fecal
Weight Coli form Streptococci
Man 150 g 2 x 109 0.5 x 109
Duck 336 g 11 x 109 18 x 109
The implications of human contamination are basically two fold; 1)
pathogenic organism contamination (disease producing organism), 2) chemical
contamination of water.
65
-------
Pathogenic Organism Contamination
General. Measurement of pathogenic organism contamination is
difficult at best due to the random nature of its source and the variety
of organisms possible. The standard method of indicating possible
contamination is to use the method of measuring fecal coliform level in
water as an indicator of possible contamination. Fecal coliform grow in
the intestines of warm blooded animals and are not themselves harmful, but
are indicative of human fecal contamination which may contain disease
producing organisms. The total coliform count of water contains organisms
which may or may not have originated from warm blooded animals. Fecal
coliform levels are a much better indicator level of possible human
contamination. Other warm blooded animals (i.e. ducks) also contribute
fecal coliforms to the water. Because of the variability of the excretion
rate of fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci (strep), it is possible to
distinguish fecal contamination from human sources by the high fecal
coliform/fecal strep ratio. No fecal coliform/fecal strep ratios for the
area of interest are available from Washington DSHS or the Pierce County
Health Department (1?) (18). It should be noted that the lakes in the
area have resident duck population and some of the high total coliform and
fecal coliform data measured may be due to the duck population. Pierce
County Health Department data does note that some of the high data may be
from ducks (18). As documented subsequently, there is at present no
evidence that the coliform levels measured in the Lakewood- Parkland basin
are from human sources; however, soil characteristics in the Parkland-Midland
area would indicate that sewage is a major contributor.
Water Quality Criteria. The State of Washington standard applicable
to these lakes is Class "A" (excellent) and for many of the streams in the
project area is Class "AA" (extraordinary). The Class A standard for
coliform specifies "total coliform organisms shall not exceed median
values of 2kO with less than 20% of samples exceeding 1,000 when
associated with any fecal source." The Class AA standard for coliform
species "total coliform organisms shall not exceed median values of 50
with less than ]Q% of samples exceeding 230 when associated with any fecal
source." (19). The State standards for coliform organisms for various
water classifications is given below:
TABLE J
STATE OF WASHINGTON STANDARDS FOR COLIFORM
AA
(Extra-
Ordinary)
A
(Excel lent)
B
(Good)
C
(Fair)
Lake Class
Median Median Median Median Median
Total
Coliform <50 <2kO <1000
-------
The interpretation used in this analysis is that the term "any fecal
source" as used in the standard means total fecal coliforms as per the
FWPCA recommendation. The total coliform data previously reported is
useful, but not sufficient for applying this standard, as total coliform
data contains no information with regard to "any fecal source".
Pierce County Public Health-Sanitation Division started reporting
fecal coliform data in 1974. Previously, the data was total coliform.
Attempted correlations between total coliform and fecal coliform data on
Lake Louise (197*0 showed that there was no correlation (20) and,
therefore, only the fecal coliform data should be considered the primary
data as evidence of "fecal contamination".
This should not be interpreted as meaning that all previous total
coliform data is useless. On the contrary, although not functional in
applying to standards, it is useful as the indicator of trends of water
quality. In particualr, total coliform counts greatetf than 4,000/100 ml
are very indicative that surface water is polluted (21) (22). And since this
is the only data available prior to 197**, it is the only data that one can
make decisions upon relative to human influence in the time interval up to
1974.
Chemical Contamination of Water
The only criteria which the water bodies of the project area do not
adequately meet are the chemical criteria for nutrients which lead to the
enrichment of the water system, particularly the lakes. These
nutrients could be attributable to point sources such as those facilities
which have MPDES Permits for Discharges, as well as non-point sources
such as septic tanks, runoff from lawns and paved surfaces (as explained
previously). These chemical constituents are discussed below.
Chloride. There is some concern (2k) that increasing chloride levels
in area wells are preliminary evidence of groundwater contaminations, but
chloride levels in and of themselves are not a problem in the basin.
Chloride is an innocuous ion excreted by the body to maintain its salt
balance. It is excreted at approximately half the rate of nitrogenous
compounds. If chloride were to be an indicator of possible water
contamination by human wastes, the nitrogen levels (as Nh, or No,) would
also have to increase (26). Therefore, Cl~ and No, would both have to
increase at similar rates if water were being contaminated by human wastes.
Nutrients. Nitrogen compounds and phosphates are utilized by plants
in their growth.
Nitrogen is primarily excreted as urea, which hydroloyzes (reacts
with water) to yield ammonia (NH,) and oxidizes (combines with oxygen) in
the natural system to nitrite ana eventually nitrate. The younger (more
recently excreted) the nitrogenous waste, the higher the ammonia levels;
the older the wastes, the higher the nitrate levels.
67
-------
Phosphate Is excreted as ort'nophosphate. There are other possible
phosphate sources but most of the phosphourous in sewage systems comes
from detergents which use polyphosphates as water softners. These
polyphosphates also hydrolyze (react with water) to yield ortho phosphates.
Detergents also contain surfactants (presently mostly as LAS, Linear
Alkyl Sulfonates) which help water dissolve the grease, grit, etc. These
anionic surfactants react with Methylene Blue to give an indirect method
of measuring the amount of surfactant present. The methodology is
applicable over the range 0.025 to 100 mg/1 (25). Much of the LAS data by
the Department of Social and Health Services is not interpretable as it is
in the range of and below applicable detection levels.
The presence of nitrogen compounds and phosphates is significant in
that most often it is either one or the other of these which acts to limit
the growth of plants during the intense growing season of the summer when
there is an excess of sunshine. The intensive growth of algae (plants) is
commonly called a bloom and is indirectly caused by high nutrient levels
(NO, or phosphate). It is normally considered that when N/P ratios of
greater than 15:1 are present, the system is phosphate limited (i.e. more
phosphorous would cause more plants, more nitrogens would not). However,
plants may also fix nitrogen (take it out of the air) and, therefore, this
ratio should be considered as a guideline to determine the limiting
nutrient.
Lakes go through a natural aging process called Eutrophication. Very
young, low productive (plant growth) lakes are called oligotrophic, very
old productive lakes are called eutrophic and at a stage between called
mesotrophic. High nutrient levels stimulate high productivity and yield
eutrophic lakes. Aesthetically and for recreation purposes, eutrophic
lakes are highly undesirable.
Extent of Surface Water Contamination in Study Area
Creek System. The Chambers Creek Drainage System is composed of
(from Puget Sound, uplane): Leach Creek, Fleet Creek, Steilacoom Lake
(includes Ponce de Leon Creek), Clover Creek, Morey Creek, Spanaway and
Tule Lake, and North and South Forks of Clover Creek, see Figure 9- It
should be recognized that pollutants entering at the source, or upstream,
will tend show up at all points down stream, with some dilution by possible
clean water sources entering down stream and some reduction due to natural
assimilation. The Clover Creek system is primarily surface drainage with
some loss of surface water to groundwater above Lake Steilacoom(5).
Water quality problems occur in Leach Creek, Flett Creek, Ponce de
Leon Creek, Morey Creek, and the upper reach of Clover Creek. The trends
toward increasing coliform concentrations is shown in Table K. These
streams also have high nutrient levels, particularly nitrates as
documented in Appendix E.
Particularly distrubing trends are noted by examining the data for
Steilacoom Lake (Chambers Creek at Steilacoom Blvd.). Low total coliform
levels seem to be the rule up to about 1969-1970. After this time, the
median coliform level grows at a phenomenal rate reaching 1000 in 197^-
68
-------
The reasons for this increase are unknown. As explained previously,
coliform increases could be due sources other than septic tank effluent,
for example, increases in resident duck populations. The significance of
this increase may be that it is indicative of a growing problem which has
suddenly reached the limits of capacity of the water system to accept such
inputs. When a water system is at or over its capacity to accept such
input, sampling data for such parameters may become very inconsistent, as
is the case for data for much of this basin.
Nutrient levels in Lake Steilacoom (an average of the whole system)
show a N/P ratio of 21 indicating a phosphate limited system. Lowering
the phosphate level in these streams would markedly lower the productivity
(capacity to support biological growth, initially evident by algae blooms)
of Lake Steilacoom.
TABLE K
TRENDS OF COLIFORM ORGANISM CONCENTRATIONS
IN PROJECT AREA STREAMS
TOTAL COLIFORM ORGANISMS/100ML. - MEDIAN VALUES
Stream
Chambers Cr.
Chambers Cr.
Leach Cr.
Leach Cr.
Flett Cr.
Ponce de Leon
Cr.
Clover Cr.
Clover Cr.
Spanaway Cr.
Spanaway Cr.
Location
Chambers Cr.
Road
Stei lacoom
Blvd.
Bridgeport Way
Fi rcrest
Custer Rd.
Brook Lane
Gravelly Lk.Dr.
Waller Rd. E.
S. 174th St.
Old Mil itary Rd.
1962-63
36
23
it 30
930
91
36
1969 1970 1971*
600 700 500
16 43 60
15,000 2,300 400
280 1 ,300 640
500 2,300 640
106
60
1971** 1972* 1972**
1,400 1,400 2,400
320 360 500
4,000 3,200
4,000 4,000
960 1 ,200 1 ,200
1,100
1,800 800 1 ,800
1 ,400 1 ,000
500 1 ,800
110 400
1973 (a)
-
200
1,850
3,600
3,200
2,350
1,200
1 ,000
200
(a) 1973 includes data through March 15
* First half of year
** Second half of year
69
-------
Lake System. The major lakes for which considerable data are
available are American, Gravelly, Louise, and Waughop. These lakes are
different from Spanaway and Steilacoom in that they are not part of the
Chambers Creek Drainage System and have no stream outputs. Spanaway and
Steilacoom Lakes will tend to trap nutrients and will have contents
reflecting both surficial drainage and groundwater seepage.
Examining the data in Appendix E, only two lakes have particular
nutrient problems: Gravelly and Waughop. Both have very large nitrogenous
inputs; in particular, more than half the available nitrogen in Gravelly is
in the ammonia form. The ammonia nitrate in Gravelly Lake could be due to
sewage input or due to over fertilization of adjacent lawns and irrigation
which flushed such fertilizers into the lake.
Examining the data of Table M, it is hard to tell much about the
progression of the lakes with regard to bacteriological contamination,
except that Lake Louise has gotten consistently worse. Examining very
recent fecal coliform data, Table L below shows that only Lake Louise is
a current health hazard, but according to accepted norms is not yet in
violation of State or Federal guidelines. The land area surrounding much
of the lake is underlain with glacial till which results in much septic
tank effluent moving to the lake. (This lake is believed to be a perched
lake resting on impermeable till).
TABLE L
FECAL COL I FORMS OF LAKES
(Fecal Coliform/100 MLS 4/28/75 - 7/15/75)
# of Samples
% Greater 230*
none
2
none
5
25
none
Lake
Spanaway
Stei lacoom
American
Gravel ly
Louise
Waughop
Taken
44
44
66
42
48
42
Median
20
10
4
2
75
10
*240 organisms/100 MLS is the limit established by the
State Water Quality Criteria; however, samples over 230
organisms/100 MLS are given to show the proximity of the
problem.
70
-------
TABLE M
TRENDS OF COL I FORM ORGANISM CONCENTRATIONS
IN PROJECT AREA LAKES
Percentage of Samples Over Indicated Limit
Lake Louise
Steilacoom Lake
Gravel ly Lake
American Lake
Spanaway Lake
Lake Waughop
Total Coli.
per 100 ml.
240*
1,000
2,400
240
1,000
2,400
240
1,000
2,400
240
1,000
2,400
240
1,000
2,400
240
1,000
2,400
1969
3U
19
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
1970 1971
33% 33%
0 11
0 6
33 71
11 29
0 29
0 25
0 8
0 8
10 38
0 7
0 0
1972
70%
50
30
66
24
9
22
4
1
26
4
0
1973**
943
81
31
87
50
12
19
6
0
50
12
0
100
56
6
94
25
12
1974**
32%
60
16
20
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
55
9
0
20
0
0
*240 is limit for waters meeting Washington State Lake Class water quality standards,
2,400 is limit established for water contact sports by the Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department.
1,000 is the limit for water contact sports set by the World Health Organization
and many state health agencies.
**May through August samples only.
71
-------
Ditches. Previous data by the Pierce County Health Department has
shown total coliform in ditches and discharge pipes in the
Parkland-Midland Area to be considerably in excess of 4,000/lOOml,
indicating polluted surficial waters in this area. See Table N.
TABLE N
COLIFORM ORGANISM CONCENTRATIONS
IN PROJECT AREA ROADSIDE DITCHES
AND DISCHARGE PIPESPARKLAND AND MIDLAND AREA
MARCH 14-15, 1973
Location Total Coli./lOO ml
10115 E. F Street 1,000
9919 E. F Street 120,000
9701 E. F Street 250,000/450,000
9611 Portland Ave. 150,000
97th & Tyler 10,000
9406 E. Tyler 25,000
1906 E. 93rd 56,000
9406 E. Harrison 85,000
95th £ Harrison 15,000
1217 97th Street E. 25,000
9707 E. B Street 145,000
10301 Golden Givens Rd 26,000
10167 Golden Givens Rd. 6,000
10406 Golden Givens Rd. 78,000
10415 Golden Givens Rd. 120,000
9704 E. McKinley 10,000
10304 E. McKinley 2,000
10318 E. McKinley 400,000
706 97th Street E. 72,000
72
-------
Groundwater. While there is some data available on shallow wells in
the vicinity that have failed due to casing problems, there is little
definitive data to prove that deep wells have been contaminated(2y).
While it is apparent from the sewage seepage into surface waters that
these waters are contaminated; however, where clay layers occur they
appear to seal off the lower layers. While deep wells may not be
contaminated, recent groundwater monitoring performed by the USGS under
contract to EPA shows that some shallow wells have Nitrate-N
concentrations approaching the recommended limit for Nitrate-N in drinking
water. (28). The Public Health Service has recommended that nitrogen in
drinking water not exceed 10 mg/liter to avoid health hazards such as a
poisoning known as methemo globinemia and to avoid adversely affecting
aquatic systems causing algae blooms (2). Again, it .is unknown how much
is coming from lawn ferti 1 izers, and how much is coming from septic tank
drainfields.
As previously discussed, groundwater in the area is recharged from
surface drainage, i.e. from rainfall and from some of the lakes. If, as
it appears from the Steilacoom Lake data the threshold for surface waters
(to detoxify wastes) has been exceeded, it is only a matter of time before
the groundwater will exceed the threshhold for detoxifying lakes.
As discussed previously chloride level changes in the water may or
may not indicate water contamination by sewage wastes; but only increasing
nitrate or ammonia levels prove contamination. There is no such proof at
this time.
Relationship of Water Quality Problems to Surface Geology
By way of a general conclusion to the water quality section, it can
be noted that areas where water quality problems occur tend to correlate
with the areas, previously discussed, which are unsuitable or marginal for
septic tank use. This correlation is shown in Figure 10. One exception
to this correlation is the water quality problems which occur in Gravelly
Lake. Since Gravelly Lake is recharged from groundwater, (no stream
inflow or outflow) it probably receives water from shallow aquifers which
contain septic tank effluent. In addition, it probably also receives
runoff carrying heavy loads of fertilizer from lawns.
73
-------
LEGEND
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
UNSUITABLE-GLACIAL
TILL AND/OR PEAT
QUESTIONABLE- SHALLOW
GRAVELS, IMPERMEABLE
LAYERS OF GROUNDWATER
SUITABLE-STEILACOOM
GRAVELS AND/OR
RECESSIONAL GRAVELS
AREAS WHERE WATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS OCCUR
0 2000 400
;*\ &sr:
I/ ^ -"
"'*' ;/C*MP MlnWAY
CHAMBERS CREEK U.L.I.D. 73-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RELATIONSHIP OF WATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS
TO SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
prepared by WILSEYaHAM, INC.
for:E.P.A. regionX Seattle, Waah.
FIGURE 10
-------
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Vegetation
The Lakewood and Parkland areas, though extensively developed as
suburban residential communities, still contain several areas of relatively
natural vegetation. Dominant in this region are Douglas Fir (Pseudostuga
menziesi ), a subclimax species; Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), a
climax species, and Western Red Cedar, also a climax species. Where early
logging activities and more recent land clearing have removed these native
conifers, mixed stands of hardwoods and conifers have succeeded. Plant
ecologists generally consider this portion of the Puget Lowlands as lying
in the Tsuga heterophylla vegetational zone. This zone is the most
extensive in Western Washington and extends from British Columbia on the
north to the Columbia River and beyond to the south. It is characterized
by a wet, mild maritime climate with soils which are porous and of medium
acidity. Tsuga heterophylla is the latin name for Western Hemlock, a
dominant, climax tree species prolific throughout this zone. (35).
A list of plant species present in the study area and a description of the
major plant associations is included in the Appendix F of this document.
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Like most regions of increasing urbanization and intensified land use,
the project area contains no extensive single habitats or habitats mixes
for wildlife. Throughout the area of the proposed ULID many wildlife
species are present but generally they are forms well adapted to the
presence of man or are occupying comparatively small "pocket" habitat areas
which are surrounded by development. Several freshwater marshes or
wetlands lie within the project boundaries and these areas contain not only
resident species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians but also host
migrant birds and waterfowl moving along the Pacific Flyway in the Spring
and Fall. A description of the dominant wildlife components and their
respective habitats along with a list of species showing habitat preference
and abundance is included in Appendix F. See Figure II for habitat areas.
Fisheries
Chambers Creek is the most important anadromous fish stream in the
project area and is one of the major spawning streams for chum and coho
salmon in the Puget Sound area. The Chambers Creek tributaries, Flett
Creek and Leach Creek are similarly important as spawning areas. Chambers
Creek also contains some chinook and sockeye. In total for the four species
of salmon that migrate through Chambers Creek, approximately 5000 to 9000
adults run the stream each year.
The Washington Department of Game operates the South Tacoma Hatchery
among the west bank of Chambers Creek approximately one mile north of
Steiiacoom Lake. Most of the steelhead eggs for the Department of Game's
steelhead program originate from this hatchery.
75
-------
CHAMBERS CREEK UL.I.D. 73-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
prepared by WILSEY a HAM, INC.
for = E.P.A. reqionX Seattle. Wash.
FIGURE 11
-------
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
In response to letters of comment on the draft environmental impact
statement, an archaeological/historical survey of the Chambers Creek
study area was undertaken. The preliminary results of this survey
can be found in Appendix J. The final report will be completed in
early January.
MAN-MADE ELEMENTS
Historical Land Use Patterns
During the early 1930's, the Lakewood area began to develop as
a suburb to Tacoma. With Steilacoom as the center, people began moving
into the area on a permanent basis. Previously, the area had been
sparsely developed with summer houses around the lakes. The Lakewood
Colonial Center was built in 1937 and was one of the first shopping
centers in the Country. Although a growth trend was obvious, it was
not until the military influence of the early 19^0's that the Lakewood
area began to develop into a large community.
Following World War II, Federal Housing Administration mortgage
financing encouraged much single family subdivision activity in Lakewood.
The area continued its rapid growth rate. The Lakewood Colonial Center
had to expand. By the early 1950's, it became apparent that another
shopping center was needed in the district, and the Villa Plaza was
opened in 1957. The Thunderbird Shopping Center, a much smaller de-
velopment, opened in I960. This center has since expanded as the Oak-
brook Planned Unit Development and other growth took place in the west
end of Lakewood.
Although the Parkland area was originally settled very early,
growth was quite slow. This is attributed mainly to its remote lo-
cation from Tacoma and Lakewood. Parkland experienced noticeable de-
velopment during the 19^0's and 1950's; however, it was of a suburban
sprawl pattern, not concentrated as in Lakewood. This development
ranged from the Puyallup Valley to Spanaway and southeast.
^\ Parkland area development first came about v/ith the normal ex-
pan sTsjp of Tacoma southward. Pacific Lutheran University, the expan-
sion of\£he military bases, and Pacific Avenue's extension to the south
brought aC^ut population concentrations in the Parkland area. The
greatest growth period for this area was experienced from I960 to 1970,
when the popu)lation grew significantly. Previously growth was slow and
only recently vtes a shopping center developed. Instead, Parkland/
Spanaway residents were served by strip commercial land uses along
Pacific Avenue.
The Lakewood an^j Parkland Districts each have a suburban residential
base, although they a\e two different communities with different settle-
78
(page 77 has been deleted)
-------
merit patterns. The result is that Lakewood is a suburban residential
area, a homogenous unit made up of mostly middle-class people. Parkland
consists of a diverse mixture of elderly, students, and blue-collar
workers. Both communities consist of a young family center, with 39
percent of its total population under 20 years of age.
Existing and Future Land Use
Development patterns for the Chambers Creek ULID 73~1 and nearby
areas is shown in Figure 12. This also serves as an indication of
future development for the area because such development is expected
to follow existing trends. The general projected land uses were de-
veloped in Pierce County's Draft Environmental Assessment for ULID 73~1
from a compilation of Pierce County land use regulations, including
the Generalized Comprehensive P1 an and A_ Comprehensive Plann ing Study
of the Lakes District, and information provided by Human Resources
Institute. The land in the ULID 73-1 has been under county generalized
zoning since 1962 when the Generalized Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
Augmenting this zoning was the adoption of the Lakes District Study,
which further delineated the land use pattern that should occur in the
Lakes District. In the 197^ Amendment to the Lakes Plan, the county
officially adopted specific zoning regulations to cover "transitional
areas" within the District. The difference between the existing land
use map developed in the Lakes District Study and the "Proposed Land
Use" Map in Figure 12 is minimal. Primarily, the proposed land uses
are more detailed and tend to concentrate commercial-industrial and
higher residential uses in already developed areas. The development
of the sewerage system should be used as a land use tool to implement
this proposed plan. However, some modifications may have to be made
to allow for the higher densities and conflicting land uses which
might occur.
Presently, approximately 50 percent of the total land area of Lake-
wood is developed. Of this area, just under 50 percent is developed to
residential land uses. An estimated 25 percent of the total land area
of Parkland is developed. Figures beyond these regarding percentages
of residential development are not presently available for the Parkland
area.
79
-------
CQ
LU
C3
_-f
c-t.
>-
CQ
2:
O
t i
h-
<;
_i
ZD
D.
O
Cu
UJ
3;
U_
o
00
0
h-
00
1 i
cu
UJ
t
o
eC
QC
ca;
o
o
|^v
CTl
i
A
X «.
oo
1
C_3
I-H
o:
i
oo
Q
CD
<
1
:*£
c£
ca;
Cu
Q
z.
>
U -M
S_ C
O) rs
r- 0
Q- 0
r-~
f
r~*.
+J
o
i
r
>_
-l->
CO UD
0 f^
o
c.
rO
^x:
S-
ro
d.
LT)
,
r-~
i ^
(/) O
Ol -i-
-^ S-
ro 4->
_l to
Q
r
1
oo
r^-
ro
Q CU
S-
!-.
r^.
UD
cn
00
n
«d-
0
Ln
i
*\
CO
r^
LO
CT»
r
s
oo
. i.
'vj
r^-
«d-
CM
»>
oo
r^
c
o
r~
+J
rO
3
Q.
0
n_
ro
4->
0
1
Ln <3- i
UD i CM
oo Ln i
oo Ln oo
co oo co
ro Ln
co oo <=3-
CTi <* UD
oo Ln
in ^3- oo
.
i cn en
^J- <*
O i OO
oo oxj in
^3- Ln
UD «^" O
r-^ r-^ Ln
oo Ln
o r~~ oo
cn in in
oo Ln
* X
cu
ro ro
Ei ^
+-^
O) O
U. I
0 M-
C O O
ro CM «d" tn
4J C UD UD
0) C O S-
r CU -I- CU 1 i.
rO O -!-> T3 CU
SI 5- ro C O >
^ CU r- ZD CM 0
D- 3
CU CD-
CD CO O
a: <£ o-
*
.
CD
c
r
TD
c
^
o
S-
0
+->
cu
3
T3
-o
o
ro
4->
O
c
>>
ro
E
CO
O)
S-
g>*
1
u_
*
n
-C
o
ro
" S-
Ln CQ
r~~
cn -o
, f
ro
r~ t
(_) -i^
s_ s_
ro ro
SI Cu
n r>
-!->
C -4->
O) Q.
E CU
CO Q
co
CU CD
CO C
CO -I
< C
c
-t-> ro
U i
ro Cu
Q.
E >5
1 ) i i
c
P ^
ro O
4-> 0
C
CU CD
E 0
C S-
o cu
i- -r-
*f~ d_
>
c -o
LU c:
ro
+->
(+_ r,
ro 00
S_ i
Q 1
i i i
1
OO
r-. Q.
o +->
c:
i i CU
E
_l co
to
ZD CU
to
_i<£ CO
cu <;
cu
S- (J
O T-
E
to o
r f
i L
O) O
J2 O
Ei . i
I_UI
ro 1
jr o
<_) -i-
O
" O
>>oo
c *
-^ III ,
_J ULJ
o Ln
<_) x r^~
r- cn
CU XJ i
o c
S- CU >,
CU Q-i
i- Q- 3
Cu < -D
UJ
o
C£
ZD
O
00
-------
Economic Characteristics
Military personnel living off the base comprise over one quarter of
the civilian labor force in the ULID area. In the County as a whole, over
30 percent of the civilian labor force is non-civilian. Table
occupational classes between the two major communities of the ULID, as
well as total employment figures. A social and economic gap can be seen
from this table between the Lakes District and the Parkland District.
Lakewood has a higher percentage of white-collar workers and a lower
percentage of blue-collar workers than Parkland.
The ULID area represents nearly 18 percent of the total labor force
in Pierce County. Over 30,000 people are included in this labor force.
More than 80 percent of the men and 39 percent of the women living in
Lakewood and Parkland are employed in this area.
Table R describes family and unrelated individual incomes, comparing
the two sub-districts with the total ULID, Pierce County, and Tacoma. The
lowest median income area is in Census Tract 717 in Parkland. This area
is comprised of blue-collar workers who earn between $1,000 and $2,000
less per year than the other higher skilled workers in other areas.
The description of income characteristics seen in Table R shows
basically that certain population areas have more educational background,
professional and white-collar employment, and resultant higher incomes.
It shows that age, whether male or female, and military association exert
a strong influence on income levels. Also, persons and families with low
income levels are found throughout the ULID area, and there is a wide gap
between the wealthy and the poor which is most apparent in the Lakes
District.
The majority of housing in the ULID area is low density single-
family dwellings. The percentage of these type units in this area is
higher than the County as a whole. The ULID area also has a higher
percentage of multiple units than the County. These higher rates are
directly attributable to the Lakewood area.
Median assessed property values for owner-occupied units are higher
in the Lakes District than in Parkland or the County. This can be traced
to the fact that more blue-collar workers and elderly persons live in the
Parkland and other County areas. Also, Lakewood residents pay a median of
$20 to $*fO more per month rent than those in Parkland.
On summary, housing in general is more expensive in Lakewood than
Parkland. There are more older housing units in Parkland and more
multiple- family units in Lakewood. A large demand for housing in the
ULID area has kept the vacancy rate low compared to the County and
national levels. A very small proportion of the total housing units in
the ULID area would be considered sub-standard. Also, the ULID area and
the County compare with the nation in terms of the proportion of income
spent for rent. j
87
-------
OQ
o
r^
O)
^"-
UJ
3:
1 ^"^
to
O 0
U- 1-H
CtL
Q H-
UJ CO
>- *"-*
O Q
f\ f~^l
U» L_J
z: z
UJ <
H- ^
z o:
UJ
U
^
i.
4J
CO
r-
TJ
C
(0
r Q.
rO 3
4J 0
0 0
I O
CM
CO
CO
,^1
r
LO
CO
o
o^
«5t-
VO
LO
00
VO
VO
r
TD
C
to
1
to
o
r-
C
4=
(J
CU
1 CO
.
CO CU
CU i-
O^
«»
CO
I
40
03
X-
40
(O
^
c
r £
E i-
r
4^
to
r
3
E
O
VO LO i 00 CTl O1
r-» co LO o co in
r i i LO
r^ vo r~ vo i r-~
r^. r~> in cy> ^- «*
i i in
VO O LO CO O <*
VO OO r CM r»N LO
CM i VO
i-» o co o 01 cn
vo CTV o> cr> CM vo
i i LO
CT> CM i «S- i |
LO o vo r^ «d- co
CM i LO
i r>. ^j- 1
3 tO
a--t->
UJ C
cu
c o
cu c s-
E o cu
CU -r- CL
r ij
O CO to CU
u. cu +-> >
r > c »r-
fO * "I O 4-*
VJ CO +J Q. (O
CO -r- +J rO CO i
CU S- C>- S- C 3
r- CU (O CU (O E
fO i S- Q. S- 3
CO O O O 1 CJ
VT> LO
in
CO <3"
LO ^~
CM CO
«j.
00 ^~
LO
1 <*
f^
VO *
^j.
1 ^1-
LO
CO
s-
cu
^^
CO S-
t- 0
cu 3:
S-
O E
-Q S-
ro
r-
0)014-"
O 4-> to
i- (O r
> > 3
5- - E
CU 1- 3
to o_ o
in
f^
CTl
~
O
S-
ro
«t
4J
C
CU
CO
CO
CO
CO
ff_
4-)
0
to
CL
E1
i i
,
IO
+J
C"
CU
E
c
o
1^
f
UJ
40
M-
fO
S-
a
r^-
1
co
p>»
.
Q
hl
-J
=3
^
CU
cu
CJ
CO
^
0)
-Q
E
CO
-C
0
A
>,
4->
C
3
O
CJ
0)
o
ai
Q-
UJ
CJ
(XL
*^
O
co
i
CM
I
I-H
a.
^
4->
C
CO
E
CO
CO
CO
CO
-------
CC.
LU
I
CO
^^
t
oo
^f
^3
Q
i i
i i
Q
ZL
i i
Q
LU
H-
1
_l
LU
Q:
ZD
Q
^£
OO
LU
t I
___!
i i
^^
^^
U_
u.
0
00
1 1
1
oo
HH
Qi
LU
1
^£
o:
LU
o
i t
o
cn
*
^ ^
oo
1
I 4
o;
h-
00
i i
Q
0
,-r
i
NX
f*V*
^£
O_
Q
^*
eC
00
LU
NX
^£
_J
^^
«=c
LU
ct:
<
i
oo
ps^
.
Q
.
I i
_J
LU
zc
o:
o
1 1
CO
o
s_
CO
r
a.
CO
ai
^
ro
1
CO
r
4_3
to
3
E
3
0
,
1
OO
.
r~\
.
i i
ro
E
O
u
to
^^
^
4J
C
O
o
t"-*
(
r^
^.0
r
PX,,
LO
r
f*^.
-|_>
(J
r
t.
{_)
C/)
r-.
a
4->
c
CO
0
CO
Q-
ro
CO
S-
to
CO
-p-
f-~
r
E
U-
r
5
CM ID i
CM
LO cn «^
«i OO
cn
oo
co co oo
10 . .
O r^ oo
r CO
cn
cn
LO 00 VO
CM
0 0
"CM «J-
CM
^o to cn
CO >
r- CO r-
«i OO
i
O LO LO
CO
cn cn oo
«i OO
CM
^O LO <3"
CO >
CM O i
"CM OO
OO
r
00 i
o oo
CM LO
O OO CO
co
00 O CM
"CM OO
cn
o
0
o
LO
f^ en
cn
c cn
ro cn
.C fj=t
-!-> 1
o
(/) <^""1
_J CO O
ef CO LO
( r V=t
0
LO 00
CO I
CM r
cr> o
. .
co o
CM CM
i LO
. .
<£> i
CM i
^1- O
. .
co i
CM CM
LO LO
. .
r LO
00 <
CM CO
. .
OO *3"
CM CM
CM O
.
00 0
r->. o
fMam
F CO
. .
LO
CM CM
cn
cn
cn
^
«^-
r
t^ +
1
O 0
O 0
O 0
ft ft
O LT)
cn oo
LO r-x
co o
cn i
^^.
LO O
co o
5}- CM
ft f>
oo cn
CM
CM
*
OO
cn
OO
CM
*
o
oo
i
^5
Q
i i
^»
I-H
Q
"^
1 1
Q
LU
I r
=£ 03
t 4^
LU O
0£. \-
r^ oo
OO r*^
LO r^
ft ft
CM 00
oo OQ-
LO UD
p*^ cn
CO LO
* *
oo ^i-
fa*f)-
r-- CM
CM **
fs^. f^»
ft ft
r- CM
^.^.
OO O
CO
*± OO
ft ft
r CM
^- oo
cn oo
CO VO
^ ft
<* LO
LO OO
OO
a: LO
z. oo
ft
o
£
c
ra
r- C
"O ro
OJ CO
^.
0
CM
CO
ID
r
LO
.
OO
r
00
.
cn
r
CM
OO
r
r-s.
.
r
^~
LO
.
CM
t
>^
_«-»
£
3
O
CO
CO
r
ro
r-
(J
LU O
y to
O
O CD
2: c
1 1 "I
>
U_ -r-
o a>
r_>
LU CO
Q. S-
1 6«
cn
r^^
LO
.
LO
CO
OO
oo
LO
LO
LO
pN^
oo
r
.
^~
^^,
CO
o
c
rO
to
r
CO
«i
O
i CO
rt 5r
3 ro
Q- <+-
r
CO CO
C 3
> O
CO i
O -Q
CO 3
i. CL.
^
UO
r-»
cn
o
s_
*
o
to
a.
to
ro
I
OO
CO
CO
o
S-
co
jQ
(O
OO
Q.
O
C
3 LU
O
O X
r
CO TJ
O C
S- CO
CO CL
i- Q.
o
oo
-------
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SENSITIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The following information has been exerpted from Pierce County's Draft
Environmental Impact Assessment for ULID 73~1:
Surface Water and Groundwater
The development of the Chambers Creek Basin into the second largest
unsewered urban area in the nation has adversely affected water quality of
local surface water and groundwater. Project area lakes are largely
surrounded by residential development. The present water quality problems
of the project area were discussed in a previous section of this chapter.
Wetlands and Estuaries
There are two significant wetlands located within the Chambers Creek
ULID 73~1, Crawford Marsh and Owens Marsh, both of which are already
bordered by development. Crawford Marsh is bordered by major highways and
commercial development. Owens Marsh has a few houses and large mobile home
park located on its northeast end. Chambers Bay is an estuarine zone, one
use of which is presently as a log storage area for adjacent papermill and
sawmill. However, the removal of the papermill's effluent discharge from
Chambers Bay has apparently had a beneficial impact on the bay.
Flood Plains
There have been floods in the past along some areas of Clover Creek,
as discussed previously. Realignment and improvement of Chambers Creek in
the previously flooded areas upstream of McChord AFB should minimize the
possibility of future flooding. Minor flooding has also occurred along
Upper Chambers Creek between its confluence with Leach Creek and Steilacoom
Lake. Although some clearing of the creek bottom and the addition of
revertment has been done along portions of Chambers Creek, there are some
homes located adjacent to Upper Chambers Creek and it is possible that
erosional damage could happen again at future flood stages of Chambers
Creek. However, the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin has not yet been
officially surveyed for the National Flood Insurance Program and no
portions of the project area have been identified on a Flood Hazard
Boundary Map. A National Flood Insurance Program'is being organized for
Pierce County, and when completed the Flood Study will provide specific
information on any flood-prone areas in the county. See Appendix C
for additional flood hazard information.
90
-------
Steeply Sloping Lands
Steeply sloping areas are found along the Puget Sound shoreline and
the Chambers Creek Canyon. The Puget Sound shoreline in the project area
is traversed by the Burlington Northern' Rai1way and has been greatly altered
by the mining operations north of Chambers Bay. The Town of Steilacoom is
located along a shoreline area which has generally gradual slopes, but
there has been residential development of the Sunset Beach area, which is
relatively steep. There has been some residential development along Chambers
Creek, but such development has generally avoided locations near steep canyon
wa11s.
Forest and Woodlands
Much of the forest area of the Chambers Creek ULID was logged long
ago. However, there are still many large coniferous trees remaining,
especially in the Lakewood area. These trees contribute much to the
aesthetic value of the project area, and it appears that residential
development has proceeded in a manner which preserves the wooded
environment to the maximum extent possible.
Prime Agricultural Lands
The most significant agricultural land located near the ULID is the
property owned by Flett Dairy. The Flett Dairy property will probably
continue to be used as pasture land.
Significant Habitats
Significant habitats in and near the Chambers Creek ULID are discussed
elsewhere in this chapter. The historic development of the ULID into an
urban area has reduced the extent of local natural habitat. Most of the
significant habitats are associated with surface water such as streams,
lakes and marshes. Such small streams and most marshes are not protected
by Shoreline Management Programs.
Recreation Areas
Recreation areas in the general project area are listed elsewhere in
this chapter. These parks are operated and maintained by Pierce County
91
-------
Sensitive Geologic Areas
The entire Puget Sound region has experienced earthquakes; however,
there are no specific sites within the ULID which are of special geological
significance. A possible exception of significance to the Chambers Creek
Basin sewerage project is the area of east Parkland and Midland where low
permeability surface soils have resulted in septic tank failures. See
Appendix D for additional information on seismic hazards.
Archaeological and Historic Sites
An archaeological and historical investigation of the project area is
discussed in the previous section of this chapter. In general, important
local historic sites consist of old military roads and pioneer campsites
which have been marked by local historical societies. There are no known
archaeological "digs" within the ULID, although it is possible that a few
Indian village sites are located within the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek
Basin. Because urbanization of the basin may have disrupted unidentified
archaeological sites, and due to the local wet climate, it is doubtful that
any such sites would be well preserved.
92
-------
a-
I " * * «'»
***'.'#&
.fc*
*i *
L' **-
-------
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Selection of Alternatives
Prior to a discussion of alternatives and their impact, the process of
selection of feasible alternatives should be reviewed. Each alternative is
developed from a number of possible subsystems, as shown in Figure 15.
Greater detail regarding these subsystems is found in Appendix A.I.
A great number of combinations of subsystems could be developed,
however, based on the service needs (see Chapter II) and physical
environment (Chapter III) of the project area, three alternatives were
considered for analysis in this document: No-action, an interceptor and
centralized treatment facility, (the applicant's proposed project) and
community systems. Staged or phased alternatives will not be considered
separately but will be discussed as part of the applicants' proposed
project. These three alternatives are briefly described and possible
impacts are discussed below. Greater detail regarding each alternative may
be found in Appendix A.2.
Impact Evaluation Process
Possible environmental impacts associated with each alternative are
discussed following a brief description of the alternative. Environmental
impact may be categorized as adverse or beneficial and primary or secondary
and short-term or long-term. Any number of possible combinations of these
categories are possible depending on the type of project involved. For
each alternative, the impact on the natural and social environments are
discussed in terms of these categories where the categories can be
applied. Elements of the natural and social environments are discussed in
an order similar to those appearing in Chapter III, The Study Area
Envi ronment.
Most of the terms used above to describe environmental impact are
self-explanatory. For the purpose of this discussion, several need further
clari fi cation.
Primary impacts will include those impacts of short-term occurring
during construction, and long-term, related to construction and operation
of facilities. Examples of primary impacts include traffic disruption,
disruption to vegetation, water quality changes, etc.
Secondary impacts are essentially those associated with growth and
development. These impacts will be discussed in the context that a lack of
sewerage facilities is a foremost limiting constraint to growth. The
extent to which any of the alternatives can remove this constraint will be
considered. Examples of secondary impacts include increases in air
contaminants, noise, urban runoff, and other effects of growth in general.
-------
FIGURE 15
Simplified Flow-chart of Selection Process for Alternatives for ULID 73~1
Possible
Sub-Systems
Flow and Wastewater Reduction Measures: infiltration/
inflow reduction measures, household conservation, etc.
Sewers: routes, service areas, design capacity, design
period, and phasing
Wastewater Management Techniques: Treatment and
discharge to wastewaters or wastewater re-use or land
applicat ion
Sludge Disposal: ($ee Appendix A-l)
Consideration of Feasibility of Subsystems in
Regard to Physical Constraints and Service Needs of Area
T
Development of Alternatives
Alternative I
"No-Action"*
Analysis
of
Impact
Alternative I I
Interceptor and Centralized
Treatment Facilities
i
Analys is
of
Impact
Alternative I 11
Community Systems
Ana 1ys i s
of
Impact
Selection of
Project
I
Final Selection of Routes,
Treatment Plant, and
Outfall Locations
*Not derived from sub-systems
95
-------
In addition to environmental impact, the costs, ris ks, resource
commitments,and mit igat ?ng mea sures for each alternative must be
considered, where applicable. Cost includes monetary amounts where
available and intangible costs. Risks are often special considerations
relating to the degree of potential harm in following a particular
alternative in relationship to the burden of avoiding such consequences.
Resource commitments basically involved a discussion of how the resources
may be preserved or used. Mitigating measures may be technological means
to avoid adverse environmental impact or policy approaches for mitigating
the impact of growth. In the final analysis, it should be remembered that
the key factor in avoiding severe environmental degradation as a result of
potential land development is local governmental planning and control and
policy decisions as to commitments of resources.
ALTERNATIVE I - "NO ACTION"
Alternative I is the "no-project" or "do-nothing" alternative and has
been urged by a number of people who reside in the ULID. In light of
concerns over the necessity of the project, this alternative would allow
existing septic tank discharge to local shallow groundwaters to continue.
The present building restrictions on septic tank construction was imposed
by the State Department of Ecology in order to reduce the detrimental
effects of septic tank discharges on the water quality of the basin.
This decision would force the State Department of Ecology (DOE) to
reinstate some combination of the septic tank ban of 1971, and the ban
modification following the formation of the ULID 73" 1 in 1973. According
to the DOE if this "no-action" plan is chosen, it is purely conjecture at
this time as to what course of action would be pursued. The implications
of this alternative are apparent from the previous discussion of the study
area environment and basically involves the straight forward protection of
existing trends. Alternately, the no action alternative might include
land use controls restricting development in these areas where surficial
geology and soil characteristics actually cause a perched watertable and
drain field inundation.
Groundwater Impacts
Adverse Impacts
Primary. Inasmuch as there would be no construction period per se,
short-term impacts would be largely eliminated. As a consequence of a no
action alternative, importation of domestic water may be necessary as a
mitigative measure, which would in turn, create certain impacts on the
environment.
96
-------
Secondary. As discussed in the previous chapter, much of the project
area is underlain by Steilacoom gravels which allow good hydraulic
performance of septic tanks but may not be purifying effluent as it reaches
the groundwater. Elsewhere, a common subsurface soil is Vashon Till, which
is realtively impermeable and has resulted in septic tank failures (see
Figure 10 which correlated the occurrence of septic failures with these
formations of low permeability.)
Thus, the impact on groundwaters of continuation of existing septic
tanks or their increased use is hard to predict. Although the surface
formations have become saturated with respect to treating wastes, lower
levels as of now have not (see discussion of exsiting conditions). As
previously stated, no definitive statement can be made about the filtering
capacity of Steilacoom gravels, however, it is suspected that 10-20 years
of continued septic tank use may be possible before the break through of
contamination to the deeper groundwaters. At the first stage of increased
nitrates in the deep wells, the system will be saturated and the wells will
no longer be usable due to these high nitrate levels.
If the no-action alternative were to involve a partial restriction on
development by land use controls where surficial geology and soil character-
istics actually cause a perched watertable and drainfield inundation, a
problem would still remain in other areas where draining is rapid but the
soils do not adequately purify effluent.
Beneficial Impacts
The environmental benefits of the no-action alternative would be the
preservation of shallow groundwater table at its present level due to the
continued recharge by septic tank effluent, which is one of the factors
which is determinative of its current level. However, it is also possible
that continued input of septic tank effluent to surface formations would
exceed the capacity of the soil to purify effluent with resultant further
contamination of the shallow groundwaters.
Surface Waters Impacts
Adverse Impacts
Primary Impacts on Lake and Creek System. The surface water system
has reached, or has exceeded its ability to treat and absorb wastes. The
increases of continued waste loading will cause the system to be out of
conformance with applicable water quality standards more often, with
variations in individual paramaters getting more extreme. The probability
of pathogenic contamination due to continued input of wastes will increase.
Nutrient levels will continue to increase in the streams and lakes. Unless
continually treated with algacides, blooms will become more prevalent with
eventual loss of the recreation possibilities as the eutrophication process
makes the lake aesthetically unusuable.
97
-------
The "no-action" alternative which allows the extensive use of septic
tanks to continue, would result in a situation that is counter to the
general policy stated in the preliminary Pierce County Shoreline Master
Program. Specifically, with respect to effluent disposal, the preliminary
Shoreline Master Program states:
"County sanitary regulations regarding sewage treatment and
disposal should be strictly enforced in shoreline areas. Measures
should be taken to prevent the proliferation of septic tanks in
areas of increasing residential density or where soils are not
suitable".
And:
"Septic tank effluent shall not be directed into storm sewers".
Primary Impacts on Marine Waters and Estuarine Zones. The no-action
alternative would require no construction in local marine waters, the water
quality of Chambers Creek which discharges to Chambers Bay would not be
improved. The Chambers Creek water, at times, containing high coliform
organism and nutrient concentrations would continue to enter Chambers Bay.
Marine organisms offshore from Chambers Bay would probably not be
influenced to any noticeable degree by the expected quality of water
flowing from Chambers Bay, due to the large capacity of local Puget Sound
waters to disperse and dilute pollutants.
Biological Impacts
Adverse Impacts
The impact of the "no-action" alternative on biological
characteristics has been discussed in Pierce County's Environmental Impact
Assessment for Chambers Creek ULID 73-1. Basically, it was concluded that
continued introduction of nutrients to surface waters could detrimentally
affect the aquatic organisms, such as bottom invertebrates, indigeneous
fish, migratory salmon, and steelhead trout. In addition, continued
application of herbicides in the study area lakes, which then will reach
downstream water courses, will also detrimentally affect these organisms.
Beneficial Impacts
"No-action" alternative would have a secondary beneficial impact on
the forest communities and wetlands in the study area. If sewers are not
provided to the Lakewood-Parkland area, additional significant population
growth would be effectively retarded or perhaps stopped entirely. Further
reduction in remaining remnant forest and wetland areas would be
essentially halted.
-------
Air Quality and Acoustics
The "no-action" alternative would not result in any new direct sources
of air pollution in the project area, except possibly for the odors
associated with septic failures where septic effluent surfaces. Also,
increased air pollution emissions associated with population growth would
not occur since population growth in the project area would be depressed if
the "no project" alternative were chosen.
The "no project" alternative would have no short-term or long-term
impact on local noise levels, except possibly construction noise if it
became necessary to provide facilities to import domestic water supplies.
Land Use and Economics
Primary Impacts
The effect of the no-action alternative on future land use and growth
patterns will be contingent on the nature of future restrictions applicable
to the construction of septic tanks and small package treatment facilities
which may be proposed by individual developers. At one extreme, future
construction of septic tanks could be halted altogether which would, of
course, limit growth entirely. Over the run, this could pose legal and
constitutional problems regarding property rights. More likely, some form
of modified septic tank ban would be implemented which would allow limited
growth.
A modified ban could take a variety of forms but would probably follow
the State of Washington's septic tank law.
Building lots would have to be larger in order to provide drainfields
of sufficient size to absorb sewage, which would eliminate flexibility of
land use options other than for low density residential. Pollution of
lakes and streams would continue and worsen as slow growth continues. Low
density residential uses would prevail, discouraging new residents from
building or buying in the area. Apartment construction would fall off and
businesses would tend to locate in other areas.
A "no project" alternative would involve no construction related to a
sewer system. Therefore, there would be no impacts as related to roads or
traffic. Roads, right-of-ways, and landscaping would retain their present
form and aesthetic value.
There would be no assessment, connection, or service charges to
individuals with respect to this alternative. Only present costs of
maintenance of septic tank systems would be realized.
99
-------
Secondary Impacts
If development is allowed under the no-action alternative, it will be
slower than with the proposed sewer system. It has been suggested in
Pierce County's Draft Environmental Impact Statement that growth would be
slow (about 1.4 percent growth rate) under a modified ban, and that the
1990 population would be about 15,000 people less than with a sewerage project.
Growth may be reflected from the ULID area under this alternative to
other areas of the basin or the County. This would result in a spread of
low density development to other areas that also may not have adequate
facilities for new development. A slowed residential growth would also
affect commercial and industrial uses. New commercial uses would follow
the residential population to new areas. Depending on their type and needs,
industry may be barred from the area completely.
Costs and Risks
Natural Environment
The environmental costs potentially could be great if the system is
left "as is". Note that this section necessarily weighs the potential of
polluting groundwater resources by failing septic tanks and/or low
filtering gravels against the inability of the soils in the area and
the groundwater aquifers to adequately filter and purify sewage effluent.
Socio-Economic
There would be no short-term costs over the present for the
individual residents. The long-term costs may be very high. To restore
the natural environment to original conditions may not be possible.
However, future costs to do this would be much higher than if a program were
implemented now.
The cost of public services and utilities is high, especially when
extended to low density, sprawl type development which would tend to occur
as growth is directed elsewhere. Increasing land and building costs are
also making the single-family house a more expensive option. Costs would
be particularly high for low density residential areas.
Demands for community services in the short-term would consist of only
the natural increase resulting from normal population growth. Long-term
services would be relatively unaffected as they are financed and
distributed on a county-wide basis. However, there services would become
more dispersed and more expensive to provide to these low density areas.
100
-------
The long-term changes in the residential and commercial/industrial
areas would depend on the magnitude and duration of this alternative
policy. The overall effect of this alternative would be a decline in the
socio-economic composition of the area. This would be combined with a
deterioration of the natural resources and the environment, resulting in
the higher costs of supplying public services to outlying areas.
Mitigating Measures
At least three mitigating measures for the "no-action" alternative
should be considered. The first involves restrictions on septic use where
septic tank systems are known to be failing or where septic tank effluent
can directly reach the groundwater through coarse gravel. Essentially, this
measure involves modifying the existing Department of Ecology plan to apply
to certain areas based on physical constraints. The difficulty with this
measure is that much of the study area could come under such a restriction
until more is known about the percolation efficiency of Steilacoom gravels.
The second mitigating measure involves importing domestic water and
abandonment of existing wells. In the long-run, the "do nothing"
alternative may lead to contamination of deeper groundwater resources,
although it is not known for certain as discussed previously. Should such
contamination occur, outside drinking water will have to be imported, which
would involve short-term construction impacts. No cost information is
available should this measure become necessary.
Thirdly, it has been suggested by some citizens that wastewater
disposal problems can be solved in areas that now experience septic tank
failures (particularly in Parkland and Spanaway) by providing adequate
storm drainage. The suggestion is that improved surface drainage will
help avoid oversaturation of septic tank drainfields and consequent septic
tank failures. This is not considered to be a viable mitigative measure
because of the impossibility of keeping water separate from these two non-
point sources. In other words, contaminated storm runoff would still reach
the natural water bodies.
101
-------
ALTERNATIVE II - PIERCE COUNTY'S
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR TO A CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT
Description
Alternative II is the first stage of the officially and legally
adopted Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan and is the
project proposed by Pierce County (the grant applicant).
For Stage I, the proposed service area includes ULID 73~1» the Town
of Steilacoom, and the Westside Water District. Pierce County's proposed
project includes collection, trunk, and interceptor sewers; a secondary
biological treatment plant; and a submarine outfall. The selection of the
features and the rationale was reviewed in Chapter II and greater detail
may be found in Appendix A. Table 5 on the following page reviews the
subsystem alternatives which were selected (left hand side of chart) and
those which were rejected (right hand side of chart).
By way of brief reiteration, the secondary treatment plant will be
located on shoreline property, approximately 0.6 miles north of Chambers
Bay. A 600 foot outfall will be constructed in Puget Sound. The
near-shore portion of the outfall will be buried to avoid beach sands
and currents.
The 197^ Chambers Creek Water Quality Management Plan provides
subsystem alternates for three locations of the main interceptor sewer in
Chambers Creek. The route recommended is out of the Chambers Creek Bed
if it is determined that the environmental impact is sufficient to justify
the added costs of pumping and realignment. All of these routes would
involve use of the proposed treatment plant location north of and adjacent
to the mouth of Chambers Creek. In the 1969 Chambers Creek - Clover Creek
Basin Sewerage Plan, two sites were considered for the centralized sewage
treatment plant in the vicinity of the mouth of Chambers Creek. However,
since the original study, it became necessary to find an altogether new
location for the treatment plant because of the unsuitab!1ity of one site
and the infeasibi1ity of the other.
Sludge handling and disposal will be accomplished with anaerobic
digestion with chemical conditioning and vacuum filtration with ultimate
disposal by sanitary land fill.
102
-------
in
>
4J
C
U
4)
4J
^«-
^
1
Z E
< 4)
_l 4J
o. in
1-
Z I
LU -Q
H to
^
LU
0£
h-
LU
Z
CO
0
Z
cc
o
h-
a.
LU
UJ O
,. > oc
CO iii
1 t
UJ ^£ ^J
J 2
^ LU
*~ 1- "
-1 Z
< 0
1-
o
**
a
UJ
CO
o
QL
o
a:
0-
VI
CO 4)
5- -
z ro
-^ c
0 1-
0 4)
4-1
UJ
0 <
C£. 1
uj -O
a. co
in
-O 4-1
3 in
CO >.
CO
1
in a) i-
ro in a)
a) o > 2
1- CL O
ro o 4-1
L. (D t-
c Q. i- c
in a) in \
(D x: C
X) 4J C O
XI O E 4-1
3 4-1 -D ro
in c < i-
4J
ro xi 4J
fl> C <*-
4-1 4-1 3 C
C (D O
a> i- 0
MO CO
Q CL 4) C
O. U O -
O t- XI
u a) «-
c ro
< £L. O)
i
(0
a) i-
XI XI 4J
O c m
M- 0 (0 4)
O 4J >4-
4) 4) in C
C > Ol (0
3 ro 3
o 4-1 c m
1- ro x: 4J
i- ro 4-1 4)
4) 4-1 L. CO 4}
-C in "D C E
c i- i- -o in
1- ._ at ro c
H- XI (0 4)
< 2 -c 3 E
c en a) a)
O >- E C L.
4-1 1- £
4-1 CO in D
O 3 4-1 xi cr
3 o in c 4)
O CJ ro 4J L.
41 >4- O
i- a) o 2 c
0 O i- O
3 1- C 4-1
o 41 o **- wi 4J
>*- 0) Q- in _C 03
c 4-1 3 en xi
in n- i- a)
^ x o u j= a) i-
C in X 4J
O 4-j a) 01 ro 3
Ec c 3 o
4J o a) en
10 o EC a) «*-
u. o a) xi c
4J (0 O XI O
. i_ ._ v. in ^
O > 4J 4J C
>4- a) *t- o c in o
c 4J c i- o a)
CO UJ CL O 3 4J
sajnsB3|«f
uoj^onpay ja^BM
-aisBfl pue AAoy
4-1 in
4-1 C - L.
i- (0 i in a)
ro 4J c 4J
CL Q- (0 4) ID
a) -a 3 _c
a) 4J "o -^ i- i- u
4JIOT3 4-1 C flj >4-.
re -c c m ro a) o o jr
T3 4J (D S
3 x> o i- 4) i-
c c ro ^ 4) in
Oa)*~ a) rov"eiro ^ ro
ro 4>romu 4-i _j
"4-4)cn o CL.C ro
O4J(0 1 OCJ4>1- "D 4-1
me a) -DO) C4J>-
>-x in co T) E roco
4-1 in ro " a) ^ *C 4-^ a) * *
1- O CO1O C4JTJ
OIDTJ OQ i-u. umo c >-
ro E 4)roCLrocLroinj3
O.O4) 4) 4J i 3 4)
ro U -C -C inc O OO-i-TO
O ro 4**i 4^ 4) 4) 4^ *~ 4)
I- 3 4) 4- in 4) >
w- c E c 4-1 3 o tn >-
4)"- O inroc 3O4)
O i- - roinc4).cin
t en M- ro o (03 i 4-»
a) >- c £4-10-0 4)
1-4-1 m o inH-4-i-aja
>- 4) Oinin i-C
cj i 4J (04) 34) O<0>-
(0 in l 4J 3 a) .c U-
a) ro ro in a) 14-1 in-
4-ijzE 3 M-ro-J M-.-ro
C4-io O3 4-1-003
4)IJ t- 4J U C 4)4-1
4J4-ro o 4Ju- uoro 4-iic
o o i- c o o u. c 4)
CL s^ 4-1 4) U- "4)4-14-1
mx:4-i cz EI- i-e £1-0
0)4-i4-iin 4) CO 4)O3 COCL
~oc34) Ero O4- aM-y ou.
4)O1-4-"E"Din ro TT "o
>Ecoo roO cc i-4J cE
O4) I- 4)O (BID COC roO3
1- ^ 14 t (u o ^ ^ o *^ o L- O
o.a)ou_ i H- <^4-i iDEH- «^ u- o
o
c
ro
*
E
o
o
(J
ro
4-1
a> u
4_J ._
CO 1-
4-1
14- in
O
O
C
2 1
1- 4J
T 4)
pr\ -a
in
O 4->
in
SB3J\/ UOIJ33UU03 JSjeMBJSBM
103
c
o
c
ro
o
.*:
(L)
a)
o
in .5
4)
i c?
ro "
f ^*
0 S
>4- <->
O _^/
E ^ ^
O
m
14-
^^
^"
T*
fli
-C
T~
^ t
tft C
2 1
O rn
fO 0
C -^
O %
1- Ol
a> c
4J C
o c
^ ro
E la.
ro
4) X
S- !_
4-1 ro
in c
Q. e
3 a)
en
4) a) i-
4) 4J !_ (D
4-1 CL x:
in u
in Ol in
>. 4) ^- -a
L, 4) U .
I- 1-3X1-
(0 CJ T3 4)
3 -O 4J
O" in xi c ro
1- 4) 4) 3
4) X) CL T3
4) XI 3 0. C
> £ < 3
ro ro o o
i- x: X c i-
13 O 4) C3
4-1
C
4)
U
ro x:
X) 3
ro O
x
*^ ^
a) 4)
4J a)
ro >-
o
XI
a) in
£ u
E a)
--§
4) ro
4-1 x:
in
.* O
4)
a) x:
L. 4-1
0 1-
O
in C
4) XI
XI C
E ro
to
-c o
O 4J
I le^no
pus lueid
juaiujEaji
ja^eMaiSB^
^O UOIJBDOl
u
4)
gi
3
C
(0
^^
ja
X)
x: X
in
x>
c
fa)
ex
a
o <
o
ro c
a> '
D X)
4)
O -
in M-
ro o
4)
xi a
in
3
O in
O 4)
in
in
ro 4)
in u
RE
in a.
x> u
«J f
D) -M
-a o
u
r »+-
v> O
Ol
"O
*
W ^
^ « .
OL "D >
c u u
a) ro ro ro
Ol > 4->
xi x:
3 4J XI C
c 10
co 2 ro in
ICGodsiQ
o6pnis
-------
Estimated construction and project costs for Alternative II are given
below:
Interceptors & Collec-
tion System
Side Sewers
Pump Stations
Treatment Plant 6
Outfall (16 MGD)
TOTAL
Construction Cost Project Cost Annual Cost
$37,123,000 $52,074,000 $7,915,300
4,417,000
2,451,000
10,510.000
$54,501,000
6,095,000 575,300
3,382,000 319,200
14,504,000, 1,369,000
$76,055,000 $7,178,000
Annual Operation &
Maintenance Costs
Treatment Plant
Col 1ect i on System
Pump Stations
TOTAL
$ 678,000
374,000
143,000
$8,373,800
Groundwater Impact
Adverse Impacts
Primary Impacts. Local problems of turbidity in surface or near
surface groundwaters may occur during construction operations. But
construction of the wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment
facilities required probably would have insignificant impact on
groundwater quality or quantity within the project area or elsewhere in
the Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin. Excavations will require site
dewatering where a groundwater table is encountered. However, the impact
on groundwater quality should be nominal considering the relatively small
quantities of water being pumped from any specific trench site.
104
-------
The response of water levels in the lakes of the project area to a
decline in the water table is dependent upon the balance of water intake
and water outflow in the lakes. If the lakes were recharged by groundwater
alone, a declining water table would necessarily lower the water levels in
the lake. However, the lakes in the project area are recharged by
additional sources such as stream inflow, rainfall, and underground
springs. Because of the complexity of these factors, the effect of a
decline in the water table on the lakes is difficult to predict. The
complexity of some of these factors in relationship to the lakes is
discussed below. (31)
The water table is about 225 feet above mean sea level on the east
side of American, Steilacoom, and Gravelly Lakes and 200 feet above mean
sea level on the west side. These lakes appear to receive groundwater
input from the east and discharge water to the groundwater on the west.
(Lake water levels are higher than the near shore groundwater to the west).
(]k). Because some of the groundwater which recharges these lakes comes
from outside of the project area (from the southeast), a decline in the
project area water table cannot be directly correlated to lake levels.
Preliminary studies indicate that the groundwater may be lowered 6 to 8
inches (32).
American Lake also receives recharge from Murray Creek and possibly
from springs and has no natural outflow. That amount of water not lost in
evapotranspiration or by pumping from the lake probably is recharged to the
water table. In addition, subsurface outflows from American Lake as well as
other groundwater feed the Sequalitchew Springs, within about one quarter of
a mile from the southwestern end of the lake. A lowering of the water table
could lower American Lake and the outflow from Sequalitchew Springs.
Steilacoom Lake also is underlain by pebble to cobble gravel and
receives water from Ponce de Leon Creek and Clover Creek. The outflow to
Chambers Creek is substantially larger than the measureable inflow. This
information could be accounted for by additional recharge to the lake from
springs or groundwater. In any case a decline in local groundwater levels
may not affect water levels in the lake in that a response to lower
groundwater levels possibly could be realized as a decreased outflow
quantity to Chambers Creek.
Again the complexity of the groundwater regimen as discussed
previously limits the accurate prediction of groundwater levels and flow
systems in the project area.
Variations in staging or design periods (postponment) will have
minimal effect on the whole basin in terms of the processes relating to
groundwater. The major effects will occur in the localities to which sewer
service was not provided. The effect on non-sewered areas of postponing
would be basically that of Alternative I - "no action".
105
-------
Secondary Impacts. There has been concern regarding how the
groundwater table will respond to the elimination of recharge by septic
tank effluent, in other words, water now reaching the shallow aquifers from
this source will be collected, treated, and discharged to the Puget Sound.
Assuming that in the year 2000, with the sewerage project (Stage I
and ll)completed and nearly all water used within the sewerage service area
is still supplied by local wells, removal of approximately 16 million
gallons per day or approximately 18,000 acre-feet per year (year 2000
treatment plant design capacity) could lower the groundwater table in the
Chambers Creek Basin. It has been estimated that the water table will be
lowered by 6 to 8 inches.(32) The following discussion relates to several
possible consequences of the reduced availability of water for groundwater
recharge: the necessity to import domestic water due to declining well
yields and potential for a decline in lake levels. The impact on
vegetation of reducing water reaching the shallow aquifers is discussed
subsequently. (See biological impacts).
The necessity of importing water for domestic use (if a declining
groundwater table occurs as a result of the proposed project) is a complex
question. With the sewer project, the quantity of groundwater for domestic
and industrial use, presently returned to the ground through drainfields,
will not be available as a recharge source to the water table. Herein lies
the potential for a 6 to 8 inch decline in the water table. This figure is
obtained by computing a water budget, estimating the amount of recharge to
the water table by rainfall and comparing groundwater withdrawals from the
project area. This gives an estimate of potential water losses for
domestic and industrial use due to groundwater depletion. However, a
complete understanding of the groundwater regimen and system functioning is
needed to adequately access the potential for importing water. The areas
that would need to be defined in more detail are these:
1. Physical boundaries (vertical and horizontal) of the water table
in question; that is, the depth of saturated gravels (water
table) to an impermeable strata such as till.
2. Recharge sources to the water table i.e., by rainfall, springs,
infiltration from stream channels or lakes, etc.;
3. Permeability and storage characteristics including porosities of
the saturated medium; (quantities obtainable from aquifer).
4. Annual withdrawals of groundwater from the water table.
Without information in these areas, the possibility of importing water
for domestic uses as a result of a declining water table cannot be resolved
adequately. Note that these remarks reflect on the near-surface
groundwater in the surficial gravels deposited by the last glacial
advance, and do not apply to other aquifers at greater depths. These
deposits, the Steilacoom gravels, and Vashon recessional gravels, veneer,
the Vashon Till an impermeable barrier on which the groundwater collects.
106
-------
Beneficial Impacts
Implementation of this sewerage project for the Stage I project area,
which includes the Chambers Creek ULID, would have a significant
beneficial long-term impact on local groundwater quality. The primary
beneficial impact being the reduction and/or elimination of treated of
untreated septic effluents to the groundwater system of the project area.
Local shallow groundwater quality would begin to improve as septic
tank discharges are eliminated. Natural bacteria dieoff would rapidly
reduce bacterial concentrations in shallow aquifers, and natural recharge
by rainwater would reduce concentrations of non-degradable chemical
pollutants by dilution. Recharge with natural, uncontaminated rainwater
would eventually purify the shallow groundwater by "flushing out" shallow
aqui fers.
The removal of septic tank effluent from shallow groundwater would
also eliminate the possibility of contaminating deeper water supply
aquifers with harmful bacteria, viruses or chemicals found in septic tank
effluent. Even though the aquifers on the project area occur in sequences
of permeable and impermeable strata, some leakage undoubtedly will occur
where shallow aquifers are linked to deeper aquifers, enabling vertical
movement of contaminants (this is shown schematically in Figure 7, p.52).
With the sewerage project future cycling of pollutants would be reduced
or eliminated.
107
-------
Surface Waters Impact
Adverse Impacts
Primary Impacts. Pierce County's Draft Environmental Assessment for
the Chambers Creek ULID 73-1 extensively discussed the short-term impacts
of the construction of the sewer facilities on surface waters. It was
noted that most construction within the ULID would occur in public
right-of-way in streets. Trenching required for sewer placement may
occasionally occur in areas of high groundwater. Where groundwater is
encountered, trench dewatering would be required. In sand and gravel
areas which occur throughout most of the ULID, groundwater which enters
the trenches would probably not be highly turbid, but the water pumped
from the trenches would contain some turbidity. Also, considering the
extensive use of septic tanks in the project area, groundwater which
enters the trenches could contain septic tank effluent.
Water pumped from the trenches would most likely be discharged to the
nearest storm drain or road side ditch and most of these storm drains and
ditches are tributary to local creeks or lakes. Water pumped from
trenches would either re-enter the groundwater or part of the water would
eventually reach a local creek or lake. Water from the trenches
containing turbidity and septic tank effluent would represent a short-term
increase in the pollutional load on local surface waters of the
contaminated water reached local creeks or lakes. However, it is not
known how often trench dewatering would be required nor what quantities of
such water would ever reach local surface water bodies. It is, therefore,
only possible to indicate that these can be short-term adverse impacts on
surface water quality associated with trench dewatering.
Sewer construction could occur around the perimeter of local lakes,
such as may be required to provide sewer service to lake front houses.
Construction activity at the shoreline could result in temporary increases
in lake turbidity. Also, if care is not taken to maintain a clean
construction site, debris from construction could enter the lakes.
Construction on lake shorelines should be kept to a minimum, and
mitigation measures requiring proper disposal of wastes should also be
implemented.
The possibility of temporarily increased turbidity in project area
lakes or streams during construction of the proposed sewerage projects is
significant due to adverse effects on migratory fish runs. The
short-term, adverse biological impacts due to construction activity are
discussed |n a subsequent section.
108
-------
Within the proposed sewerage project, there are three sub-alternatives
for interceptor placement in the Chambers Creek area below Steilacoom Lake
to Chambers Bay which may have short-term adverse impacts on water quality.
The interested reader is referred to Pierce County's Draft Environmental
Assessment for ULID 73~1-
Construction near project area lakes and streams must conform with
the use regulations promulgated for designated shoreline areas. A
discussion of the tentatively designated shorelines within the Chambers
Creek ULID and adjacent areas is presented in Chapter 111. Lake
shorelines in the project area are tentatively designated as "urban
environments", except for Waughop Lake which is tentatively designated a
"conservancy environment". The preliminary Pierce County Master Program
for the County's shoreline areas contains use regulations which would
allow the construction of utilities, such as sewers, in urban and
conservancy environments provided certain procedures are followed to
mitigate impacts during and after construction. The tentative use
regulations require that construction within the "wetter perimeter" is
timed to avoid major fish migratory runs and that banks are restored to
pre-project configuration and replanted.
A section of Chambers Creek has tentatively been designated a
"natural environment" in the preliminary Pierce County Shoreline Master
Program. A preliminary assignment of "natural environment" has been given
to the following area of Chambers Creek: The south bank from the east
line of Section 28 to Chambers Creek Road bridge and the north bank from
the east line of Section 28 to the point where the 200-foot environment
line (a line parallel to the creek and 200 feet north of the north bank)
intersects Chambers Creek Road.
The construction of underground utilities, such as sewers, in a
"natural environment" shoreline area would be considered a "conditional
use" which could be allowed if special provisions to protect the
enviornment are included. According to the "conditional use" definition,
construction of utilities in a "natural environment" would be allowed
provided "that there is some necessity for a shoreline site for the
proposed use or that the particular site applied for is essential for this
use". Therefore, there appears to be some latitude provided in the
criteria for implementing the Shoreline Master Program.
Beneficial Impacts
The beneficial impacts of the proposed project on the surface waters
and wetlands of the project area is unknown. The existing water quality
problems could be attributable to numerous sources which have been discussed
previously. To reiterate briefly, these problems could be due to such
sources as: The heavy waterfowl usage of the lakes; heavy fertilization of
lawns near lakes; livestock kept in areas which drain towards the subject
area streams; and surface contaminants from paved areas. If unpurified
septic tank effluent is reaching the groundwaters and the surface waters,
it constitutes one of many sources of contaminants causing the observed
water quality problems.
109
-------
The major environmental benefit of the proposed action will be to
eliminate septic tank effluent as one of the potential sources of water
quality problems in the area. Over the long run, the proposed project will
help to preserve and maintain the water quality of the groundwaters and
surface waters.
Marine Waters
Adverse Impacts
Primary Impacts. The proposed sewerage treatment project involves
the construction of a secondary treatment plant to be located on shoreline
property, approximately 0.6 miles north of Chambers Bay. A 600-foot long
outfall will be constructed in the Puget Sound. The near-shore portion of
the outfall will be buried to avoid beach sands and currents.
Dredging in the sub-littoral zone would cause a temporary disruption
of benthic communities along the excavation path and smothering of resident
organisms in the dredged material deposit zone. In addition, the dredging
would cause a resuspension of finer sediments and a resultant decrease in
ambient sunlight penetration in shallower waters. However, due to expected
relatively strong water currents, the suspended materials would be
turbulently dispersed restricting highly turbid waters to the proximity of
the dredge. Because the down-stream deposition site would vary during the
tidal cycle, the veneer of redeposited fines should remain thin, minimizing
the impact in the receiving zone.
The shoreline area adjacent to the Glacier Sand and Gravel Quarry and
the proposed treatment plant location has tentatively been designated a
"conservancy environment" by the preliminary Pierce County Shoreline Master
Program. However, construction of a submarine outfall in a "conservancy
environment" would be possible provided that construction impacts are
minimized, that the shoreline site is restored, and that the outfall and
its discharge do not impact areas of important biological activity. Areas
of important biological activity such as shellfish production areas or
other types of commercial aquaculture do not occur at the proposed outfall
site.
A permit for the construction of the proposed outfall would be
required under the Pierce County Shoreline Master Program. A dredging
permit would also be required from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. A National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for effluent dis-
charge to Puget Sound would be required from the State of Washington
Department of Ecology (DOE).
110
-------
Placement of the outfall near the mouth of the Chambers Creek (one
of the most important water courses in the state in terms of the Department
of Game's Steel head Management Program) may be questionable. Measures will
be incorporated in the final design to mitigate adverse impact.
Secondary Impacts. The effluent characterists of the proposed 16
million gallons per day (mgd) in the proposed secondary wastewater
treatment plant would be known in detail only after the plant has become
operational. However, it is anticipated that the effluent characteristics
will be equal to or better than the current requirements for secondary
eff1uent.
The impact of the effluent on the Puget Sound was extensively studied
in the Pierce County Draft Environmental Assessment for ULID 73~1 and it is
apparent that the Sound in the vicinity of the outfall is capable of
diluting and absorbing the increased load of nutrients and oxygen demand.
It is not so certain that residual chlorine and nitrogen chlorides will
have negligible effects (28). In particular, these residents may be toxic
to the salmonid species using the Chambers Creek Basin for spawning. If
possible, attempts should be made to use alternative detoxification than
chlorine, or to include residual reduction mechanisms to achieve "zero"
residual chlorine.
Ill
-------
Biological Impacts
Adverse Impacts
The primary and secondary impacts of the applicant's proposed
project on vegetation was extensively reviewed in Pierce County's Draft
Environmental Impact Assessment for ULID 73~1. The biological impacts
were discussed in terms of biological communities found in the study area:
mixed conifer-deciduous forest; freshwater marsh; lakes and creeks;
estuarine and marine habitat; and the Chambers Creek Canyon itself. These
impacts are briefly summarized there and the interested reader is referred
to the original document for further elaboration.
Primary Impacts on Chambers Creek Canyon. Much of the land in the
project area devoted to residential use, supports pockets of remnant conifer-
deciduous forest. Since sewer construction would occur on virutally every
street in these residential areas, impacts on certain trees and forest
communities are inevitable. These impacts would be short-term and could
be minimized by careful selection of sewer alignments so that as much of
the construction activity is restricted to paved surfaces as possible.
The nature of sewerline network installation is such that insertion
into existing roadways is easier than into rights-of-way through private
property; thus aside from trunk line installations, such as the Chambers
Creek corridor, sewerline network installation through urban/suburban
areas will not be highly destructive to remnant and ornamental vegetation.
Two alternative corridor routes down Chambers Creek Canyon were con-
sidered for the proposed trunk line: one down the creek bed itself and
the other higher on the canyon wall. A third route outside of the canyon,
in the existing right-of-way of Chambers Creek Road was also considered
but was excluded because of excessive costs for pumping.
Of the two routes down Chambers Creek Canyon, construction in the
creek bed itself would constitute a major and potentially detrimental
impact on the stability of that watercourse for this reason, placement
of the trunk line down the creek bed itself has been rejected.
Consequently, the route selected for the proposed trunk line is
high on the Chambers Creek Canyon Wall. The alternative out of the
canyon and in the Chambers Creek Road will cause less initial disruption
of habitat and possibility of subsequent seepage or breaks than the
alternative along the canyon wall. However, because there will be a
buffer strip of trees between both interceptor routes and the creek,
the impact of runoff and siltation on fisheries is expected to be sub-
stantially the same. In addition, mitigative measures for construction
of the alternative along the canyon wall will minimize the impact on
habitats and vegetation.
Concerns regarding placement of the trunk line in the creek bed or
along the canyon wall include re-stabilization of the bank after ex-
cavation and protection of the stream from possible line seepage.
112
-------
The Chambers Creek corridor route of the proposed trunk line con-
tains a sparse population of second growth Douglas Fir in a forest
which is in an early successional stage. This side of the canyon had
been severely logged around the turn of the century. Vegetation on the
north side of the canyon, where construction will take place, is less
dense and has not re-established itself to the extent that it has on
the south side. In denser stands, the Douglas fir is understoried with
vine maple, Oregon grape, blackberry, and old car bodies; red alder
understoried by sword fern and willow is found in wetter sites; madrone
understoried with salal and very young Douglas fir is found in drier sites.
Primary impact on vegetation of the project area. The proposed project will
serve an area characterized as remnant old-growth coniferous forest,
bordered to the east and south by open prairie land. This area was logged
heavily in the late 1800's and has been in residential and agricultural
land use since that time. Predominant tree species, many of which remain
as ornamentals or in isloated second growth units include Western Hemlock
(Tsuga heteroplyhe), Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii), and Western Red
Ceder (Tlingia plicata).
Some concern was registered that if the project was constructed, a
potential declining water table might adversely affect trees and
vegetation, cause the importation of water for domestic use and bring about
lower water levels in the lakes of the area. The potential for a declining
water table was discussed previously under groundwater.
There is no reason to believe that a declining water table will cause
significant alteration to existing trees and vegetation in the project
area. Vegetation in a humid, marine climate, as in the Northwest obtains
water from moisture in the soil contributed by rainfall and not groundwater.
There is, however, a link between the moisture in soil used by plants and
moisture recharge to groundwater. The interrelationship has been studied
by C. W. Thorntwaite who introduced the term water balance which relates
precipitation and the outflow of water by evapotranspirat ion (31). By
comparing the seasonal values of precipitation, a determination of the
storage of soil moisture (potential plant use) water deficit, and water
surplus (potential groundwater recharge) can be computed.
For different climates and soil types these soil moisture parameters
will vary; however, the basic concepts of the water balance apply and are
discussed below. Briefly, when rainfall strikes the land it is either
absorbed into the ground, evaporated back into the water cycle or collected
in ponds to flow down gradient to form drainages. The water which enters
the ground is contained as soil moisture to be used by plants. As more
and more rainfall is taken into the ground, soil moisture increases to the
point where the addition of more water to the soil cannot be held by the
soil. When this condition is reached, any additional water (soil moisture
surplus) is passed through the soil to the groundwater, and is considered
recharge.
In the Lakewood-Parkland area there is an overabundance of rainfall
causing the occurrence of a moisture surplus through most of the year.
During the summer months the moisture stored in the soil from the wet
months is sufficient for plant use until the next wet season. Therefore,
the vegetation of the project area should not be adversely affected by a
declining water table. A more rigorous approach to this question could
be accomplished by computing a climatological water balance for the Lakewood-
Parkland area based on type soils encountered throughout the project area
(33).
113
-------
Only a limited number of the species form a root-network capable of
extracting water directly from the water table. Called phreatophytes;
common members of this group include Black Cotton wood (Populus
trichocarpa)and Lebanon Cedar (Cedrus 1ibani). In general, the mechanism
for water absorption by a root network is controlled by transpiration.
Root absorption occurs when transpiration creates a pressure gradient
within the tree. Soil moisture available for absorption through root
surfaces falls somewhere between the field capacity of the soil (that
percentage of soil moisture content at which a soil is said to be fully
saturated) and the permanent wilting point (the percentage of moisture
content of a particular soil at which no soil moisture is available to the
plant and permanent wilting occurs). Thus, soil moisture demands for
trees and plants in sites such as those in the Chambers Creek Study Area
are met by infiltration from precipitation and residential watering and
for the most part not from any direct supply by groundwater at the water
table level.
Secondary Impacts
In summary, the proposed project would allow additional population
growth in the project area. As population density increases, more and
more of the forested open-space areas and wetlands would be eliminated.
Animal and plant populations dependent on the natural habitats would be
diminished.
Ai r Quality Impacts
Adverse Impacts
Primary Impacts. Construction impacts on air quality are short-term,
primary adverse impacts which can include dust production and exhaust
fumes from construction equipment. Changes in existing noise levels
resulting from construction and operation of the proposed sewerage
facilities are discussed elsewhere on page 118.
Excavation and backfill operations, which would occur during sewer
placement and treatment plant construction, would involve digging,
hauling, piling and compacting of significant quantities of soils and
gravel as well as movement of construction equipment. If the excavated
soil and construction sites are very dry, dust production could become a
problem. However, considering the wet climate of the project area, dust
production during construction is not anticipated to be a major problem.
During summer months or whenever excessively dry areas are encountered,
mitigation measures, could be employed to reduce dry production.
There will be a negligible impact from exhaust fumes from construction
equipment.
\\k
-------
Operation of the proposed secondary wastewater treatment facility
over the long run would not result in significant emissions of air
pollutants. Incineration of residual solids is not proposed for the
Chambers Creek wastewater treatment plant. It is proposed that sludge
collected at the treatment plant would be stabilized by anaerobic digestion,
dewatered and hauled to sanitary land fills for disposal, thereby com-
pletely eliminating the possibility of adverse air quality impacts due
to a sludge incineration.
When sewage is conveyed or treated, there is a possibility of sulfide
production which may result in a local odor nuisance or possibly toxic
atmospheres in sewers and manholes. Sulfides, commonly hydorgen sulfide
(H_S) , are generated under anaerobic conditions by the reduction of
suffates in wastewater by bacteria of the species Desulfovibrio
dusulfurcians. Methods to prevent sulfide formation and odor are normally
included in sewer, pump station and treatment plant design. Because of
the relatively low mean ambient air temperature, sulfide generation
problems are very limited in this area. Normal housekeeping and routing
sewer maintenance are expected to minimize this potential problem to
typically undetectable levels.
Secondary impacts. Although the wastewater collection, conveyance
and treatment facilities which are proposed for sewerage project would
not produce significant direct sources of air pollution, the treatment
capacity provided by the new facilities may be considered to have indirect
or secondary impacts on air quality. The secondary impacts on air quality
are related to population increases which may be allowed by the removal of
development restriction currently imposed by the lack of adequate
community sewerage facilities. Presently, most of the population of the
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin relies on septic tanks for sewage
disposal, excluding the military areas within the basins. The existence of
wastewater treatment capacity alone is not sufficient to induce growth,
but is one of many factors. The inducement of population increases
generally requires a combination of municipal service, such as water,
sewers, refuse disposal, power and roads, as well as employment opportunities.
The proposed sewerage project is sized for an area greater than the
Chambers Creek ULID 73~1- Although this EIS is concerned with the impacts
associated with Stage I, future secondary impacts associated with both
Stage I and Stage II must be considered as they relate to the region as
a whole.
Factors influencing future air quality of the study area such as,
existing and anticipated sources of emissions, population increase,
effectiveness of Federal Standards and local meteorology were analyzed in
the Pierce County Draft Environmental Impact Assessment for ULID 73~1.
Projections of future air quality calculated and compared to applicable
standards. The interested reader is referred to this document for further
information relating to the air quality modeling techniques and assumptions.
The following is a summary of findings and conclusions from this study.
115
-------
It is anticipated that future per capita emissions will be reduced
by the implementation of various Federal, State, and local emission
control strategies ranging from installation of emission reduction
equipment on automobiles to more restrictive stationary source controls.
However, if it is assumed that the Pierce County 1972 per capita emission
factors will not be significantly altered during the subsequent 18 years,
it is possible to relate population increases to future 1980 and 1990
emissions on a "worst-possible case" basis, thereby indicating the possible
extent of the problem to which public policy decision makers and the
public in general must address themselves.
Assuming that the predicted increases in population occur in the
Stage I and Stage II service areas and assuming the worst, that no
significant reductions in per capita emissions occur, the pollutant
concentrations were determined for the Chambers Creek Basin. The
resulting air quality projections are given in Table T.
As incidated by these projections, no excesses of State and Federal
air quality standards are predicted for particulates or carbon monoxide.
It should be noted, however, that these figures provide regional estimates.
It is possible, therefore, that the Federal and State 24-hour particulate
standard of 150 mg/m could be exceeded on two or three days per year by
1990, or carbon monoxide concentrations at a busy intersection or shopping
center parking lots could exceed the 1 hour 35 ppm standard.
116
-------
Pollutant
Particulates
Carbon monoxide
Photochemical
oxidants
Concentrat ion
Units
annual
geometric
mean -
Mg/m3
maximum
8 hour
mean -
ppm
maximum
1 hour
mean -
ppm
average (3)
1 hour
mean -
ppm
TABLE T
CHAMBERS CREEK BASIN
PROJECTED AIR QUALITY (1)
(2)
0.12
0.03
1980
0.13
0.07
0.16
0.08
Federal and State
Standards
60
0.08
0.08
(1) Based on projected emissions calculated from 1972 per capita
emissions factors.
(2) Present concentrations based on limited data available from the
Department of Ecology's Lakewood air quality monitoring trailer.
(3) Average summer afternoon oxidant concentration based on oxidant
concentrations in Lakewood during the summer of 197**.
117
-------
Also, the high peak photochemical oxidant concentration observed in
197** indicated the potential for occasional oxidant problems in the project
area, a situation which is reflected in the projected maximum oxidant
concentrations. It should be noted that the average summer afternoon
oxidant concentration is not predicted to exceed the oxidant standard prior
to 1990, even if 1972 emission rates were not reduced.
The maximum photochemical oxidant concentrations reported in 1
and projected for 1980 and 1990 may represent a special situation. It
appears possible that the high oxidant concentration reported in 197*»
resulted from the importation of air pollutants by wind from the City of
Tacoma and other urbanized areas north of the project area. The occurence
of a high oxidant concentration appears to be infrequent in the project
area and possibly not directly related to activities within the Chambers
Creek - Clover Creek Basin. However, increased hydrocarbon emissions
from increased automobile use within the basin would increase the possibil
ity of high oxidant concentration in the project area when the weather
is conducive to the formation and importation of oxidants.
In summary, each increase in population makes the attainment and
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards incrementally
more difficult. In recent years, the influx of more prople into an
area has generally resulted in more cars in that area in proportion to
the increases in population. Even though the motor vehicles may have
effective emission control equipment, the net result may be an increase
in emissions with resultant deterioration of air quality. However, the
projected air pollutant concentrations presented at least indicate that
projected population increase would not result in significant regional
air quality problems in the Chambers Creek Basin. The prevention of
localized air pollution problems associated with development occur,
would be provided by the applicable local, State and Federal regulations.
Noise Impacts
Adverse Impacts
A discussion of existing noise levels for a number of sampling points
within the study area and the possible noise impacts for the construction
and operation of the proposed sewerage system was performed by Robin M.
Towne and Associates, Inc. for Pierce County's Draft Environmental Impact
Assessment for the Chambers Creek ULID 73-1 . The following is a summary
of this information; the interested reader is referred to the original
document for greater detail.
Primary Impacts. Noise levels associated with the construction of
the sewers and associated small pumping stations in residential areas may
reach 78 to 88 dBA at 50 feet. For houses in close proximity to construction
activity this would exceed the EPA recommendations fo a statistical level
L50 of 55 dBA outdoors and would cause substantial outdoor speech inter-
ference. However, activity associated with construction of collector
system will move from site to site as work progressed along areas of
sewer or interceptor routes. Construction noise impacts in areas of
118
-------
sewer placement would be of short duration but mitigative measures should
be implemented to minimize noise impacts on sensitive residential and
commercial areas.
The construction of sewers and associated small pumping stations in
residential areas within the ULID may also produce noise levels of
78 to 88 dBA at 50 feet. In situations where house setbacks are
approximately 50 feet from the roadway or any other construction area,
significant increases above existing noise levels would result during
construction periods. Without mitigation measures, the Increase of
construction noise over existing levels at a distance of 50 feet from
a construction site could 2^ to **5 dBA, above the existing noise levels.
Secondary impacts. As discussed above, the treatment plant site is
a sheltered area, well separated from present or future residential areas.
Noise levels resulting from plant operation (typically kj-50 dBA at 180
feet) would allow satisfactory speech communication for people with up to
25 feet separation. Therefore, noise associated with the proposed treatment
plant would have no insignificant impact on surrounding area.
Impacts on Land Use and Growth Patterns
Adverse Impacts
Primary Impacts. The primary impacts of the proposed project on
land use will be minimal because most construction work will be accomplished
within existing street right-of-ways. The location of a treatment plant
in the vicinity of the mouth of Chambers Creek will not represent a
significant change in land use patterns in the near vicinity. This area
is largely undeveloped with the exception of gravel quarry and wood products
operations.
Secondary Impacts. The future growth and development which may occur
if a regional interceptor project is constructed is a secondary impact
with many far reaching and complex ramifications. While general growth
is expected to proceed with this alternative, it should be noted that the
availability of sewers in just one of many factors which contribute to
such growth. The Lakewood-Parkland area is an example of an urban area
which has developed and has continuing growth pressures despite the lack
of a community sewerage system.
Initially it is anticipated that future growth will be attracted to
areas where sewerage service is first provided. It is also expected that
zoning measures and planning controls will guide new growth into compatible
areas.
119
-------
Increases in the business sector is expected to follow growth patterns
for the rest of the county. Manufacturing, services, retail trade, and
government-related industries could be expected to increase the most.
Assuming sufficient land is zoned for more intensive uses and increased
competitive advantages occur, the ULID should not have trouble attracting
its share of projected county employment and population.
Population demands and more intensive land uses would lead to more
diversified housing. Condominiums, apartments, and planned unit
developments would tend to be located in proposed multi-unit zones near
Lakewood Center, around the Villa Plaza, and possibly near Pacific
Lutheran University in Parkland. Higher density residential structures
should be encouraged to act as buffers between commercial areas and lower
density residential areas, as proposed in the Lakes District study.
An adverse impact that could occur would be residential development
in close proximity to McChord Air Force Base. Due to the potential of
increased population concentration in this immediate area, aircraft noise
would become a serious problem. Mitigating action could come in the form
of land use controls to change the zoning in these areas to encourage
industrial or other more compatible land uses.
There is enough industrial land available outside the ULID to satisfy
future demands for these sites. However, some light industrial
development can be expected to locate along major arterials and in
industrial parks with the ULID.
Accompanying increases in development will be a loss of open space
and "county atmosphere". The area will take on a more urban character as
new construction proceeds.
Impact on Traffic, Arterials, and Intersections
Adverse Impacts
Primary Impacts. Sewer interceptor installation will occur among
many of the subject area's main arterials, causing periods of normal
traffic flow disruption and necessitating the use of detour routes in
certain areas. Some of the main arterial routes that will be affected
are Washington Boulevard, Verterans Drive, Gravelly Lake Drive, Bridgeport
Way, Steilacoom Bouldvard, Hopkins Road, Custer Road, South Tacoma Way,
96th Street South, Il6th Street South, Park Avenue, and "C" Street South.
Major intersections of concern that will be affected include Steilacoom
Blvd. - Custer Road, "D" - Ardmore Drive, Custer Road - Bridgeport Way,
Steilacoom Blvd. - Bridgeport Way, Lakewood Drive - Steilacoom Blvd.,
100th Street - Bridgeport Way - Lakewood Drive, and Gravelly Lake Drive-
Bridgeport Way.
120
-------
Pierce County's tentative decision to locate the interceptor from
Bridgeport Way to Puget Sound across the northerly face of the Chambers
Creek Canyon would eliminate a serious potential source of congestion.
The Chambers Creek Road alternative would have necessitated closing of
this main arterial, forcing long detours around the area to points east
and south.
Detour routes will be quite easily planned in the Parkland/Spanaway
area due to the grid pattern of the roads and the short blocks. In many
areas, a whole block may be closed for construction with traffic being
re-routed only one block away. This lengthens the normal route for
traffic through this area by only two or three blocks.
Traffic light and intersection disruption is expected to be a minor
problem in the Parkland/Spanaway area. This is due to the sewer inter-
ceptor line following routes of low traffic volume, and few major inter-
sections and timed signal lights. Also, construction is expected to
move faster block by block in most areas, resulting in a minimum time
disruption of intersections.
The Lakewood area presents a different problem. Many of the routes
the sewer interceptor will follow are long, winding roads with no grid
pattern road system nearby. Detour routes may cause a major disruption in
normal traffic patterns. Some of these routes may be long and out of the
way. An example can readily be seen if Bridgeport Way, the main arterial
between Lakewood and University Place were to be closed for a period of time.
Detour routes would extend through Steilacoom and east through South Tacoma
for traffic traveling between these two areas. Construction would have
to be accomplished in much shorter sections. A number of arterial inter-
sections will be affected in this area. Refer to Figure 16- Traffic Counts
for the specific intersections affected.
Traffic light and intersection disruption would then become a major
problem. Most of the Lakewood area arterial intersections involved have
time signal lights. Of prime concern to the Pierce County Traffic
Engineering Department is that the signal light equipment, both above
and below ground, be saved by the contractors for reuse. This would
facilitate the completion of construction through these intersections and
return them to normal in the shortest time possible.
Construction along Custer Road, Steilacoom Boulevard, and Bridgeport
Way will present the most serious problems. These roads, being the major
arterials through the Lakes District, are involved in most of the major
intersections in the area. The amount of work necessary on each arterial
street and intersection varies and will have to be accomplished at different
times. An estimate of how long a certain portion of a road or intersection
will be disrupted is not possible. Pierce County is responsible to maintain
local access to all private properties, provide emergency vehicle access,
and generally maintain a minimum of traffic congestion. This will have to
come on a case by case basis, usually working small areas at a time and
providing the best possible detours. As can be seen in Figure 16 traffic
volumes are very high on the major arterials named, and serious congestion
problems will occur during construction of the project if careful planning
is not accomplished.
121
-------
LEGEND
1974-75 Annual Average
Daily Traffic (AADT)
CHAMBERS CREEK OL.I.D. 73-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TRAFFIC COUNTS
prepared by WILSEY ft HAM , INC.
for: E.P.A. region X Seattle,Wash.
FIGURE IB
-------
Economic Impacts
Adverse Impacts
Primary Impacts. Initial connection costs are going to severely
affect the fixed income elderly and poor unless a program is initiated to
alleviate the expected problem. These first costs included abandonment
of the septic tank system, and connection to the sewer. Septic tank
abandonment and sewer connection costs will vary depending on the specifics
involved at each residence or business establishment. The following is
an example of how a typical assessment may be determined.
All lots connecting to the ULID 73~1 system will have a basic
assessment based on the summation of the following typical charges:
Area Charge: $0.0075/ft.2
This will be based on the calculated area of the lot in square feet
multiplied times the set rate the lot in square feet multiplied times the
set rate ($0.0075) per square foot.
Frontage Charge: $3.6Vft.
This will be based upon street or easement frontage wherein a sewer
pipe is located.
Equivalent Capacity Charge: $360.00/Residential Equivalent (RE)
This will be assessed every lot of building size within 300 feet of a
sewer line and will be based on land use. One single family home would be
charge one RE or $360.00.
Reference should be made to Assessment Method for U.L.I.D. 73~1 for
complete details of the above charges. This is available through the
Pierce County Public Utilities Department office.
Example of a typical assessment calculation follows:
Sewer Assessment
Area Charge: 80 ft. x 120 ft. = 9,600 sq. ft. x $0.0075 = $72.00
Frontage Charge: 60 ft. x $3.6A = $291.00
Equivalent Capacity Charge: Single family home = 1 RE = $360.00
Total Assessment = $723.00
Side sewer costs are not important to this discussion as they become
a part of the basic assessment. However, connection charges involved in
laying sewer pipe from each house to the road right-of-way are involved.
This must be a k inch minimum diameter pipe that will cost the homeowner
approximately $k to $6 per foot to install. This will depend on the drive-
way and landscape that must be disturbed and restored.
123
-------
The larger lot owner will be assessed exactly as the above example
shows. These large lot owners will pay a penalty for their acreage, in
that they may need to sell or subdivide and develop this additional
property if costs run too high. In these particular cases, property values
would certainly rise as a result of the sewerage facilities.
The above example is for a fairly standard size lot. Based upon a
20 year payment plan, the fixed monthly assessment rate would be $3.00
plus interest. However, this cost would be in addition to the costs of
abandoning septic tanks, sewer connection and a monthly service (of perhaps
$8.00/mo.), all of which are variable costs.
Secondary Impact. The example given above for a typical assessment
may not be too burdensome for most property owners. However, the variable
costs of septic abandonment, connection costs and monthly service charges
may be more than many low income or elderly families can afford. This
would be especially true if families of these categories own large tracts
of land. In Chapter III, on Existing Conditions (Table R) it was shown
that an average of over 3% of all families in the ULID area have incomes
below the poverty level. Most areas contain low income and low income
elderly households that presently need housing assistance. These are the
people that will be the most severely affected by this proposed sewerage
system.
Costs and Risks
As discussed in the preceding section on groundwater impacts, the
proposed sewerage project could lower the groundwater table in the project
area. A lower water table could result in lower mean water levels in
project area lakes and wetlands. Lakes in the project area are also
recharged by precipitation, local drainage and in some cases, by streams.
If a noticeable change in the water table occurs after the Chambers
Creek ULID is sewered, the change would be most apparent in the mean
surface water elevation in Gravelly Lake which is surrounded by sand and
gravel and fed almost entirely by subsurface flow. Changes in the mean
water elevations in Steilacoom and American Lakes may also be identifiable,
but these lakes are less dependent in subsurface inflow. Some small
springs which feed Chambers Creek or Flett Creek could also stop. Project
area marshes would be reduced in extent in areas where the wetlands reflect
the water table. Some wetlands, however, can result from depressions in
surface layers of relatively impermeable Vashon Till, and these wetlands
are due largely to the collection of surface runoff in the depression and
not directly due to the water table elevation.
Since nearly all water used in the Chambers Creek Basin is supplied
by local wells, many in shallow aquifers, the present situation
constitutes water "recycling" whereby much of the water now being
withdrawn from the water table is returned by a subsurface drainage of
septic tank effluent. Some of this recycled water has been found to be
poor and to present a public health hazard. This sewerage project would
reduce and/or eliminate the groundwater quality problem by diverting the
-------
wastewater to a discharge point in Puget Sound following secondary
treatment; and would significantly reduce the potential for groundwater
related public health problems which now exist in these areas.
Long-term beneficial impact to the quality of groundwater and surface
water appear to outweigh short-term local problems with construction and
the as yet not completely understood water table response from eliminating
the treated sewate effluent recharge.
Mitigating Measures
The Natural Environment
Construction near project area lakes and streams must conform with
the use regulations promulgated for designated shoreline areas. A
discussion of the tentatively designated shorelines within the Chambers
Creek ULID and adjacent areas is presented in Chapter III. Lake
shorelines in the project area are tentatively designated as "urban
environments", except for Waughop Lake which is tentatively designated a
"conservancy environment". The preliminary Pierce County Master Program
for the County's shoreline areas contains use regulations which would
allow the construction of utilities, such as sewers, in urban and
conservancy environments provided certain procedures are followed to
mitigate impacts during and after construction. The tentative use
regulations require that construction within the "wetted perimeter" is
timed to avoid major fish migratory runs and that banks are restored to
pre-project configuration and replanted.
As general development in the area proceeds, additional development
near lakes and streams is likely. Although much development has already
occurred in these areas of the ULID, future growth should be carefully
controlled. The Pierce County Shoreline Master Program is expected to
be a needed control for preserving marsh areas not covered by the Shoreline
Protection Act, or the County's program should be designated as "open
space" areas by the County.
Socio-Economic
Traffic. Pierce County has not determined presently whether the
interceptor will be installed in the roadway, on the edge, or along the edge
of the right-of-way. According to the County, the final location chosen
for the interceptor pipe "shall provide the most cost effective system
within the limits produced by the requirements for pavement and landscaping
restoration, adequate access for maintenance, traffic patterns, location
of existing utilities, service considerations such as the need for
multiple sewers, and other design constraints'
-11
A 72 inch sewer interceptor pipe would require a trench 15 to 20 feet
deep to meet the 8 foot minimum flow line depth requirement. Depending on
construction methods used, the trench could be as much as 20 to 25 feet
wide at the top. Using a "box" to line the walls of the trench could
result in a minimum width trench. This would minimize the amount of roadway
125
-------
and right-of-way (landscaping) area that would have to be disrupted.
Use of the "box" method of trenching in the Parkland/Spanaway area
may not be necessary due to the abundance of hardpan soil conditions through-
out the area. This method may be necessary in the Lakes District where there
is much loose, gravelly type soil. The type of method to be used will be
determined by the County and required of the contractor doing each particular
phase.
According to the Pierce County Utilities Department, each portion of
construction will be planned to disturb the smallest area of roadway and
landscape as possible. The County will be responsible and assure that the
contractor restores all roads and landscaping along the right-of-way to its
original, or better, condition.
Another area of concern to the County Public Works Department is
full coordination between their department and the utility department,
especially during the ULID 73~1 project. The County's future road
program includes work on certain roads that will be involved in sewer
construction. Proper planning and coordination will assure that sewer
and road construction occur simultaneously so that a new or improved
road is not torn up shortly after completion for sewer installation.
Steilacoom Boulevard from Lakeview Avenue to South Tacoma Way, and "C"
Street South between 132nd and 133rd Streets South are known to be in-
volved in this at the present time. According to the Public Works
Department, close coordination with the utilities department will be
practiced.
Assessments. Mitigating measures could include the possibility of
including initial connection charges into the basic assessment, making
them payable over the 20 year period. Other alternatives could be for the
County to obtain grant monies through a senior citizen agency and/or
other agency that would assist low income and elderly persons with these
initial charges.
Projected population increases for the ULID area would help
spread costs, reducing individual expenditure over time. It is difficult
to put these costs into perspective with beneficial environmental impacts
of the project. One way to look at the problem is to examine costs of
other similar systems. According to the Pierce County Public Utility
Department, the basic assessment charge to a homeowner with a lot with a
100 foot frontage in Pierce County presently would be approximately $814.
The same lot in Tacoma would cost $1550, and in the Browns Point/Dash Point
area, it would run $3500. If land use regulations are modified to allow
more intensive use of the land, a more concentrated population center would
develop, resulting in a significant reduction in long-term social and
economic costs.
126
-------
ALTERNATIVE III - COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
REGIONAL COMMUNITY TREATMENT PLANT SYSTEMS
Although the adopted General Sewerage Plan calls for treatment at a
single location with disposal to Puget Sound, consideration was given to
inland disposal in the 197^* Basin Water Quality Management Plan, prepared
by Kennedy Engineers.
This alternative would provide for the construction of multiple
advanced waste treatment plants within the basin in order to permit
individual sub-service areas within the basin to develop independent
systems and elinimate major interceptor construction. Separate sub-basin
collection systems, separate advanced wastewater treatment facilities and
disposal to inland surface waters would be provided.
With this alternative three advanced wastewater treatment plants
are proposed along with a small 750,000 gallon a day secondary plant to
treat the wastewater from a portion of the area of University Place. The
location of the advanced wastewater treatment plants are:
AWT Plant No. 1 - Located at the confluence of Chambers Creek, Leach
Creek and Flett Creek. The plant is sized for 7-0
MGD and would handle flows from the Lakewood,
Bridgeport and Leach Creek areas.
AWT Plant No. 2 - Located on Clover Creek near McChord Air Force Base.
The plant is sized for 5.0 MGD and would handle flows
from Parkland, Brookdale and Spanaway areas.
AWT Plant No. 3 ~ Located near the confluence of the North Fork and
Clover Creek. The plant is sized for 2.0 MGD and is
scheduled to handle the flows from the upper Clover
Creek area.
This alternative was considered in the event that a single treatment
plant with marine disposal would not be the most feasible alternative and
that feasible technology is available to allow adequate advanced waste
treatment for inland disposal. Inland disposal could be accomplished
either by disposal to surface streams or disposal by land application.
The Department of Ecology requires that effluent discharges to streams
have a 20:1 dilution ratio. The streams in the project area do not have
sufficient flow in the summer to achieve this dilution ratio. The
alternative of land application was considered; however, costs, climatic
conditions, and limitations on site availability are negative factors
which preclude utilization of land application disposal of wastewater
treatment in this basin. (These considerations are developed in greater
detail in Appendix A.) Effluent water quality requirements are such that
effluent would be suitable for industrial or other reuse if potential
customers could be served on a basis competitive with existing water sources,
127
-------
In order to provide a current comparison between this alternative
and the applicant's (Pierce County) proposed interceptor project, the
following cost analysis was made in the 1974 Basin Water Quality Management
Plan. It should be noted that this alternative would have an annual cost
of $1,500,000 more than the applicant's proposed project.
The treatment is based on providing lime treatment, ammonia stripping
and carbon adsorbtion. Costs for demineralization are not included.
INTERCEPTORS 6 COLLECTION
SYSTEM
Construction
Cost
$24,881,000
Project
Cost
Annual
Cost
$34,336,000 $3,241,000
Side Sewers
Pump Stations
AWT Plant #1
AWT Plant #2
AWT Plant #3
4,417,000
2,451,000
11,522,000
9,726,000
4,759,000
6,095,000
3,382,000
15,900,000
13,422,000
6,567,000
575,300
319,200
1,501,000
1,267,000
619,000
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
& OUTFALL
Annual Operation and
Maintenance Costs
AWT Plant #1
AWT Plant #2
AWT Plant #3
Secondary Plant
Collection System
Pump Stations
TOTAL
1,200,000
$58,956,000
1,656,000
156,000
815,000
513,000
300,400
28,500
374,000
143,000
$81,358,000 $9,853,000
128
-------
PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Although not studied in the adopted Sewerage General Plan, an alter-
native system of package treatment plants possibly could be based on the
soils of the project area. This system would create sewerage and treatment
facilities in those areas underlain by impermeable soils unsuitable for
septic systems (such areas are discussed Chapter III and shown in Figure 7).
Wastewater disposal could be to inland waters or into permeable gravels
bordering the impermeable soils. Note that treatment of sewage effluent
would have to meet local, State and Federal drinking water standards
at the point where the discharge ultimately contacts a drinking water
aquifer or other drinking water supply.
Limited time precluded the exploration of design possibilities, which
precludes a full analysis of small scale package treatment plants. However,
where possible, the impact of regional treatment plant systems are
compared to community package treatment plant facilities.
Groundwater Impacts
Adverse Impacts
Construction of regional community treatment plant systems would
have adverse impacts on the groundwater similar to those with Pierce
County's proposed sewerage project. Wastewater would reach the streams and
would not recharge the groundwaters.
With the regional community treatment plant system, the disposal of
wastewater by land application was considered. One adverse impact would
be that large areas for drain field construction would be needed for
large volumes of effluent, and local groundwater problems may be associated
with the large quantities of water available for recharge.
Beneficial Impacts
As with Alternative II, the proposed sewerage project, a regional
community treatment plant would eliminate septic tank discharges to
local groundwater, first in the Stage I service area, then in Stage II and
eventually in the Post-Stage II service area. Therefore, a regional
community treatment plant system sould also result in improved shallow
groundwater quality and protection from septic tank effluent contamination
of deeper drinking water supply aquifers.
One major difference between a possible regional community plant system
and Alternative II, the proposed sewerage facility is that most of the
basin's wastewater would be discharged after tertiary treatment, to
Chambers Creek and Clover Creek. These creeks do not have adequate flow to
meet dilution ratio required by the D.O.E. Also, discharge of treated
129
-------
effluent to local creeks would allow some recharge of groundwater from
percolation through stream beds. However, this recharge mechanism has
been greatly reduced by the realignment and paving of the Clover Creek
channel east of McChord AFB.
Clover Creek does not have a strong influence on the water table
and, therefore, any lowering of the water table in the project area which
may occur due to the elimination of septic tank discharges to shallow
groundwater would not be mitigated significantly by the discharge of
tertiary effluent to Chambers Creek or Clover Creek. A possible exception
would be Steilacoom Lake which would receive more surface inflow than it
is presently receiving from Clover Creek. If treated effluent were dis-
charged to the groundwater system, this alternative would eliminate any
adverse impacts associated with eliminating the effluent by transporting
the sewerage out of the area.
Surface Waters Impacts
The net effect on water quality of a community system which discharges
to the groundwater would be essentially the same as Alternative II since
the loading of wastes into the basin would be eliminated.
Discharge of water to inland location would impact the freshwater
system of the basin. In particular, chlorine residuals may be toxic to
the fish in the basin. Steps would have to be taken to minimize or
eliminate chlorine residuals. In addition, the adverse impact of addi-
tional nutrients would have to be considered. Such nutrients may not
be easily assimilated by the aquatic system, causing algae blooms and
other evidence of eutropitication. Finally it is thought by some that
tertiary treatment does not adequately remove all viruses and heavy metals.
Land Use and Growth Patterns Impacts
Since a regional community treatment plant system would utilize a
wastewater collection system similar to that proposed by Alternative II for
certain areas, the land use and growth pattern impacts associated with this
alternative would be similar to those discussed above in Alternative II.
Sewerage service areas for this alternative would be provided in stages
similar to those proposed in Alternative II. A lond use impact would be
realized in the Parkland area as two of the treatment plant sites are
proposed to be located in areas now zoned for residential use.
Traffic, Arterials, and Intersections Impacts
General short term, direct adverse impacts with regard to normal
traffic flow disruption would also be present with election of this alter-
native. These impacts have been discussed above in Alternative II, and
the impacts would be very similar with this alternative as with Alternative
II. However, impacts relating to traffic disrupting street and landscape
130
-------
repairs, and detours might occur on a slightly smaller scale since the
trunk sewer lines under Alternative III would likely be smaller in size
than the interceptor pipe sizes under Alternative II; and therefore, could
be constructed more quickly and likely with less trench width and depth.
Pipe sizes for the principal collectors would be considerably smaller
than the 72" interceptor proposes in Alternative II. It is possible that
with Alternative III, major arterials and arterial intersections would not
be affected for as long a period of time during construction. However, in
the general area of the advanced wastewater treatment plant sites, there
will be prolonged construction activity. The two sites in Parkland are
near residential areas. These sites could result in traffic disruption and
detours as new sewer lines were placed in the area.
Economic Impacts
Although construction costs for this alternative sewerage system are
not available, estimated capital costs of construction and operation of this
system, consisting of three advanced wastewater treatment plants and one
secondary treatment plant, would be considerably more than for the Alter-
native II system. Advanced wastewater treatment plants are more costly to
construct and maintain than secondary treatment plants. Advanced treatment
plants consume more energy and require greater quantities of chemicals.
The regional community treatment plant system would be financed in a
manner similar to the Alternative II system. The total cost of the system
would be greater, and the local share of the cost would be larger, than that
of the Alternative II system. As a result, larger individual assessments
and monthly service charges for project area residents might be realized.
The impacts discussed above in the Alternative II section relating to
economic costs and benefits are similar to this alternative. The impacts
with this alternative would be more intense, and the low income and fixed
income elderly would be more severly affected.
Costs and Risks
The environmemtal risks associated with a regional community treatment
system would be very similar as with the project proposed by Pierce County.
However, the total annual cost would be higher than with the proposed pro-
ject. The higher annual costs relfects the greater initial cost of construc-
ting and operating advanced wastewater treatment facilities. The advanced
wastewater treatment facilities would require more expensive and complicated
facilities. In addition, such facilities require more energy and greater
quantities of chemicals.
The costs for community package treatment facilities have not been
explored. However, it is thought that the lower initial costs would be
offset by higher long term operating costs.
Mitigating Measures
Mitigating measures would be substantially similar as with the proposed
project.
131
-------
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES: BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER 1 :
NO-ACTION
ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER 2:
PROPOSED
ACTION :
ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER 3:
COMMUNITY
TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
ALTERATION OF
SURFICIAL GEO-
LOGY AND SOILS
(EROSION)
Short-term:
No signi f leant
impact.
Long-term:
No change
from present
condf t ions .
Short-term:
Const ruct ton
of main inter-
ceptor (truck)
1 ine and
seconda ry 1 anes
may cause some
minor local ize<
sol 1 erosion.
Long-term:
Revegetat ion
wi 1 1 result in
cont inuat ton
of normal con-
d! tlons short-
ly after pro-
ject comple-
tion.
Short-term:
Minor surface
di sturbances
during con-
struction of
community fac-
ilities. Some
e ros i on
poss i bl e.
Long-term:
Revegetat ion
of disturban-
ces wi 1 ] re-
sul t i n
cont i nuat ion
of normal con-
di 1 1 ons upon
completion of
each commun i ty
treatment
system.
ALTERATION OF
SURPICIAL
WATER AND
DRAINAGE
Short-term:
No s i gni f leant
impact-
LofTg-term:
No change from
present trend
of gradual
degradation of
surface water
from contami -
nated surface
and sub-sur-
face runoff.
Short-term:
Possible
turbidity in-
creases from
construction
activity near
Chambers Creek
and its trib-
utaries.
Long-term:
Gradual in-
crease in
water qual i ty
upon completion
of treatment
faci 1 i ty as
transition
from septic
tank disposal
to sewer hook-
up occurs.
Short-term:
Possible
turbi di ty i n-
creases duri ng
construct ion
phase of each
commun i ty
treatment
system.
Long-term:
Dt ^charge of
treated waste
water back into
Chambers &
Clover Creeks
was cons r de red;
lowever , these
creeks do not
lave adequate
vol umes during
low flow to ac-
commodate dis-
charge and meet
requi red State
di 1 ut ion
standards .
CHANGE IN
GROUNDWATER
QUANT 1 TY
Short-term:
No change.
Long-term:
No change.
Short-term:
No significant
impact-
Long-term:
El imi nation of
di rect recharge
of extracted
water from pro-
ject area may
resul t in a
lowering of
the local
groundwater
table.
Short-term:
No s i gn i f i cant
impact.
Long-term:
Use of several,
s ma Her scale
community sys-
tems over 1 i mi -
ted areas may
decrease i m-
pact of re-
charge loss anc
thereby reduce
the possibi 1 i f>
or at least the
amount of water
table lower! ng.
However, such
a system may
be more costly
over the long
run.
CHANGE IN
GROUNDWATER
QUALITY
Short-term:
None.
Long- term:
Cont I nued fai 1
ures of septic
tanks in those
areas where
septi c tanks
funct ion poor-
ly; in those
areas where
septic tanks
funct ion prop-
erly, septic
tank ef f 1 uent
may not be
f i 1 tered and
adequately
purl f led by
gravel . Even-
tual contami-
nation of sub-
surface water
used for water
supply Is
1 i ke 1 y .
Short-term:
Poss i ble dewat-
ering of con-
struct ion route
tfould be neces-
sary; impact of
the disposal of
hi s turbi d wa-
ter is minor.
. ong^te r m :
)Net increase
n annua ? rate
f groundwater
echarge for
hal low aqu i fer.
3) Inasmuch as
>roject area
anes are re-
harged by a
ombination of
tream flow,
ainfall runoff
nd possibly by
nderwater
pr i ngs ; lower-
ng of water
able could mean
lowering of
ane levels.
hort-term:
s above ; how-
ver, const rue -
ion impacts
*/ould be 1 imi ted
:o onJy those
reas where a
ommun i ty systeir
s requf red.
ojj^tej'mj
ontamination of
eep groundwa-
er would be
voided ; how-
ve r , it is
ikely that
rainf ields
ould create
ocal problems.
132
CHANGE IN
SURFACE WATER
QUALITY
Short-term:
No change.
Lgn1 e I ncrease i n
eve 1 s of res-
dua 1 ch lor i ne
nd nitrogen
hlorates in
f c i n i ty o f
utfal 1 .
Short-term:
No impact.
-ong-jej"m:
to change
likely.
ALTERATION/
DESTRUCTION OF
VEGETATION
Short-term:
No significant
impact.
Long-term:
Pockets of rel-
atively natural
vegetation; i .e
mi xed con! fer-
ous and hard-
wood forest and
wetlands wi 1 1
continue.
Short-term:
Land clear! ng
for trunk 1 ine
a long [Chambers
Creek. The
selected route ,
above the creek
bed, is least
1 i kely to be in
conf 1 tct wi th
Shore! ine Man-
agement Act.
Long-term:
No s i gn i f icant
tmcrease in
vegetation loss
over present
trends exper-
ienced in
sewerage ser-
vice area.
Short-term:
Minor vegeta-
t ! on loss along
1 ! ne ri ght-of-
way serving
each commun i ty
system.
Lgngj- 1 e^m :
No s i gni f i cant
increase in
vegetat ion loss
over present
trends.
CHANGE IN
WILDLIFE POP-
ULATION
DENSITY
Short-term:
No s i gni f ! cant
impact.
Lon g~ te nn :
General de-
crease to con-
t i nue i f grad-
ual i ncrease
i n populat ion
and urbaniza-
tion is al lowec
Short-term:
Construction
act i vi ty i im-
pact may effect
local numbers
of bi rds and
small mammals.
Poss t ble tur-
bidt ty increase
in Chambers Cr.
and in marine
waters near out
fal 1 const ruc-
tion may affect
aquati c i nver-
tabrates & f i sh
Long-jerm:
Gradual de-
crease in
wi Jdl i fe can be
expected as
area continues
to urbanize.
Short-term:
No s i gni f 1 cant
impact .
Long-term:
Gradua? de-
crease in wi 1 d~
1 i f e can be
expected as
area continues
to urbani ze .
-------
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES; HUMAN USE IMPACTS
ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER 1 :
NO- ACT ION
ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER 2:
PROPOSED
ACTION
ALTERNATIVE
NUMBER 3:
COMMUNITY
TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
ALTERATION
OF LAND USE
Short-term:
No change.
Long-term:
D.O.E. ban to
be modified;
possible eas-
ing of restric
tions in areas
of satisfactory
permeabi 1 i ty
for septic
tank effluent.
Short-term:
Partial D.O.E.
ban on septic
tanks to
continue until
project im-
plementation.
Long-term:
Increased
urbanization
and increased
res ident ial
density along
present land
use trends.
Short-term:
Partial D.O.E.
ban to conti-
nue in effect.
Long-term:
Land use chan-
ges and den-
sity increases
based on scope
and time of
completion of
each separate
commun i ty
treatment
facilities.
CHANGE IN
POPULATION
DENSITY
Short-term:
No change.
Long-term:
Development
would proceed
at a slow pace
due to restric-
tive bui Iding
policies as a
result of a
continued D.O.E
septic tank
ban. Urban
sprawl would
occur through-
out undevelope<
areas.
Short-term:
No significant
change.
Long-term:
Population
density in-
creases would
be expected
in sewered
areas. Higher
density, more
intensive land
uses would
emerge, fol-
lowing pre-
viously set
patterns.
Short-term:
No significant
change.
Long-term:
Similar as
discussed a-
bove in Al t.
No. 2. Pop-
ulation den-
sity increases
would be ex-
pected in
sewered areas.
Higher density
more intensive
land uses
would emerge,
fol lowing
previously set
patterns.
ALTERATION TO
OTHER PUBLIC
SERVICES AND
UTILITIES
Short-term:
No change.
Long-term:
Expected urban
sprawl would
result in
higher costs
of supplying
public services
to outlying
areas.
Short-term:
No significant
change.
Long -term:
Greater demand
can be expectec
on other publ i c
services and
uti 1 ities as a
result of pop-
ulation growth
and higher
densities.
Short-term:
No significant
change.
Long-term:
Si mi 1 ar as
discussed a-
bove in Alt.
No. 2. Greater
demand can be
expected on
other publ i c
services and
uti 1 ities as a
result of pop-
ulation growth
and higher
densities.
MODIFICATION
OF EXISTING
TRAFFIC
CONDITIONS
Short-term:
No change.
Long-term:
No change.
Short-term:
Disruption of
many main ar-
terials and
arterial inter-
sect ions will
result. Some
detours wi 1 1 be
lengthy. Traf-
fic signal
equipment and
landscape
would be dis-
placed.
Long-term:
No change.
Short-term:
Simi lar as
discussed in
Alt. No. 2.
Trunk sewer
1 i nes would
be of a simi-
lar diameter,
resulting in
faster con-
struct ion
phases and
overal 1 smal -
ler scale
operations.
Long-term:
No change.
133
ALTERATION
OF VISUAL
APPEARANCE
Short-term:
No change.
Long-term:
No change.
Short-term:
Impact of
construction
act i vi ty-land
clearing for
1 ine corri dors
and bui Idings .
Long-term:
Addition of
treatment fac-
ility at mouth
of Chambers
Creek. Smaller
pumping sta-
tions to
be consturcted
locat ions .
Short-term:
Construct ion
impacts would
be visible
over 1 imi ted
areas only.
Long-term:
Would require
a treatment
faci 1 i ty with-
in each neigh-
borhood so
served. Proper
design could
make such
facilities
unobt rus i ve.
AIR QUALITY
Short-term:
No change .
Long-term:
No change.
Short-term:
Possible dust
and exhaust
fumes to be
generated by
construction
equipment .
Long-term:
Operation of
the proposed
secondary trea
raent facility
will not re-
sul t in s igni -
ficant emmis-
sions of ai r
As general devj
elopment pro-
ceeds, levels
of ai r contam-
inants will i n-
crease. Howevet
no regional
excesses of
federal and
state standard
are expected.
Sh
As above.
Long-term:
e'
NOISE
Short-term:
No change.
Long-term:
No change.
Short-term:
Construction
noise due to
land clearing
and excavation
equipment .
Long-term:
No s i gn i f i cant
impact .
Short-term:
As above.
Long-term:
As above.
ALTERATION OF
HISTORICAL OR
ARCHAELOGICAL
SITES
Short-term:
No adverse
i mpact .
Long-term:
No adverse
impact .
Short-term:
No adverse
impact.
Long-term:
No adverse
impact.
Short-term:
No adverse
impact.
Long-term:
No adverse
impact .
-------
Xs"
chapter V .
RELATIONS
LAND USE
POLICIES
CONTROLS
***-"'
-------
RELATIONSHIP OF ALTERNATIVES TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS
The adopted land use plans and policies for the ULID 73~1 are outlined
in the General Comprehensive Plan (1962), and A Comprehensive Planning Study
of the Lakes District (1967).The GeneVal Comprehensive Plan was adopted by
Pierce County before sewer planning for the Lakes District was underway.
The Plan describes objectives for development by land use types. It basically
encourages the expansion of certain existing land uses, and the development
of new uses and area, while protecting certain land uses and creating compati-
bility between all land uses.
The Lakes District Plan recognizes sewage disposal problem area and
recommends research into pollution courses. It acknowledges a preliminary
sewer study as having been completed and a detailed engineering study being
underway. However, no mention is made of a sewer system at the end of the
Plan under proposed policies and objectives. This Plan also describes
policy and objectives by land use type. It prescribes varied residential
land uses, specific zoning controls, expansion, and control of commercial and
industrial uses.
Much of the zoning policy in the County is derived from these two plans.
To date, specific plan amendments cover only the Lakes District and the
Gig Harbor Peninsula, and zoning is still very subject to change. The pro-
posed ULID 73"! project will not conflict with present zoning laws.
The Shorelines Management Act will have an impact on the project, as it
has on all planning on lakes and streams in the area. A Master Program for
Shoreline Development has not been adopted by the County. The required in-
ventory has been completed and citizen committees are being formed to
develop a Shorelines Master Program. All portions of the proposed project
that lie within 200 feet of certain water bodies will have to comply with
the Shorelines Management Act.
In summary, the proposed project, if implemented, could be considered
as furthering the goals, policies, and objectives of the two plans dis-
cussed above. Some concerns have been mentioned by County officials in
this regard. They refer to road projects, open space plans, and expansion
and growth policies of future LID's. These are policies and objectives
that derive from the plans, and the project's impact upon them is discussed
in the report. Concerns revolve around coordination between road and sewer
projects, and an open space plan for the Chambers Creek Basin Area that is
presently under study.
135
-------
N A VOID ABLE
"V«^E IIV^PA
iSfc»V"< i*l
*'*%"' %&^&l<*^
^ - , '':
-------
M1TIGATIVE MEASURES AND
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Interceptor route along the canyon wall approximately 200 feet
from Chambers Creek, Alternative Route 1, was considered the most environ-
mentally favorable for the following reasons: it is the least costly;
construction impacts can be adequately mitigated; it is the least energy-
intensive; the north side of the Chambers Creek Canyon is not very environ-
mentally sensitive; and the potential for long-term beneficial use and
even environmental enhancement of the canyon may result.
COST
While the proposed project and interceptor route is the most cost-
effective, this project will have above-average assessments. A miti-
gative measure for this cost could be a local or county plan to aid low
income and elderly residents in paying the assessments. Pierce County
is continuing to explore possible ways of minimizing the financial bur-
den on these residents.
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION
To minimize adverse environmental impacts, construction will occur
in two stages. An approximate 30-foot wide bench will first be cut out
of the canyon wall. Simultaneous with this stage of construction, re-
seeding and replanting will occur both above and below the bench. This
will serve to stabilize the construction area and help prevent erosion.
Other slope stabilization measures will be utilized, as necessary, such
as drainage control. Once the banks below and above the bench are sta-
bilized, excavation for pipeline construction along the bench may begin.
Along the proposed route, there are several especially steep, environ-
mentally sensitive areas. These areas will not be benched; they will be
tunneled through so that no part of the surface is disturbed.
In addition to reseeding and replanting, the natural vegetation be-
tween the construction area and the stream will be left undisturbed.
this will help minimize runoff and sedimentation of the stream. In ad-
dition, any large, established trees along the route will be marked and
protected.
To protect the valuable fish runs in Chambers Creek, construction
will be scheduled around fish spawning and release periods. To make
sure that the water quality and fisheries are not being adversely af-
fected by the construction, periodic testing of the creek water for
sedimentation will be undertaken by the County's engineering consultant.
Before construction begins, the creek will be tested in order to ac-
cumulate baseline data on creek sediment.
137
-------
There will be two grant conditions associated with this project (see
Preface for full description).
1) A landscape architect will be hired to work with the County's
engineering consultant to formulate a plan for reclaiming dis-
turbed areas and to make weekly site visits to determine con-
struction impacts.
2) The County shall provide assurances that key contractor per-
sonnel associated with excavation during construction of the
project will undergo an orientation course from a qualified
archaeologist on identification of archaeological resources.
If artifacts are found during construction, the excavations
involved will be delayed, the State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation, and the Washington Archaeological
Research Center will be notified, and arrangements will be
made with a qualified archaeologist to either detour around
the site or excavate the site. This course of action will
also be followed if the archaeological survey reveals the
presence of an archaeological site on the interceptor route.
In addition to the weekly visit of the landscape architect, the
County's engineering consultant will have an inspector on site every
day of construction. This inspector will report any unmitigated adverse
impacts occurring during the construction process.
OUTFALL IMPACTS
Field studies have proved that effluent from an outfall near the
Chambers Creek estuary will not back up into Chambers Creek.
Installation of the outfall will require dredging in the sub-
littoral zone. The outfall pipe will be buried and the shoreline will
be restored.
There is presently no clear demonstration of need for dechlorination
of the treated effluent prior to discharge; however, capability for ad-
dition of some type of dechlorination facilities in the future will be
built into the design of the sewage treatment plant. Pierce County is
currently exploring alternatives to chlorination. In the meantime,
chlorinated effluent is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts
on Puget Sound.
LONG-TERM IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
It is expected that this project will have several long-term impacts
on the canyon, but most, if not all, are expected to be beneficial. As
a result of this project, the canyon may be Improved for long-term use.
138
-------
MITIGATIVE MEASURES AND
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION
The interceptor route along the canyon wall approximately 200 feet
from Chambers Creek, Alternative Route 1, was considered the most environ-
mentally favorable for the following reasons: it is the least costly;
construction impacts can be adequately mitigated; it is the least energy-
intensive; the north side of the Chambers Creek Canyon is not very environ-
mentally sensitive; and the potential for long-term beneficial use and
even environmental enhancement of the canyon may result.
COST
While the proposed project and interceptor route is the most cost-
effective, this project will have above-average assessments. A miti-
gative measure for this cost could be a local or county plan to aid low
income and elderly residents in paying the assessments. Pierce County
is continuing to explore possible ways of minimizing the financial bur-
den on these residents.
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION
To minimize adverse environmental impacts, construction will occur
in two stages. An approximate 30-foot wide bench will first be cut out
of the canyon wall. Simultaneous with this stage of construction, re-
seeding and replanting will occur both above and below the bench. This
will serve to stabilize the construction area and help prevent erosion.
Other slope stabilization measures will be utilized, as necessary, such
as drainage control. Once the banks below and above the bench are sta-
bilized, excavation for pipeline construction along the bench may begin.
Along the proposed route, there are several especially steep, environ-
mentally sensitive areas. These areas will not be benched; they will be
tunneled through so that no part of the surface is disturbed.
In addition to reseeding and replanting, the natural vegetation be-
tween the construction area and the stream will be left undisturbed.
this will help minimize runoff and sedimentation of the stream. In ad-
dition, any large, established trees along the route will be marked and
protected.
To protect the valuable fish runs in Chambers Creek, construction
will be scheduled around fish spawning and release periods. To make
sure that the water quality and fisheries are not being adversely af-
fected by the construction, periodic testing of the creek water for
sedimentation will be undertaken by the County's engineering consultant.
Before construction begins, the creek will be tested in order to ac-
cumulate baseline data on creek sediment.
137
-------
There will be two grant conditions associated with this project (see
Preface for full description).
l) A landscape architect will be hired to work with the County's
engineering consultant to formulate a plan for reclaiming dis-
turbed areas and to make weekly site visits to determine con-
struction impacts.
2) The County shall provide assurances that key contractor per-
sonnel associated with excavation during construction of the
project will undergo an orientation course from a qualified
archaeologist on identification of archaeological resources.
If artifacts are found during construction, the excavations
involved will be delayed, the State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation, and the Washington Archaeological
Research Center will be notified, and arrangements will be
made with a qualified archaeologist to either detour around
the site or excavate the site. This course of action will
also be followed if the archaeological survey reveals the
presence of an archaeological site on the interceptor route.
In addition to the weekly visit of the landscape architect, the
County's engineering consultant will have an inspector on site every
day of construction. This inspector will report any unmitigated adverse
impacts occurring during the construction process.
OUTFALL IMPACTS
Field studies have proved that effluent from an outfall near the
Chambers Creek estuary will not back up into Chambers Creek.
Installation of the outfall will require dredging in the sub-
littoral zone. The outfall pipe will be buried and the shoreline will
be restored.
There is presently no clear demonstration of need for dechlorination
of the treated effluent prior to discharge; however, capability for ad-
dition of some type of dechlorination facilities in the future will be
built into the design of the sewage treatment plant. Pierce County is
currently exploring alternatives to chlorination. In the meantime,
chlorinated effluent is not expected to cause significant adverse impacts
on Puget Sound.
LONG-TERM IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
It is expected that this project will have several long-term impacts
on the canyon, but most, if not all, are expected to be beneficial. As
a result of this project, the canyon may be improved for long-term use.
138
-------
EPA will strongly recommend that the County pursue a public inves-
tigation to determine whether a bicycle trail and/or a nature trail atop
the interceptor and on the bench is possible or desirable. This trail
could run the entire length of the interceptor and connect to the road
to Steilacoom. The existence of such a trail would increase public
accessibility to the Canyon and may create a public demand to convert
the lower canyon into park land. This land is currently under private
ownershi p.
Construction will also include the removal of car bodies and other
debris which has been discarded in the canyon. In addition, the con-
struction area will be replanted with a variety of tree and bush species.
To the prevalent native bush vegetation (e.g. salal , vine maple, berry
bushes) will be added varities typical of a more established forest
(e.g. cedar, Douglas fir). Thus, the forest on the north side, which
was stripped at the turn of the century, will be encouraged to recover
more rapidly by planting these established species.
Another favorable impact will be the elimination of the treatment
plant at Steilacoom. This will liberate the shore area for other uses,
e.g. public beach.
In summary, the Canyon Wall alternative was considered most environ-
mentally acceptable because the existing vegetation is not well-established,
the north slope is not virgin forest, the technology and interest exist to
adequately protect this environment from significant damage, and environ-
mental enhancement of the canyon will result.
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
In spite of strict control of construction methods to minimize
adverse environmental impacts, certain adverse impacts may still occur.
However, the construction is expected to be so controlled that they
will occur only to a slight degree. Unavoidable adverse impacts of the
project may include:
Some localized turbidity in surface waters
Minor decline in water table
Siltation in Puget Sound when outfall location is dredged
Dust at the construction site
Construction noise in the vicinity of homes
Traffic impacts, especially in Lakewood area where construction
routes will follow long, winding roads
Secondary impacts associated with growth and development in the
service area
139
-------
l^^fc-*m ^^^r
'
"'
SNORT TERM USES
AND LONG TERM
OF THE
-------
SHORT-TERM USES AND
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
Pierce County, as the grant applicant for Federal funds, has
selected a project which includes collection, trunk, and inter-
ceptor sewers; a secondary biological treatment plant, and a sub-
marine outfall. Two alternatives for the location of the main in-
terceptor sewer in Chambers Creek Canyon and one route out of the
canyon was considered. Of the three possibilities, an interceptor
route was chosen which will be partly up the canyon wall. This
will avoid placing the main interceptor in the creek bed itself and
will also avoid possible conflicts with the Shoreline Management
Program.
Short-term Uses and Foreclosure of Future Options
The Natural Environment
The short-term uses of the natural environment include impacts
relating to construction of the facilities, operation of the faci-
lities and secondary impacts relating to the potential for increased
growth.
The construction route for the collection and trunk lines will
involve excavation, primarily in existing roadways. As a conse-
quence, old asphalt and concrete will have to be disposed of in
suitable disposal sites. Construction around lakes and homes will
create a temporary aesthetic problem. Traffic disruption and noise
impacts will necessarily result from construction in developed areas.
Numerous concerns have been raised that construction of the
interceptor could adversely affect the value of Chambers Creek Can-
yon as a natural habitat area. Over the long term, the canyon will
not be adversely affected by short-term construction activities.
Construction in the Chambers Creek Canyon will temporarily dis-
rupt vegetation in a swath sufficiently wide to accommodate con-
struction equipment and materials. Due to the steepness of the
canyon walls and lack of space to maneuver, a 20-foot wide bench
will be created. Construction activities will be confined to this
space and special techniques will be employed to minimize potential
siltation problems or slide hazards.
Construction in the canyon may result in sedimentation which
will adversely impact the operation of the Washington State Depart-
-------
ment of Game's steelhead program, at the hatchery on Chambers Creek.
However, it is expected that the combination of a buffer strip of
vegetation between the interceptor route and the creek plus mitigative
construction measures will significantly minimize the potential for
damage to fisheries in the creek. Construction methods will take
into account that this creek is also one of the most important
spawning streams in the Puget Sound Region for chum and coho salmon.
Further explanation of mitigative construction techniques is found
in Chapter VI.
Construction of the treatment plant at the site near the mouth
of Chambers Creek will preclude a small area from future extraction
of gravel. At the present time, the remaining gravel is not com-
mercially valuable because of the presence of fines and other im-
purities.
Operation of the facilities should not result in odors in the
canyon. The design and elevation of the interceptor will assure
rapid flow and prevent stagnation.
The proposed project will increase the potential for urban
growth in the service area, which will reduce some of the natural
habitat areas not otherwise protected by local land use policies.
However, the recreational possibilities in the canyon, associated
with the interceptor, may discourage development in the canyon.
The Human Environment
In the short term, residents of the sewerage service area will
bear the cost of the assessment charge, either directly as property
owners or possibly indirectly as renters. Property owners, now using
septic tanks, would pay the cost of abandoning their existing septic
tanks and of constructing a lateral sewer to join the sewerage system
as it becomes available. Local residents who utilize the sewerage
system would also pay a monthly service charge, and a fixed monthly
assessment rate. This expense may be quite burdensome to older
low income landowners.
Committment to the proposed project will preclude other combi-
nations of partial solutions to the problems in the Chambers Creek
Basin.
Also, there is concern by many citizens in the service area
that the provision of sewers and subsequent growth will result in
the loss of the unique character and lifestyle in the service area.
The area is predominantly suburban with scattered undeveloped or
low density areas. In addition there are pockets of commercial and
industrial areas. Once growth is allowed to proceed, there will
-------
undoubtedly be increased densities of residential development, par-
ticularly in the form of apartments, town houses and other forms of
cluster housing. Commercial growth associated with anticipated pop-
ulation growth will also occur.
Long-term Beneficial Uses
The Natural Environment
Construction of the project will result in improved groundwater
and surface water quality within the sewerage service area. Public
health hazards such as sewage effluent in drainage ditches, will be
eliminated. Problems such as bacterial contamination and nuisances
such as algae blooms will be reduced to the extent that such problems
are due to septic tank discharges to the shallow groundwaters. Human
uses of the local water environment such as water sports will be
enhanced. Most importantly, the valuable water resources of the
deeper aquifers will be protected and pure drinking water will be
assured for future generations.
Construction of the project may also result in a long-term
beneficial use of the canyon itself. By providing potential for
a bikeway or nature trail on the interceptor, retention of the can-
yon's natural environment may be encouraged.
The Human Environment
Over the long run, future growth,which will be made possible,
may be viewed as economically desirable by those who look forward
to rising property values for homes using the sewerage system, as
well as the influx of money into the local economy as development
is made possible. Higher density development will allow greater
economy related to the provision of municipal services to a more
concentrated and easily served community.
The additional growth and development expected as a result of
this sewer and the lifting of DOE's partial ban on development will
likely result in an increase in jobs and services. However, the
size and diversity of natural habitats in the study area will de-
crease with increased development.
142
-------
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
RESOURCE COMMITMENTS FOR THE
PROPOSED ACTION
The project chosen by Pierce County, the grant applicant, will
involve both the commitment of renewable and non-renewable resources
during both the construction and operation stages.
During Construction
Construction of the proposed sewerage facilities will affect
resources in the construction route, particularly in the Chambers
Creek Canyon itself. Vegetation will be removed and siltation and
sedimentation may occur. These consequences are not entirely irre-
trievable because during construction, mitigating measures may be
employed and during construction, the disrupted areas will be re-
vegetated.
Sites must be selected for disposal of such wastes as excavated
road pavement remaining after placement of the various collection,
trunk and interceptor lines. If such excavated material is used
as landfill, such usage will probably contribute to the irretrievable
commitment of such sites as dump sites. Substantial commitment of
monetary and material resources will be necessary for the construc-
tion of the proposed sewerage facilities. For all practical purposes,
the commitment of such resources is irretrievable, except in the
unlikely event that the project is abandoned, in which case some
salvage value remains.
During Operation
Operation of the proposed wastewater collection and treatment
facilities will involve the continued commitment of labor, materials,
chemicals and energy. The consumption of these resources is necessary
to maintain the project objectives and to continue to protect valu-
able water resources.
It should be noted that the project has been designed to mini-
mize commitments of resources associated with the operation of the
facilities. For example, since the project follows the general
slope of the basin, gravity sewers have been utilized wherever pos-
sible and thus reducing energy requirements. Pumping of sewage will
be required at various points in the basin to overcome specific
terrain obstacles.
Also, it is proposed that the treatment facility heating systems
-------
utilize sewage gas produced in the anaerobic digesters for both
heating and digester heating purposes. This fuel source will sa-
tisfy almost all heating requirements associated with the project.
Since sludge will be disposed of by landfill, the large amounts of
energy involved with incineration processes will not be involved.
Offsetting this consideration is the fact that land must be commited
for sludge disposal over the lifetime of the project.
Use of resources might be mitigated by the construction of a
public trail or bikeway along the canyon route atop the interceptor.
This potential will be explored by the County. Public input is
needed for this potential use since the interceptor route crosses
privately-owned lands.
COMMITMENT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO CONTINUED USE
Commitments to the construction of the proposed project will
necessarily preclude alternative solutions to the water quality
problems in the service area. In addition, future urban growth
within the Chambers Creek Basin which may be associated with the
proposed wastewater collection and treatment facilities can be con-
sidered a secondary irreversible impact. The adverse impacts re-
sulting from increased urbanization include the conversion of some
open-space land to residential-commercial development, increased
urban runoff, slight deterioration of local air quality and increased
demands for municipal services.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
The elimination of millions of gallons per day of septic tank
effluent which are now discharged within the basin would result in
improved surface water and groundwater quality and will reduce public
health hazards. Also, the project will assure future generations of
valuable groundwater resources uncontaminated from septic tank ef-
fluent. The substantial commitment of resources such as funds,
labor, materials, chemicals and energy are deemed necessary to pro-
duce and maintain a desirable environment in which to live and thus
are retrievable in the form of a quality environment.
-------
-------
USE OF RENEWABLE AND NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES
The project chosen by Pierce County, the grant applicant will involve
both the commitment renewable and non-renewable resources during both the
construction and operation stages.
During Construction
Construction of the proposed sewerage facilities will affect resources
in the construction route, particularly in the Chambers Creek Canyon itself.
Vegetation will be removed and siltation and sedimentation will adversely
affect the stream. These consequences are not entirely irretrievable be-
cause during construction mitigating measures may be employed and after
construction, the disrupted areas may be revegetated.
Sites must be selected for disposal of such wastes as excavated road
pavement remaining after placement of the various collection, trunk and
interceptor lines. If such excavated material is used as land fill, such
useage will probably contribute to the irretrievable commitment of such
sites as dump sites. Substantial commitment of monetary and material
resources will be necessary for the construction of the proposed sewerage
facilities. For all paractical purposes, the commitment of such resources is
irretrievable, except in the unlikely event that the project is abandoned,
in which case some salvage value remains.
During Operation
Operation of the proposed wastewater collection and treatment facilities
will involve the continued commitment of labor, materials, chemicals and energy,
The consumption of these resources is necessary to maintain the project
objectives and to continue to protect valuable water resources.
It should be noted that the project has been designed to minimize
commitments of resources associated with the operation of the facilities.
For example, since the project follows the general slope of the basin, gravity
sewers have been utilized wherever possible and thus reducing energy require-
ments. Pumping of sewage will be required at various points in the basin to
overcome specific terrain obstacles.
Also, it is proposed that the treatment facility heating systems utilize
sewage gas produced in the anaerobic digesters for both heating and dioester
heating purposes. This fuel source will satisfy almost all heating require-
ments associated with the project. Since sludge will be disposed of by
landfill, the large amounts of energy involved with incineration processes
will not be involved. Offsetting this consideration is the fact that land
must be commited for sludge disposal over the lifetime of the project.
Use of resources might be mitigated by the construction of a public
trail or bikeway along the canyon route. However, preservation of the
canyon for public recreation purposes is divided by the fact it is still
privately owned.
-------
COMMITMENT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO CONTINUED USE
Commitments to the construction of the proposed project will necessarily
preclude alternative solutions to the water quality problems in the service
area. In addition, future urban growth within the Chambers Creek Basin which
may be associated with the proposed wastewater collection and treatment facilities
can be considered a secondary irreversible impact. The adverse impacts resulting
from increased urbanization include the conversion of some open space land to
residential - commercial development, increased urban runoff, slight deterioration
of local air quality and increased demands for municipal services.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
The elimination of millions of gallons per day of septic tank effluent
which are now discharged within the basin would result in improved surface
water and groundwater quality and will reduce public health hazards. Also,
the project will assure future generations of valuable groundwater resources
uncontaminated from septic tank effluent. The substantial commitment of
resources such as funds, labor, materials, chemicals and energy are deemed
necessary to produce and maintain a desireable environment in which to live
and thus are retrievable in the form of a quality environment.
-------
-
«*iiiiaiSl'' -
- -.;", -;'' '-% ,VJ :--%*-i^e^5'';V-^°;vr'?»-'^^
s*'"" ~4*Jlil " '^' sS!s> ^aS^'" *'«"°'! ^ ''(|N'" r^i^J^^w^8^' * X"^>'H*'" f .-/ 1* """ --' S,-fc, i» ^v -^^'ft fcC^ "« ^W^^-J^^i '' "
'^ri
'If I - -,." - " \! -, -;-VW,,f!at f~,,9:.
-------
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIS
This section contains letters of comment from agencies, groups and
individuals to the Draft EIS on the Chambers Creek Sewerage System.
These letters have been reproduced in this document. Wherever a response
is required of EPA to the letter, a response page follows that letter.
The following table is a listing of the conment letters received,
the page in this chapter on whch they can be found, and a general category
listing of their contents. Comment categories are shown in an attempt to
indicate those aspects of the proposed action about which the commentors
were most interested and concerned. This may serve to direct the interested
reader to those sections of the document which he may wish to restudy. The
letters are listed in the following order: Federal agencies, State and
local agencies, environmental and other groups, interested citizens.
On November 5, 1975 at the Tacoma City Light Auditorium, EPA held a
public hearing on the Chambers Creek draft EIS. The hearing was attended
by approximately 70 people of which 17 read testimony into the official
record. Because of the length of the official hearing record and the
costs involved, we have not reporduced the document in the final EIS.
However, a table is provided following the comment letters listing the
speakers, their support or opposition to the project, and the areas in
which they were most concerned. The Public Hearing Record is available
for public scrutiny at the Pierce County Library in Tacoma, and at EPA's
Region X library.
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.
1*8
-------
i i
0
co
o
Pierce County
Planning Department
oo
luG
O
-S '
c-f-
O
o>
X
I*
1
-Ca
Puget Sound Council of
Governments
oo
neutral
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1*
CTv
Washington State
Highway Commission
ON
critical
X
1 *
o
Washington State
Department of Game
5-
critical
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t *
1*
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
ON
favorable
X
X
X
I*
o
s
U.S. Dept. Transportation
Federal Highway Admin.
ON
ON
favorable
*
X _
.
-
\ »
1 »
1*
10
<= 0
-i fD
cr-o
0) t+
0 O
n> -h
R> 31
' O
0 C
T3
15'
CJU3
rt
tv
3
O-
ON
neutral
^
X
o
NO
U.S. Dept of Interior
Geological Survey
S
neutral
X
X
1
1 t
1 i
-J
U.S. Dept. of Interior
Pacific Northwest Region
E
neutral
X
X
X
X
X
1
o
JNJ
tNj
o cz
o
~s co
0
o n>
rt-
m
(O O
' -h
fD r+
fD 13-
-S
{/)
S
neutral
X
I*
1 »
. .
X^J
,U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Ul
I-O
neutral
X
3
H , ^
cr
c=
n s:
1 3
m
o
o
m
i
j
r>
H
-n
COST
FISHERIES
WATER QUALITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATF
LAND USE PLANNING
INTERCEPTOR ROUTE
WILDLIFE/VEGETATION
ALTERNATIVES
WATER SUPPLY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
HYDROLOGY/FLOOD
NOISE
TRANSPORTATION/RO/:r
SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE
SHORELINE MANAGEHE.T
GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
HEALTH
POLICY
SEWER CAPACITY
SLIDES/EROSION
-------
i i
O 0
a*5
m
I"
O)
-f
D.
s*
I
ri-
O
3
to
10
UJ
n
2
r+
0
Qi
X
"
X
1 «
h-»
1
~a
_j.
~j
O)'
-o
cr>
.^.
0.
D-
_j.
3
id
t/i
Ki '
(S3
critical
X
X
X
X
l-»
1 »
--^
I"
idward Burkhalter
NJ
U>
neutral
X '
X
1 >
o
CJ
o
. ..J, .
*
>
CO
-s
_J.
3
O
^
^
10
'vj
critical .
X
X
X
;
Concerned Citizens of
Pierce County, Inc.
10
o
ON .
critical
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 1
1
in
Lakewood Sewer and
Water Committee '
10
o
critical
X
X
X
X
.X
s
.
X
.
>-
1"
H-
w
Tahoma Audubon
*
\o
o\
critical
X
X
X
X
,
X
X
I-"
o
PO
10
Washington Archaeological
Research Center
\£>
oj
critical
X
1*
o
oo
Washington State Parks anc
Recreation Commission
VI>
critical
X
1*
»-*
VJ
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
oo
oa
critical
X
» »
^
rv>
Pierce County Board of
County Commissioners
03
\n
n
-%
«j.
n-
~j.
o
Q>
X
X
X
3
I»
" ' ' '-,
able U continued
WRITTEN COMMENT,
FROM j
o
i=>
73
TI
T)
-n
z
H
3
z:
-n
COST
FISHERIES
WATER QUALITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATi
LAND USE PLANNING
INTERCEPTOR ROUTE
WILDLIFE/VEGETATIOf:
ALTERNATIVES
WATER SUPPLY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
HYDROLOGY/FLOOD
NOISE
TRANSPORTATION/ROAL:
SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE
SHORELINE MANAGEMCH
GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
HEALTH
POLICY
SEWER CAPACITY.
SLIDES/EROSION
-------
*
.
s
.
t. "
^-
H-1
>-*
1X5
O
t>
3
C3
|
C+
3"
N)
N3
U>
critical
X
X
1"
I-'
-^
t »
' -e»
z
o>
Q.
2
m
-n
0
3-
n>
1/1
to
10
CO
critical
X
X
_rv-|
t »
l-
-t»
C_i
o
3"
3
CD
i"
rt-
tu
in
ro
ro
«j
critical
X
X
3
ff
-t . !
T1 . '
1
able U continued
WRITTEN COMMENT
FROM 1
o '
&
71
n
7>
n
H
n
COST
FISHERIES
WATER QUALITY
HISTORIC PRESERVATi
LAND USE PLANNING
INTERCEPTOR ROUTE
WILULIFE/i/EGETATIO;:
ALTERNATIVES
WATER SUPPLY
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT
HYDROLOGY/FLOOD
NOISE
TRANSPORTATION/ROAD:
SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE
SHORELINE MANAGEME?:'
GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT
HEALTH
POLICY
SEWER CAPACITY
SLIDES/EROSION
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Room 360 U.S. Courthouse, Spokane, Washington 99201
November 14, 1975
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
i- j
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement on the Chambers
Creek Sewerage System, Pierce County, EPA Project Number C-530565-01.
The project would appear to facilitate the disposal of sewerage effluent
from this urbanizing area on soils with restrictive permeability rates.
The project, however, would not relieve the seasonal high water tables
associated with the area. The Soil Conservation Service has on file an
inactive PL-566 watershed application which with the active support of
the local sponsors could relieve the seasonal flooding.
Thank you for the opportunity to look over your draft. If we can be of
service to you in the future, please let us know.
Sincerely,
.^r^/i /3»-#i'*<^,
Galen S. Bridge HECEiVED
State Conservationist
152
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX C-3755
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124
NPSEN-PL-ER
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on the Chambers
Creek Sewerage System (ULID 73-1) , Pierce County, Washington, EPA Project
Number C-530565-01. We have the following comments.
We would like to remind you that under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act
of 3 March 1899, a Department of the Array permit will be required for the pro-
posed outfall and diffuser in Puget Sound. In addition, since Federal financial
assistance is being provided, the statement should acknowledge that the pro-
posed facilities have been evaluated for potential flood hazard, as required, by
Executive Order 11296.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Sincerely yours,
FRED H. WEBER
Assistant Chief, Engineering Division
RECEIVED
OCT 221975
pp v r»^
153
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1. Information regarding a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers
as well as other permits required for the outfall and diffuser
may be found on page 110. Language, "under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act", has been added for clarity.
2. Information regarding flood hazards may be found in Appendix C.
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208
November 17, 1975
RECEIVED
NOV181975
EPA-E1S
ER-75/964
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
This is in response to your request that the Department of the Interior
review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement for
Chambers Creek Sewerage System, Pierce County, Washington.
GENERAL COMMENTS;
Adequate information on fish and wildlife impacts was not available until
a copy of the Pierce County environmental statement on this project was
obtained and used as a corollary in review of the EPA draft. Fish and
wildlife impacts are not adequately treated in the EPA draft statement,
and the reader is referred to the Pierce County Statement.
Since not all reviewers may have been able to obtain a copy of the
predecessor County environmental statement, it is suggested that in the
future, all pertinent documents should be provided to those entities
requested to participate in the review process or that all information
be included in the environmental statement prepared by EPA.
The draft statement indicates very careful consideration of the occur-
rence, use and significance of ground water in the project area and in
general reflects proper consideration of impacts of the proposed project
on ground water. However, in some places in the text (page 105, 106)
flow from springs is considered as not representing ground water, that is,
as being recharge to ground water. This may be confusing, especially
in the rather complex situation that exists in the project area; springs
should always be considered as discharge points for ground water.
155
-------
For effective evaluation of impacts the draft statement should at least
indicate the general distribution of various depths to ground water and
the ranges of changes in depths to ground water in given locations and
geohydrologic situations within the project area.
Proper evaluation of effects of the implementation of the proposed project
requires distinguishing current effects of septic-tank effluents on ground
water from those resulting from non-point sources, at least on the basis
of type examples which could then be used to appraise the relative signifi-
cance of the two types of sources in the area. It is suggested that for
such evaluations information such as fecal coliform/fecal streptococci
ratios (mentioned on page 66 as lacking for the area) and perhaps other
natural or deliberately introduced tracers may be very useful.
The statement should indicate more quantitatively, at least for type
geohydrologic situations within the project area, the degree of correlation
between infiltration of precipitation and resultant recharge of aquifers
and should probably consider the current amount of rejected recharge, some
of which might be salvaged if the project is implemented.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS;
Page 75, Archeological/Historical. The discussion on archeological resources
covers only historically recorded Indian villages and is of limited value.
The area may contain historic villages which were not recorded or occupa-
tion sites of more ancient times. We recommend that you consult Dr. Robert
C. Dunnell of the Anthropology Department at the University of Washington,
to determine if an archeological field survey is necessary. The results
of the consultation should also be reported and documented in the final
statement.
Page 78, second paragraph. This paragraph suggests that there are no
National Register properties in the project area. However, there are
three such properties in Steilacoom which are within the project area.
The "National Register of Historic Places" and the Washington State
Historic Preservation Officer should be consulted to determine if sites on,
or eligible for, the National Register are located within the project area.
Page 119, third complete paragraph, lines 3-7. The two sentences
beginning "The location of a treatment plant ," are misleading. The
proposed treatment plant site (Alternative A, page A-21) lies within the
proposed industrial and mining use category area. While the land use is
compatible with a proposed sewage treatment plant, the environmental
statement does not specify that sand and gravel resources would be
irretrievably lost by construction of the plant. Sand and gravel is now
probably available in surrounding areas. However, projects such as this
156
-------
which withdraw deposits from mining only aggravate the scarcity of
construction materials in urban areas and add to their costs. The commit-
ment of the sand and gravel resource should be discussed in the environ-
mental statement with respect to the adequacy of the present sand and
gravel resources in the area to supply future demands of construction
materials.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this document.
Sincerely yours,
Charles S. Polity!
Acting Special Assistant
to the Secretary
157
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
1. The text has been clarified accordingly, see pages 105 and 106.
2. Information regarding the general distribution of various depths
to groundwater and the ranges in changes in depths to groundwater
may be obtained from Figure 8 (page 56) entitled "Water Table
Contours and Selected Observation Wells in the Tacoma Area".
3. As noted, such information is not available; also, a baseline
of several years would be required to identify a meaningful trend.
Thus, such a comparison is not possible for the purposes of this
report.
4. Due to limited time and the complexity of various geohydrologic
situations in the project area, a correlation between infiltration
of precipitation and resultant recharge of aquifers is not possible.
However, in light of the potential lowering of the groundwater
table of only 6 to 8 inches, the value of a recharge project is
questionable.
5. A report is being prepared and the preliminary results are
included in Appendix J. A final report will be available at
EPA's Region X library in early January.
6. This discussion has been added to the final, see chapter on
irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments. It should
be noted that although a potential gravel excavation site will be
lost, the remaining gravel is not commercially valuable because
of the presence of fines and other impurities.
158
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water Resources Division
1305 Taocma Avenue South
Tacoma, Washington 98402
October 29, 1975
Reigonal Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: M/S 443
Dear Sir:
Subject: Review of draft environmental impact statement
for Chambers Creek sewerage system (ULID 73-1),
Pierce County, Washington, EPA Project No.
C-530565-01.
We have reviewed the subject document and find it to be
generally adequate and accurate in its evaluation of the
environmental impact of the proposed action on the water
resources of the area.
We note that several published U.S. Geological Survey reports
and other USGS data were properly used in the preparation
of this statement. However, we offer the following
comments which we hope will improve or clarify the statement:
1. Page 9, second to last sentence in (c)
What are nitrogen chlorides?
2. Page 9, first sentence in (a)chloriform?
Is coliform meant?
3. Page 43, last sentence of first paragraph
sentence is not technically correct as the
constituents are probably well below solubility
limits. The author probably means to say that
the shallow ground waters are highly contaminated
by septic tank effluent, yet he has just stated
that the proportion due to septic tanks is
unknown and states it again on page 64, first
paragraph.
159
-------
4. Page 57, second sentence of third paragraph
It seems that to make an accurate assessment,
some quantities and locations of polluting
osurces would need to be known or measured,
rather than estimated.
5. Page 64, second sentence of second paragraph
This is not necessarily so, and without verification,
cannot even be assumed. There are many, many
areas where large quantities of fertilizers are
used, and the nutrients do not reach the ground
water in substantial amounts.
6. Page 64, last sentence of fourth paragraphThis
conclusion can only be reached if storm runoff
is the only source of phosphorus. How much of the
lake's phosphorus comes from ground water.
Vegetation may change and it may not. A better
sentence might be "Accordingly, a sewerage system
would not significantly reduce this source of
phosphorus to the lake, because it will not
intercept it."
7. Page 65, Table 1Feces net weight for a duck
is over twice that for a manhard to believe.
8. Page 68, fourth sentence of first paragraph
"Linear alkane sulfurates" may be called linear
alkane sulfonates, but are better called linear
alkyl sulfonates.
9. Page 68, last sentence of second paragraph
Should change last part of sentence to read
"and, therefore, the system may be phosphate-
limited in some cases when ratios are less
than 15:1.
10. Page 68, second sentence of fourth paragraph
We suggest deletion of this sentence since
it is contradicted by the next sentence and by
known fact. Bacteria, BOB, and nutrients may
not show up at downstream sites due to natural
assimilation by the stream.
11. Page 70, second sentence of second paragraph
Isn't this somewhat contradictory? Also, we
assume that to be nitrogen-limited there should
be a "less than" inserted so that it would read
"(N:P less than 15)."
160
-------
12.
13.
14,
15.
16.
Page 70, first sentence of third paragraph
You cannot tell from the table that "Lake
Louise has gotten considerably worse." The
data for 1972 suggest such a change, but the
data for 1973 and 1974 are not comparable, since
they cover the season of expected worst possible
conditions only. Percentages are therefore
misleading.
Page 73, first sentence, first paragraph--What
is a "surface well." Possibly a "shallow well"
is meant?
Page 106, second paragraphGround water
rehabilitation will occur only to the extent by
which it is now being degraded by septic tank
and other effluents which the sewerage system
will intercept. Other sources of pollution will
not be affected. The last sentence may not be
true since the degree of improvement cannot be
predicted.
Page F-2 Range of conductivity for American
Lake is given as 05 to 120. The 05 is incorrect.
Pages F-3 and F-4 Please cite your source for
this information.
Sincerely yours, -
f^r "3. R.^Williams
Inquiries Officer
cc:
Regional Hydrologist, WRD, WR,
Menlo Park, California
G. H. Davis, WRD, Reston, Virginia
(Attn: G. H. Chase)
161
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
1. This sentence has been corrected to read "chloramine".
2. This sentence has been corrected to read "coliforms".
3. This sentence has been corrected to read "highly contaminated".
4. This qualifying sentence is correctly stated.
5. This sentence accurately reflects a valid professional opinion.
As with all matters, there are differing opinions. By the remark
in the letter "there are many, many areas where large quantities
of fertilizers are used and the nutrients do not reach the ground-
water in substantial amount", the writer is probably referring to
areas outside of the subject area. Hany types of surficial geological
formations other than those found in the subject area do not
experience this type of problem.
6. This sentence has been changed to read "accordingly, a sewerage
system would not significantly reduce this source of phosphorus to
the lake, because it would not intercept it".
7. No comment necessary.
8. This sentence has been changed to read "linear alkyl sulfonates".
9. This sentence is correctly stated.
10. This sentence has been changed to read "it should be recognized that
pollutants entering at the source, or upstream, will tend to show
up at all points downstream, with some dilution by possible clean
water sources entering downstream and some reduction due to natural
assimilation". This sentence is not deleted because in this
particular system, pollutants do tend to show up at downstream points.
11. This sentence has been changed to read "both Gravelly and Waughop
have very large nitrogenous inputs; in particular, more than half
of the available nitrogen in Gravelly Lake is in the ammonia form".
12. The percentages given in Table M, page 71, refer to the percentage of
samples taken which exceed the standards of various agencies. Lake
Louise has shown a consistent trend of samples exceeding applicable
Washington State Standards.
13. The words "surface well" have been changed to read "shallow well".
162
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (Continued)
14. This sentence is correctly stated.
15. "05" has been changed to read "95".
16. This information, as noted in Reference 8, comes from M. R. Ceilings,
"Data on Selected Lakes in Washington, Part I", U.S. Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey, open file report". 1973.
163
-------
°'*uo
REGION X
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ARCADE PLAZA BUILDING, 1321 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
November 17, 1975
Office of Community
Planning & Development
IN REPLY REFER TO:
10D
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
RECEIVED
I.TiV 1 9 IS 75
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chambers Creek Sewerage System
We have reviewed the Impact Statement submitted with your September 22,
1975 letter requesting comments by November 17-
The proposed action is the construction of a sanitary sewer system in
Pierce County, Washington to service the areas designated as Stage 1
of the Chambers Creek-Clover Creek Basin Sewerage General Plan.
We feel that your statement adequately covers our area of concern with
the exception of noise. We suggest that a noise contour map developed
by McChord Air Force Base be included in the Statement so that citizens
are fully aware that certain areas in the service area would not be eli
gible for housing assistance from our Department, and that local govern
ments should give serious consideration to zone these areas in a manner
that would be compatible with aircraft noise.
One other comment has to do with the preparation of an impact statement
by both the Federal Agency and the County. Although you indicate that
the County's statement could not be accepted as satisfying the require-
ment of NEPA, it appears that the County could have accepted your state
ment as meeting the State Environmental Policy Act and not distributed
their statement. This may not have been within your control, but we
would like to see some effort made to preclude the preparation of two
final sttCt ement s .
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Scalia
Asistant Regional Administrator
164
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
1. The issue of zoning for land uses compatible with aircraft noise is
a local issue and is more appropriately considered on a local level.
We would like to comply with your request to reproduce the McChord
Air Force Base noise contour map in the EIS; however, the size of .
these maps precludes easy and quick reproduction. Vie would refer
the interested reader to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for map information.
2. See the response to the letter from the Pierce County Planning
Department.
165
-------
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Room 412 Mohawk Building
222 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97204
October 8, 1975
IN REPLY REFER TO
10ED.1
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Federal Highway Administration, Region 10 have reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Chambers Creek Sewerage System
(ULID 73-1), Pierce County, Washington. We believe the subject
EIS recognizes and adequately discusses the impact of the sewer
line construction on the areas road and street system. It is stated
that close coordination will be continued with the Pierce County
Road Department. The assessment of road impact is considered ade-
quate.
Sincerely yours,
Richard C. Cowdery, Director
Office of Environment and Design
By: Elmer J.6£eland, Traffic
Operations Engineer
RECEIVED
166
-------
November 14, 1975
Richard R. Thlel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency r._.CEiv "
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: Chambers Creek Sewage System - Draft EIS Comments "' '
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Representatives of the Department of Ecology have reviewed the subject draft
impact statement. The following general and specific comments are offered
in the hope that they will aid you in the preparation of your final EIS.
The Department is most anxious for a resolution of this issue in order that
good groundwater quality can be insured.
General comments:
1. The alternatives seem to be fairly well written, but depend on
earlier sections for support and don't stand well by themselves.
A further elaboration as to effects on both surface and groundwater
and the biota, especially fisheries, would be appropriate.
2. Groundwater quality is a concern. It might be helpful to add some
detail of the present water system.
3. The generation of large quantities of sludge may be a problem. The
EIS should address the ability of existing, and planned landfills
to accommodate this material or alternative methods of treatment/
disposal.
4. From the EIS it is not readily apparent why the treatment plant
cannot be located far from the shoreline with the outfall pipe
extending to Puget Sound.
Specific Comments:
1. Page 9 (6c) - reference is made to nitrogen chloride. We assume
that this refers to compounds resulting from chlorination of water
containing ammonia. The term chloramines is used to identify the
general class of compounds resulting from combining chlorine and
167
-------
amnonia. Any adverse effect resulting from chlorlnation could be
reduced by dechlorination or elimtnated by using other dislnftction
methods such as ozonatlon or ultraviolet.
2. Page 9 (7a) - Is a decrease a major adverse impact? Also,
"chloriform" might well be "coliform".
3. Page 16 - Groundwater Contamination
"It is thought that ..." Subsequent statements indicate the
discontinuity of the "impermeable" layer. This statement then is
unnecessarily weak.
4. Page 17 - West Tacoma Newsprint is now Boise Cascade.
5. Page 18 - Second Paragraph - Indicates tbnt extent of treatment is
unknown.
6. Page 25 - Westside Water District has a Step I Grant.
7. Page 28 - Westside Water District is overloaded (BOD) and is
having some operational difficulties. Steilacoom has or will have
Step I grant and will be proceeding with I & I rehab.
8. Page 31 - B. C. Mill - DOE has determined not W.S.P.P.C.
9. Page 34 - Domestic flows - last sentence-This statement may not
be totally accurate, because a large percentage of homes now have
these appliances.
10. Page 37 - 95 gal/cap/day appears high. We use 75 gal/cap/day
plus I & I or 100 gal/cap/day.
11. Page 42 - Second Paragraph - last sentence - add " and health hazards".
Last Paragraph - Soils may be high in coliform but not in fecal.
12. Page 49 - Seventh Paragraph - "low permeability" may not give
protection. Impermeability would be required.
13. Page 15 - This section is poor. Treatment is definitely of primary
concern and should be emphasized (i.e. treatment by the soils).
This is briefly mentioned on page 53, but more is known about
treatment than is indicated. As a minimum, DSHS On-Site Sewage
Disposal System Regs should be brought out as current technology
dealing with both treatment and permeability.
The fast perc problem is ignored (third paragraph and maps). The
permeabilities of up to .61 ft/min mentioned translate into .14 min/1n.
168
-------
A large part of the reason for the ban covering the lower basin
area was the excessive perc rate and the resulting P04, NCU and
other contaminates carrying Into the ground water and even into
surface waters. This needs to be corrected on the maps too.
Perc rates less than 1 min/in are declared excessive (DSHS Reg)
and require lot sizes of one acre (nrin) where there is a public
water supply and two acres for a private supply. Then-fore, much
of the area is probably unsuitable or severely restricted for septic
tank/drainfield use. Indeed this is one of the major problems in
the area.
14. Page 63 - NPDES - Flett Dairy, Pioneer Sand and Gravel and PLU
don't have NPDES permits.
15. Page 64 - Non-Point Sources
Fourth Paragraph - The statement that "a sewage system
would not significantly reduce vegetative growth" is much too
strong and can only be conjecture. If storm water phosphorus
"may" (preceding sentence) contribute, how can anyone be sure
what the sewage is doing? The relative contribution of various
sources is unknown - sewage contribution may well be significant.
16. Page 66 - First Paragraph - last sentence - add "however, soil
characteristics in the Parkland-Midland area would Indicate that
sewage is a major contributor."
17. Page 91 - Significant Habitats - small streams and most marshes
are not protected by the Shorelines Management program.
18. Page 97 - Third Paragraph - last sentence - with resultant "further"
contamination.
19. Page 100 - Third Paragraph- as noted above, the ability of the
existing soils to filter and purify 1s known. Its poor.
I 20. Page 102 - Last Paragraph - Has life of landfill with added sludge
I been determined?
Thank you for the opportunity to review this EIS. We have included some
information and suggested changes. We would be pleased to discuss any of
these comments in more detail. If you wish to do so, please contact Mr. Gene
Asselstine, Regional Director of our Southwest Regional Office (753-0132).
T. L. Elwell
Environmental Review Section
cc: Gene Asselstine
Norm Glenn
Sen. "Slim" Rasmusen
169
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Extensive groundwater information is available from EPA, Region X,
Seattle, Washington, in a report entitled "Groundwater Monitoring
F.Y. 1975 for South Tacoma-Lakewood Area, Washington". A table
has been added to Appendix E on groundwater quality from selected
wells.
2. Pierce County is currently planning to dispose of the sludge at
Thunfield Sanitary Landfill, close to the Thunfield air strip.
The County is also investigating alternative sludge disposal
techniques e.g. land application.
3. The selection location for the treatment plant on the mount of
Chambers Creek will reduce pumping requirements, particularly the
necessity to pump potential flows from Steilacoom. Also, this site
is compatible with the surrounding land uses, which are primarily
industrial. Further up the hill, the land is undeveloped or is
predominantly residential.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
These comments have been incorporated as textual changes, except
for those listed below:
4. It has been our experience, based on review of many facilities
plans throughout Washington and Oregon, that 95 gal/cap/day is
a conservative and satisfactory design value.
5. The Thunfield Sanitary Landfill should accommodate the design
life of the proposed sewerage system.
170
-------
600 North Capitol Way / Olympia, Washington 98504
Game Commission
Claudi' Rckins. Seattle, Chairman
Glenn Galbraith. Wellpiml
Frank L Cassttly. Jr. Varn'imer
'IrthurS Coffin Yattma
Elizabeth W Meuiliiuirnft. Tacom.t
Archtv I' Millt Weihitiht'c
Director / Carl N. Crouse
Assistant Din-dorr , Ralph U" Larson
jack V Vi jytanJ
October 31, 1975
RFCEiVEO
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 Chambers
Creek Sewerage System (U.L.I.D. 73-1), Project #C-530565-01,
Pierce County, Washington -- was reviewed by our staff as re-
quested. Our comments follow.
Your draft is well organized, well written, and
appears to be accurate. However, there are several areas of
concern to our agency that need further clarification. These
are discussed below.
According to your draft, Pierce County proposes to
construct a central treatment system, including connection
sewers, trunk lines, interceptors, secondary biological treat-
ment plant, and a submarine outfall (pp. 17 and 102). The
wastewater treatment plant will be located approximately 1/2
mile north of the mouth of Chambers Creek. The outfall will
be in 130 feet of water in Puget Sound (pp. 61 and 102). Sewage
will flow to the treatment plant through an interceptor placed
along the north wall of Chambers Creek Canyon (pp. 102, 103,
A-13-15) .
The report failed to identify the treatment process
at the "secondary biological treatment plant". We suspect
there is probably more than one type of treatment plant that
falls in this category.
The project objectives, as described in the text
(pp. 14-17) are to solve wastewater disposal and water quality
problems. You (pp. 68, Fl-4) identified water quality problems
that occur in project area creeks, lakes, and drainage ditches.
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
October 31, 1975
Page 2
As you stated, several streams have high coliform and nutrient
levels and lakes have high coliform and/or nitrogen levels.
The State Department of Ecology placed a ban on construction of
septic tanks in the Chambers Creek-Clover Creek basin in 1971
which was modified to allow limited construction in 1973
(pp. 18-19).
A good case is developed in this draft for the need
of a sewage disposal system in spite of your acknowledgement
throughout the report that present water quality problems may
not be solved by the proposed project. Sources of water con-
tamination are not limited to septic tank effluent; other
sources include lawn fertilization, waterfowl, livestock, and
contaminants carried in storm runoff (pp. 64, 109). Neverthe-
less, we believe that a sewage system (if evaluated on a long
term basis) will, if not improve water quality, prevent further
deterioration. Prevention of such deterioration is most im-
portant from a fish and wildlife standpoint. We trust this
point will be given serious consideration.
Chapter III (Study Area Environment) has several
omissions of relevant items. The fact that our agency's
South Tacoma Fish Hatchery is located on Chambers Creek is
reported (p. 62) , but the importance of this hatchery to the
state-wide steelhead program is not identified. Most of the
steelhead eggs for Department of Game's steelhead management
program originate from this hatchery. Any reduction in the
Chambers Creek steelhead run would be of state-wide signifi-
cance. Conspicuously absent from the otherwise excellent
lists of wildlife (Appendix F) is a list of fish species in-
habiting the project area. Chambers Creek is the most important
anadromous fish stream; it supports steelhead, several species
of salmon and resident trout. We would appreciate inclusion,
in the final impact statement, of the information given above.
Three alternatives, no-action, or interceptor and
centralized treatment plant (the proposed project), and com-
munity systems and the adverse and beneficial impacts of each
are outlined in Chapter IV.
From a fish and wildlife standpoint, the only accept-
able alternative is the proposed project (with some modifica-
tion as discussed below). As summarized in the text (pp. 132-
133), the no-action alternative would result in long term
172
-------
4
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
October 31, 1975
Page 3
continued degradation of water quality. Community systems, as
proposed, are unacceptable because stream flows are insufficient
to dilute wastewater effluent (p. 132) under present state water
quality regulations. One may ask Is this really an altern-
ative since it is not permissible under current state law?
The proposed project calls for placement of a trunk
line in Chambers Creek Canyon above and north of the creek.
Possible adverse impacts are identified as line seepage and
instability of the banks (p. 112); the biological impacts of
siltation, landslides, or raw sewage seeping into the creek
were not discussed. The importance of the steelhead run in
Chambers Creek cannot be over-emphasized.
Alternate interceptor routes were considering (A13-23)
more from the standpoint of construction and annual costs than
from the environmental costs. Alternate 3 (locate the main
interceptor out of Chambers Creek Canyon) appears to be the
best alternative. From a fish and wildlife standpoint, this
alternative does allow modest increase in construction and
annual costs. However, we favor alternate 3 over alternate 1
for the following reason. Placement of the trunk line outside
of Chambers Creek Canyon would prevent any possibility of con-
tamination of the creek due to seepage and streambed degradation
due to siltation or landslides. This would be beneficial to the
hatchery resource and Chambers Creek as a whole.
The placement of an effluent outfall near the mouth
of Chambers Creek (one of the most important water courses in
the state to Department of Game's steelhead management program)
may be questionable. Sites distant from Chambers Creek were
apparently not considered (A-23). Further consideration of
this issue in your final statement would be helpful to us.
In summary, DEIS for Chambers Creek Sewerage System,
in spite of several omissions of fact, describes the project,
the need for the project, ,and its adverse and beneficial impacts
in an accurate, concise manner. The summary sheet (pp. 8-10)
and summary of alternatives and impacts (pp. 132-133) are well
done and useful.
As a final note, we would like to submit to you a
comment we made in response to Pierce County's draft impact
statement on this project. We feel this point is of utmost impor-
tance. "There is one area of impact which we feel deserves careful
consideration in proposals of this type. This concerns secondary
173
-------
Mr. Richard R. Thiel
October 31, 1975
Page 4
impacts of sewage improvement projects. The following question
can be raised: Will this project increase the rate of urbaniza-
tion in the project area to the extent that associated problems
(removal of wildlife habitat, increased surface runoff, etc.) of
increased population density outweigh benefits associated with
removal of sewage from area waters? We trust that you have
looked at this aspect during past planning sessions and that
you will continue to do so in the future."
Very truly yours,
THE. DEPARTMENT OF
Eugene S. Dziedzic
Assistant Chief - Wildlife
Environmental Management Division
ESD:hl
cc: Chitwood
Agencies
17**
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GAME
1. The secondary biological treatment technique chosen will employ
the activated sludge process.
2. This information has been added to pages 62, 75, and 110, and is
also discussed in the chapter on short term uses and long term
productivity of the proposed project.
3. The dilution requirement is not a State law, but is a Department
of Ecology policy; therefore, community systems are legally feasible.
4. Because Alternative Route 1 lies closer to Chambers Creek, it is
expected that the potential for adverse impacts to the creek will
be greater than for Alternative Route 3. This potential will be
significantly mitigated by stringent contract specifications and
careful monitoring during construction. See Preface and Chapter VI
for further information. Even though the potential adverse impacts
on the creek are greater for Route 1, the placement of Route 3 does
not preclude runoff problems. Runoff and possible siltation of
Chambers Creek would also have to be mitigated for Route 3.
5. The exact location and design of the outfall has not yet been
determined. Preliminary studies by the County show that outfall
placement near to the mouth of Chambers Creek will not result in
effluent being carried back up the mouth of the creek. Proper
outfall design will preclude this type of problem.
6. He feel that the EIS has adequately considered this impact.
175
-------
WASHINGTON STATE
HIGHWAY COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
Highway Administration Building
Olympia. Washington 9S5O4 (SOS) 753-BOOS
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Daniel I. Evans-Governor
G.H. Andrews - D/'rec (or
October 30, 1975
Chambers Creek Sewerage System (ULID 73-1)
Pierce County, Washington
EPA Project Number C-530565-01
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Thiel:
The Department of Highways has reviewed the subject environmental statement
and has found that there will be no significant impacts on State highways,
existing or planned.
The draft statement does not have sufficient information to determine if
any construction will be required on State highway rights-of-way in the
area. If construction is required on State rights-of-way, it will be
necessary to obtain the appropriate permit and/or franchise from the
Department of Highways.
The Department of Highways will be vitally interested in the location of
sewer lines along or across State highways. Coordination of these
locations and permit requests should be initiated through 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
By:
HRG:eh
RA/RBD
cc: V. W. Korf
H. R. GOFF
Assistant Director for
Planning, Research and State Aid
RECEIVED
NQYCC 1S75
Baker Ferguson. Chairman
Walla Walla
A. H. Parker Howard Sorensen 176 Virginia K d
Bremerton Ellensburg Seattle
Julia Butler Ilanscit
Cathlamet
HarolJ I Boulac
Secretary
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
WASHINGTON STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION
The roads and highways throughout Pierce County are continually
being upgraded and expanded by the Washington State Highway Department
and the Pierce County Public Works Department. As project plans evolve,
the appropriate permits and/or franchises will be acquired from the
Department of Highways.
177
-------
Grand Central on the Park 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Wash. 98104 206/464-7090
Puget Sound Council of Governments
November 13, 1975
Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Chambers Creek Sewerage System
PSCOC File # PR/9511/75
Dear Mr. Thiel:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject draft environ-
mental impact statement. My staff found the statement to be well written, however,
felt that it raised a few questions which may require further research. The
following comments which have been endorsed by the Pierce County Subregional
Committee of this agency, are offered for your consideration in the preparation of
a final impact statement.
1. Page 25: The statement that, ".. .9,000,000 gallons of sewage are dis-
charged into the groundwater each day from these septic tank systems"
is misleading. That amount of effluent is released after it has been
treated by the septic tanks and drainfields.
2. Page 33: It would be helpful to indicate in Table B the density of
development within each sub-service area for each year. This figure
ranges from 4.4 persons per acre in 1980 to 5.9 persons per acre in 2000
for Stage I. For Stage II, the densities are 3.1 in 1980 and 4.6 in 2000.
These figures may be helpful in tracing measured pollution problems
to probable sources. At this density of development, it is quite plausible
that pollution is due to causes other than failing septic tanks for the study
area as a whole. The statement on page 42 that, "... it is not certain
that septic tank usage is the entire or even the major portion of the water
quality problems" is reflective of this.
3. Page 37: With an infiltration rate of 600 gal Ions/day/acre and a residential
density of 2 du's/acre, the infiltration will consitute 50% of the volume
to be handled by the treatment plant. At what ratio is the collection and
treatment of groundwater consistent with waste treatment cost effectiveness
criteria?
RECEIVED
::-(iY l 'd'j/5
178
-------
Richard R. Thiel
November 13, 1975
Page Two
4. Page 39: Reduction of infiltration/inflow for the existing Steilacoom system
is rejected as a project alternative, yet, treatment plant overloading is
presently caused by the high infiltration/inflow rate in the old collection
system (pages 28 and 32). On page A-2, it is apparent that cost-effectiveness
studies considered only the alternative of enlarging the treatment facilities
rather than reducing the volumes to be treated. The question raised is
whether wastes from the Steilacoom collection system might be more efficiently
treated at the Steilacoom plant (constructed in 1965) if improvements to the
collection system were made.
5. Page 43: In view of the remarks on page 42 regarding possible pollution
sources, evidence should be given to support the statement that: "The
shallow groundwaters are saturated with septic tank effluent". How deep is
the unsaturated zone between septic tank drain tiles and seasonal groundwater?
6. Page 43: To determine whether groundwater nitrates are due to sewage or
fertilizer, the nitrate should be studied. In order to solve the pollution
problem, it is necessary to identify the cause and not rely on unsubstantiated,
though probable, general statements. Chloride might be used as a proxie
measure of sewage nitrate if the statement made on page 67 is correct.
7. Page 71: If the water level of the lakes is lowered due to sewerage facilities
construction, the coliforms introduced through infiltration may be reduced,
but the concentration may not actually diminish.
8. Page 83: The 1979 population increase figure should be 48.0%, rather than
4.8%.
9. Page 96: The no action alternative might include land use controls restricting
development in those areas where surficial geology and soil characteristics
actually cause a perched water table and drain field inundation.
10. Page 109: The statement, "If unpurified septic tank effluent is reaching the
groundwater and the surface waters it constitutes one of many sources of
contaminants causing the observed water quality problems" is inconsistent
with the beneficial impacts listed on page 107. Can the quantities of agri-
cultural runoff, etc. be estimated and compared to septic tank wastes to
permit some comprehension of the relative impact of different waste sources
on water quality?
11. Page 112: The relocation of the interceptor from the valley bottom represents
the kind of modification which the EIS process is intended to stimulate.
However, it would be well to discuss any potential landslide hazards which
might result in pipe breakage.
179
-------
Richard R. Thiel
November 13, 1975
Page Three
12. Page 123: Will there be no monthly service charges required in addition to
area charge, frontage charge, and equivalent capacity charge?
13. Page 124: If nine percent of the families in the area are below poverty level,
it may be considered unjust to confront them with sewer assessments if the
cause of pollution is determined to be from other than septic tanks. Where are
these families located relative to the actual pollution problems identified in
Figure 10? Will they be subsidizing solutions to problems which may be
caused by agricultural runoff or other factors?
14. Page 126: The use of land use controls to increase densities, and thereby
reduce individual assessments, suggests another similar approach - reducing
densities allowed in those specific areas where soils and surficial geology
cause pollution from resulting septic tank failures (see comment #9).
15. If the water is lowered by six to eight feet this may cause numerous cases of
cracked foundations in houses and other structures. What is the clay content
of the soils, (shrink-swell capacity)?
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this draft EIS. I hope our comments
will be useful to you in developing a final document which will serve as an effective
decision-making tool.
Very truly yours,
'Mart Kask
Executive Director
180
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
1. This sentence has been changed to read "As a result an estimated
9,000,000 gallons of sewage are discharged into the groundwater
each day after it has been treated by septic tanks and drainfields".
2. This information has been added to page 34.
3. Infiltration factors have been considered in the preliminary design
and will be reconsidered as more detailed decisions are developed.
See response #3 to DOE's letter.
4. Steilacoom has a Step 1 grant to study the infiltration and inflow
problem. The cost of continued and/or upgrading the treatment plant
at Steilacoom is about the same as providing treatment at the proposed
plant, except for energy costs. The operation of two sewage treatment
plants will require more energy use than the operation of one plant.
Furthermore, from an environmental standpoint, it would be preferable
to abandon the Steilacoom plant because it is located on one of the
few public beaches in the study area.
5. As per the letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey, this sentence has been changed to read "the shallow ground-
waters are highly contaminated with septic tank effluent", rather
than "saturated".
6. Present data is insufficient to make such a comparison.
7. This would be true if the level of the lakes would be significantly
lowered; however, such a result is not likely. The groundwater may be
dropped 6 to 8 inches which should result only in a slight, if any,
impact on the lake levels.
8. This change has been noted.
9. This comment has been included on page 96; however, it should be
noted that land use controls alone will not protect the deeper
aquifer used as a water supply from degradation. Contamination
could still reach the water table in those areas which have a fast
percolation problem. Also, Figure 6 on page 50 shows how pollution
can traverse land use lines.
10. The statements are consistent. The quality of shallow groundwater
will be improved to the extent that the problem is related to the
presence of septic tank effluent.
Such a comparison would not be very illuminating. Agricultural runoff
is probably reaching the creeks beyond the point where creeks feed
the groundwater. For example, Flett Creek which flows through an
agricultural area flows directly into Chambers Creek and thence to
Puget Sound. Septic tank effluent reaches the shallow water table
throughout a broad area. This, the two types of inputs are not
sufficiently coincidental for a valid comparison.
181
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (Continued)
11. Although the canyon is not naturally a slide prone area, cutting
a swath halfway up the face of the canyon wall wil increase slide
potential and consequently the possibility of breakage. However,
any slide potential created by disruption of surface vegetation will
be mitigated by seeding and replanting efforts. See Preface and
Chapter VI for further information.
12. There will also be a variable monthly service charge of approximately
$8.00 a month. This information has been added to the EIS.
13. As shown by a comparison of Figures 10 and 13, large areas with
water quality problems, particularly problems related to the presence
of surficial geological formations which do not adequately absorb septic
tank effluent, coincide with low income areas. This, the "subsidy"
situation suggested does not really exist.
14. This comment has been added to page 97.
15. The water table will only be lowered an estimated 6 to 8 inches,
thus cracked foundations, etc., should not be a problem.
182
-------
COUNTY-CITY BUILDING
TACOMA. WASHINGTON
PIERCE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
J.N. SHENSKY, Director
October 27, 1975
EPA Region X
1200 - 6th Ave.
Seattle, Washington
98101
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Chambers Creek
Sewage System (EPA).
Gentlemen:
The base information presented in the draft E.I.S. is very similar
to that presented in Pierce County Public Works E.I.S. document.
The shuffling of data and inclusion of educational text material
does not radically change the character of the information
previously presented by Pierce County Public Works. It is difficult
for this Department to understand why a joint County assessment/EPA
E.I.S. was not prepared.
Does the $72,000,000.00 attached to the project reflect the cost
of the two E.I.S.'s?
Very truly yours,
J. N. SHENSKY
by: Dan Vossler
Environmental Planner
JNS/DV/tw
RECEIVED
o;;i 3013:5
183
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
PIERCE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The $72,000,000 cost of the project does include the cost of the
County's environmental assessment. The expense of this environmental
impact statement is borne solely by EPA. At the time of the County's
preparation of their environmental assessment, EPA's Regional Counsel
determined that by joining the two EIS processes, EPA would be
delegating its NEPA responsibility contrary to case law judgements.
It was, therefore, determined that a separate EPA EIS was required.
-------
COUNTY-CITY BUILDING
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Patrick J. Gallagher, District No. 1
George P. Sheridan, District No. 2
Clay Huntmgton, District No. 3
December 1, 1975
SUL-2768
WM. R. THORNTON
Public Works Director
H. A. HAGESTAD
Utilities Director
Richard R. Thiel, Chief RECEIVED
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency fj££ r- iq--£:
1200 Sixth Avenue 'J
Seattle, Washington 98101 CD*
Subject: E.P.A. Draft Environmental Impact Statement ULID 73-1
Chambers Creek Basin Sewerage System
E.P.A. Project No. C-530565
Dear Mr. Thiel:
In accordance with your letter of 9-22-75, Pierce County has completed its review of
the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Chambers Creek Basin Sewerage Project, (ULID 73-1), and we have the following comments.
Generally, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is stated to be an issue-oriented
document which specifically addresses the issues raised during the public hearing
and received from written comments received to Pierce County's Draft E.I.S. We wish
to point out that many of these issues have been addressed in Pierce County's Final
E.I.S., specifically Chapter 10. Copies of this final E.I.S. have been transmitted
to E.P.A. officials.
The E.P.A. Draft E.I.S. states that it cannot be concluded, based on present data, that
inadequately treated wastewater from septic tanks are causing high total coliform con-
centrations observed in some of the local lakes and streams nor that septic tank effluent
is reaching deeper aquifers. In our opinion and as stated in the Pierce County E.I.S.,
both of the above conditions do_ exist today to some extent within the basin. We believe
sufficient data does exist to imply both existing and potential contamination to the lakes,
streams and groundwater within the U.L.I.D. area. The E.P.A. Draft E.I.S. does not address
the potential problem of heavy metals, dissolved organics or viruses.
The E.P.A. Draft E.I.S. indicates that, without a complete understanding of the basii.
geology and hydrology, it would be difficult to assess the effects the removing of the
septic tank effluent would have on the level of groundwater in the basin. While a detail?
analysis could not be completed without additional information it is our opinion that th
is sufficient information to indicate the change in water level due to the removal of 1
MGD of septic tank effluent from the basin will have only a nominal effect on the lak
level in comparison to the normal seasonal variation in the lake levels, and that thi;
nominal change in groundwater would make it highly unlikely that water would have to
imported to replenish the underground water supply.
185
-------
Richard R. TMel
December 1, 1975
Page 2
The E.P.A. Draft E.I.S. identifies areas within the ULID where, based on soil permeabil-
ity, septic tanks would be suitable. However, the draft does not address the treatment of
septic tank effluent by the soil mechanisms and the fact that soil types with high perme-
ability may be very inadequate as far as attenuation and/or treatment of harmful consti-
tuents found in septic tank effluents prior to their entrance to local lakes or surface
water courses.
The Draft E.I.S. prepared by E.P.A. appears to select the proposed Pierce County Sewerage
General Plan, but the draft does not precisely state what project is recommended by
E.P.A. or what specific conditions or mitigating measures, if any, would be imposed on
the County prior to construction of the sewerage system. We strongly recommend that these
items be addressed in the final draft.
Should you have any questions or require additional information concerning these comments,
please contact Mr. Richard Dunlap, Chief Engineer of our Utilities Department, (593.4157).
Very truly yours
gher, Chairman!
ty Commissioner
PG:RAD:cp
186
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
PIERCE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1. See pages 51-54 for discussion of septic tank suitability of the
project area. The septic tank suitability map is intended to
express a general concept; it should not be used to determine
septic tank suitability on a house to house basis.
2. See Preface and Chapter VI.
187
-------
Advisory Council
On Historic Preservation
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20005
November 14, 1975
Mr. Richard R. Thiel, Chief
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 .
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue , i-T"\
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Thiel:
This is in response to your request of September 22, 1975 for comments
on the draft environmental statement for Chambers Creek Sewerage System,
Pierce County, Washington. Pursuant to its responsibilities under
Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has determined that your draft
environmental statement is inadequate regarding our area of expertise as
it does not contain sufficient information to enable the Council to
comment substantively. Please furnish additional data indicating:
I. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470[f]). The Council must have evidence
that the most recent listing of the National Register of Historic
Places has been consulted (see Federal Register, February 4, 1975
and monthly supplements each first Tuesday thereafter) and that
either of the following conditions is satisfied:
A. If no National Register property is affected by the project,
a section detailing this determination must appear in the
environmental statement.
B. If a National Register property is affected by the project,
the environmental statement must contain an account of steps
taken in compliance with Section 106 and a comprehensive
discussion of the contemplated effects on the National
Register property. (36 C.F.R. Part 800 details compliance
procedures.)
The Council is an independent unit of the Executive Branch of the federal Government charged by the Act of
October I 5, 1966 to advise the President anil Congrc^frTihc field of Historic Preservation.
-------
Page 2
Environmental Protection Agency
Chambers Creek Sewerage System
II. Compliance with Executive Order 11593, "Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment" of May 13, 1971.
A. Under Section 2(a) of the Executive Order, Federal agencies
are required to locate, inventory, and nominate eligible
historic, architectural and archeological properties under
their control or jurisdiction to the National Register of
Historic Places. The results of this survey should be
included in the environmental statement as evidence of
compliance with Section 2(a).
B. Until the inventory required by Section 2(a) is
complete, Federal agencies are required by Section
2(b) of the Order to submit proposals for the transfer,
sale, demolition, or substantial alteration of
federally owned properties eligible for inclusion in
the National Register to the Council for review and
comment. Federal agencies must continue to comply
with Section 2(b) review requirements even after the
initial inventory is complete, when they obtain
jurisdiction or control over additional properties
which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register
or when properties under their jurisdiction or control
are found to be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register subsequent to the initial inventory.
The environmental statement should contain a determination
as to whether or not the proposed undertaking will result
in the transfer, sale, demolition or substantial alteration
of eligible National Register properties under Federal
jurisdiction. If such is the case, the nature of the effect
should be clearly indicated as well as an account of the
steps taken in compliance with Section 2(b). (36 C.F.R.
Part 800 details compliance procedures.)
C. Under Section 1(3), Federal agencies are required to
establish procedures regarding the preservation and
enhancement of non-federally owned historic, architectural,
and archeological properties in the execution of their plans
and programs.
189
-------
Page 3
Environmental Protection Agency
Chambers Creek Sewerage System
The environmental statement should contain a determination
as to whether or not the proposed undertaking will contri-
bute, pursuant to Section 800.4 of the Council's "Procedures
for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties"
(36 C.F.R. Part 800), to the preservation and enhancement
of non-federally owned districts, sites, buildings, structures
and objects of historical, architectural or archeological
significance.
III. Contact with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
The procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Executive Order 11593
require the Federal agency to consult with the appropriate
State Historic Preservation Officer. The State Historic Pres-
ervation Officer for Washington is Arthur M. Skolnik, State
Conservator, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission,
P. 0. Box 1128, Olympia, Washington 98501.
Should you have any questions or require any additional assistance, please
contact Brit Allan Storey of the Advisory Council staff at P. 0. Box 25085,
Denver, Colorado 80225, telephone number (303) 234-4946.
Sincerely yours,
Louis S. Wall
Assistant Director, Office
of Review and Compliance
cc:
Sheldon Meyers, Environmental Protection Agency:FLO
190
-------
GOVERNOR
DANIEL J. EVANS
COMMISSIONERS:
JEFF D. DOMASKIN
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
October 6, 1975
PHONE 753-5755
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504
IN REPLY REFER TO:
35-2650-1820
Dr. EIS - Chambers
Creek Sewerage
System (ULID 73-1)
EPA Project No.
C-530565-01
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 can find no adverse impact on existing or proposed rec-
reational areas under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
This statement does not reference the source of information used in the
Archaeological/Historical Section. Although a review of the National ana
State Register of Hitoric Places was made, there is no indication that the
research included potential registered archaeological and historical sites
in the proposed construction area.
The statement admits the possibility that work areas could uncover Indian
or historical artifacts.
In view of the fact that the proposed construction activity is in close
proximity to the site of the known Fort Nisqually and falls within the region
indicated by the Nisqually/Puyallup people, additional in-depth research is
indicated with regard to archaeological resources. The staff finds that
qualified monitoring of construction activities should follow the initial
research to insure adequate protection of archaeological resources.
191
-------
Mr. Thiel -2- October 6, 1975
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this statement.
Sincerely,
David W. Heiser, Chief
Environmental Coordination
David Hansen, Chief of
Archaeology and Historic
Preservation
sg
cc: Mike Mills, Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management
192
-------
WASHINGTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, PULLMAN, WASHINGTON 99163
DIRECTOR
RICHARD D. DAUGHERTY, PH.D.
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
HARVEY S. RICE
PHONE 509-335 6681 October 20, 1975
SCAN 426-6681
Dr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
RE: Environmental Impact Statement ULID 73-1
Dear Dr. Smith:
Following are comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Chambers Creek Sewerage System. The comments pertaining to history were prepared
by Dr. David Stratton, Department of History, Washington State University. The
comments concerning archaeological resources are mine.
The review of archaeological resources in the vicinity of the proposed
Chambers Creek project is inadequate. The prime method of inventorying archaeo-
logical resources in any area is for a qualified archaeologist to conduct an on-
foot reconnaissance. This, evidently, was done by Marian Smith in 1928 in the
vicinity of Chambers Creek. Ms. Smith did record a number of sites but the records
are obscure, the lands have been modified, and a re-survey is necessary. Without
such a survey, no conclusive statements can be made about the presence or absence
of archaeological sites. There is every reason to believe that a number of archaeo-
logical sites would be rediscovered and precisely located in a survey of Chambers
Creek.
It appears that the information presented in the draft E.I.S. was derived
from archival sources or from interviews with local inhabitants, or both. These
are very useful methods that should be used to supplement the information gained
by an on-foot survey, but they are certainly not adequate without the field survey.
I strongly urge that before any land modification on the Chambers Creek
project takes place, that an archaeological survey by a qualified archaeologist
be accomplished. Enough time should be allowed between the survey and commence-
ment of construction to make necessary decisions on mitigation of impacts to
cultural resources. The impact mitigation measures suggested in the draft E.I.S.
are totally inadequate and are at variance with federal statutes, directives,
and guidelines.
The proposed project areas, particularly the Steilacoom vicinity, involve
one of the first three centers of white settlement in Washington. The other two
were around Fort Vancouver and near the southern end of Puget Sound. Yet in the
Environmental Impact Statement no attention is given to the potential impact on
specific historic places in this culturally rich part of the state.
RECEIVED
CCT2919
193
-------
Dr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr.
October 17, 1975
Page 2
In the Washington historic preservation program there are three levels of
recognition: (1) the Washington State Inventory of Historic Places, (2) the
State Register of Historic Places, aid (3) the National Register of Historic Places.
Steilacoom is the oldest incorporated town in the state, and thus constitutes
a valuable repository of buildings, sites, and other evidences of early white
civilization in the Pacific Northwest. Even before the founding of the town itself
in 1854, the military post of Fort Steilacoom was established only a mile and a
half away. The Steilacoom Historic District, which has been recommended by the
State Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for inclusion in the National Regis-
ter, encompasses virtually all of the old town. Among the many structures and
buildings in the historic district are the Nathanial Orr Home and Orchard. Orr
came from Virginia to Steilacoom in 1852, with brief stays in Missouri and Oregon.
While in the Portland area he learned the skills of a nurseryman, and some of the
original trees he brought with him from Oregon are still producing fruit on the
property. Orr's trees became the principal source of orchard stock during the
early period of settlement in the Puget Sound area. Some of the structures in
the Steilacoom Historic District are also listed in the Historic American Buildings
Survey, compiled in 1930' s.
Other examples of important historic sites in the proposed project areas
include the Chambers Mill Site (State Inventory) on Chambers Bay near the mouth
of Chambers Creek. Thomas M. Chambers built a gristmill here in 1850, a sawmill
in 1852, and a flour mill in 1855. These mills were the first "industrial complex"
in present-day Pierce County. Another State Inventory mill site is located on
Steilacoom Boulevard at Chambers Creek. Andrew F. Byrd constructed a dam and
sawmill here in 1853, and he built a gristmill 100 yards downstream in 1857.
Nearby is the Byrd Cemetery (State Register) which originally overlooked a small
spring running into Chambers Creek. Both of the mill sites are designated by
interpretive markers. Old Fort Steilacoom (now Western State Hospital), which
has been recommended for National Register status by the State Advisory Council,
is encircled by the project areas. The Officers' Houses of the old fort are listed
in the Historic American Buildings Survey, and the grave of William H. Wallace,
once Washington's territorial delegate to Congress and later the first territorial
governor of Idaho, is located on the grounds.
Historic preservation criteria are related to the quality of significance
in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture as represented in
buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts. The examples of historic
places given above and the list is far from complete should indicate that a
thorough and professional survey is required to determine the impact of the proposed
projects on cultural resources. This particular area has one of the highest con-
centrations of historical places of any locality in the entire state.
Sincerely,
Harvey SA Rice
Assistant' Director
HSR:ceh
cc : Jeanne Welch
194
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENTER
These three letters point out the necessity for greater consideration
of archaeological and historical resources in the vicinity of the proposed
Chambers Creek project. Accordingly, EPA contracted the University of
Washington's Office of Public Archaeology to do a survey of the study
area. Their interim report can be found in Appendix J. This report
shows that there are potentially a number of significant historic sites
within the study area and in the canyon itself. In consideration of
the import of these preliminary findings, EPA is including a grant
condition on this subject. This grant condition is given in the Preface
of this final environmental impact statement. The final results of this
survey will be available at the EPA Region X library in early January.
195
-------
TAHOMA AUDUBON
0)
'o
o
(0
o
s
(0
5
(0
o
November 12, 1975 °
Richard R. Thiel, Chief "c
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 ro
Environmental Protection Agency §
1200 Sixth Avenue V
Seattle, Washington 98101 8
3
Reference: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EPA) Q
Chambers Creek Sewerage System
c
The Tahoma Audubon Society has several comments and one .2
major objection to make concerning the proposed sewerage "Jo
system. While we recognize the necessity of containing the c
problem before it gets out of hand, many of us wish that a j2
serious attempt had been made to evaluate individual and "~
community systems such as the Clivus Multrum and the Lind- *o
pro purifier. Our penchant for big solutions to lesser pro- i_
blems often leads us to secondary and tertiary impacts that 2
are never placed on the accounting record. People just live §
with them. jc,
o
We have, up to this point, been advised how to correctly con- c
struct and maintain individual systems via the septic tank *-
and drain field method. If one follows the rules laid down c?
by the State Health Department, his system should work per- £
fectly. Local inspectors see to it that these rules are {§
followed. My own system has never been pumped in 18 years ^
and, from a recent inspection, is in perfect condition. Yet, ^j-
I am informed that only around 50% of the septic systems per- g
form as they should. Obviously, we have a problem. From a o
study of the soils map, one can see that the application of %
septic tank and drain field systems has been made on lands I
where no building should have occurred to date. Why? If we o>
defend this by saying we did not in earlier years have ad- £
equate knowledge of the soils and the technology, does this
new proposal signify that we now have the correct answers?
We surely hope so.
Paragraph 6, page 8, states that selection of a route along
the canyon wall (Pierce County's Interceptor Alternate B -
EPA's Alternative Route l) is mitigation for placing the
interceptor alongside the creek. "Mitigation" is a compens-
ating trade-off for an action which is taken. One has no
need to mitigate an action which does not occur. In this
case, the proposed action is the selection of an alternative
which in itself should be mitigated.
196
-------
Note also that Alternate B, as proposed by Pierce County
does not say the route will be "high on the north canyon
wall" but rather "higher on the canyon wall" than in
Alternate A. This we take to mean substantially at the
base of the slope since "high on the canyon wall" presents
some very difficult engineering problems.
Paragraph 5, page 8, states that the proposed project will
remove the present constraints on growth and development.
This very act may well be the most important result of the
entire program. It is highly likely that removing the pre-
sent constraints will permit the full urbanization of the
Lakewood-Parkland area. It is a serious question whether
any natural character of the land will remain. Residents
like myself will have to ask whether the quality of the
area will any longer contain those characteristics which
made it worth living here. Yet people do continue to live
in those conditions of monotonous repetition seen in every
other dreary populated area in the country.
The costs of the proposed sewerage system will ultimately
be reflected on the cost of the land itself and in the re-
sulting property taxation. This increased evaluation will
lead to intensive development as a means of compensating
the land owner. Thus the application of federal funds,
partly ours, will go to create a facility, for which we will
have to pay more, to create more valuable properties on
which we will have to pay more taxes! Is this equitable?
In spite of the fact that most people in this area want to
own their own home, the present housing activity is in apart-
ment construction. Individual housing has become too expens-
ive to tie one's future to. The boom in apartment buildings
is a reflection of high prices and will probably create a
much higher density than expected.
One factor not assessed in either statement is: What effects
will occur on the people served by the proposed system, and
on the system supported by the people, in the event of a
major depression? What is the effect, both ways, of not be-
ing able to meet the payoffs? What contingency plan has been
prepared in this event? Would people lose their homes be-
cause of their inability to meet a commitment they may not
have been in agreement with in the first place? It is un-
realistic to ignore this point since a very real possibility
now exists for such an event to occur.
No mention is made of the disposal of paving taken from the
streets in the process of excavation. This factor is always
swept under the rug by passing the responsibility on to the
Contractor who then dumps the material in every low spot he
can find. Land owners are emboldened to cover acres of prec-
ious swamps, bogs and drainways with intractable chunks of
197
-------
asphalt or concrete. All in the name of progress. Our
federal tax dollars should not be spent in abetting this
procedure. There are now processes for breaking up and re-
using such materials and that should be clearly stated in
the requirements for the use of federal funds.
Our principal objection to the proposal lies in the favored
Interceptor Alternate B (EPA's Alternative Route 1). It is
every bit as destructive to Chambers Creek canyon as Alter-
nate A. Neither is a good choice. Alternate B will prob-
ably leave a permanent scar which, if never touched again,
would still be visible 500 years from now. A scar is a
visible reminder of a traumatic experience, an intrusion of
considerable magnitude. This should not happen to Chambers
Creek canyon. The Contractor will always exceed the width
restrictions or else he will charge considerably more than
anticipated. One only has to view the picture of the Alaska
pipeline to understand the need for working room.
The statements do not address the costs of destruction to
the Canyon: the loss of existing trees, shrubs and herbac-
eous plants, the probability oE erosion and the raveling of
the slopes. If the Canyon is ever to become a major region-
al park, as is hoped and worked for by many people, then its
quality will surely be reduced by the intrusion of a majoc
sewer Vine. Such losses can be computed and should be care-
fully inventorled so that this loss becomes a matter of record,
Our recommendation is that Interceptor Alternate C (Chambers
Creek Road) be selected as the proper route for the sewer
line to follow. Despite the apparent added cost, the per
capita cost will be insignificant, as will the annual op-
erating cost. We cannot emphasize this too strjugly since it
will be extremely important in the long range impact on the
Lakewood area. If this recommendation does not prevail and
the final decision is to place the sewer line in the canyon,
in spite of opposition to it, then we must ask for, and the
community will well deserve, the following mitigation:
Earlxe<' in this letter, I alluded to the "selection of an
alternate which in itself should be mitigated". The County
should^then, in exchange for damage to the canyon, purchase
the entire canyon as an easement for the sewer interceptor
and for the park which could then be saved for future gener-
ations. This is teal mitigation. And it has legal and
political standing,
:ioei
Robert W. Ramsjty
Immediate Past President
RWR/mp
198
-------
TAHOMA AUDUBON
0)
'o
o
(0
o
4-«
(0
k.
(0
o
u
November 13, 1975 ^
c
(0
c
Richard R. Thiel RECEIVED .2
Environmental Impact Section, M/S 443 , , . . . 10vr y
Environmental Protection Agency ' -'- : '"''J 3
1200 Sixth Avenue r._ ^
Seattle, Washington 98101 " '"
(0
In submitting our comments on the Draft EIS for c
in
the Chambers Creek Sewerage System, dated 12 Nov .*;
75, I inadvertently left my address off. Please "o
attach this to the document. $>
4-1
a
(0
o
c
o
Robert W. Ramsey "5>
Immediate Past President .E
Tahoma Audubon Society §
10511 Interlaaken Drive S.W. §
Tacoma, Washington 98498 >
tf
o
o
£
4>
199
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
TAHOMA AUDUBON SOCIETY
1. During the planning stage of this project, many alternatives and
approaches were examined carefully and thoroughly. It was
determined that an interceptor sewerage system was the most
cost-effective, appropriate, and reliable alternative for the
particular needs of this service area.
While EPA supports the use of new concepts such as the Clivus
Multrum (an individual organic waste treatment system based on
a composting technique), such systems generally are not used in
a Federal construction grants program until they have been shown
to be a feasible alternative. Even if this is accomplished, two
problems remain. EPA's construction grant program does not include
financing individual disposal systems like the Clivus Multrum;
eligibility stops at the property line. The other problem is
public acceptability. The Federal government cannot push new ideas
or techniques on the public; such innovations must result from
a majority concenses. In addition, the Clivus Multrum system is
extremely sensitive, and as such, is not very reliable.
With regard to the Lindpro purifier, studies show that this system
produces an effluent very high in dissolved solids. Also, it is
very expensive to operate. For further information, consult a
report by Brown and Caldwell entitled "The Alternatives to
Individual Wastewater Disposal".
2. The proposed route, Alternative Route 1, will be located approxi-
mately 200 feet from the Creek. In order to adequately mitigate
the environmental impact of construction, appropriate engineering
techniques will be used. For examples of these mitigative
techniques, see Chapter VI.
3. This problem is discussed on pages 123-126. It has been suggested
that some form of financial assistance be made available to such
persons. This problem was also considered in the County's environ-
mental assessment. There, it was suggested that both a modified
financing scheme and perhaps low income housing be considered.
Pierce County is continuing to explore possible ways of minimizing
the financial burden on low income and elderly residents.
4. See response #2 to the letter from the Washington State Department
of Ecology. Disposal of solid waste during construction is an
integral part of project planning and has been resolved.
5. After a careful and thorough analysis of all alternate routes
along the canyon, Alternative Route #1 proved to have the least
environmental impact. Further information on this decision is
provided in the Preface and in Chapter VI.
200
-------
RECEIVED
NOV131975 October 31, 1975
EPA-FIS RECEIVED
LAKEWOOD SEWER & WATER COMMITTEE RtSPONSE to the DRAFT of the
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for CHAMBERS CREEK SEWERAGE SYSTEM NOV 1 2 1975
(ULID 73-1) PROJECT # C-530565-01 PIERCE COUNTY,. WASHINGTON
Of-l*
inn-/ Hi-
To keep our response as brief as possible, we would like this document to be
considered, along with our March, 1975 submissions In evaluating, the E.P.A.- Impact
Sratercent, ULID 73-1. Pierce County, Wash~, it appears, to. this committee, that you 'do
rtct take your responsibilities in the program under discussion, tightly, and that you
have every intention of following the- Federaf laws- and procedures laid out in the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and of the Federal Water Polution Control
ACT Amendments of 1972.
The summery of issues raised on Pgs. 21 thro 23, is a very fair statement of the
facts, as known to the Lakewood Sewer and Water Committee. This reflects, in a large
sert, exactly the points we have been raising in our protest on the design of the sew-
er, or its need in all areas. Under the detailed discussion of the issues (Pgs. 64
Tnro 73) the statement includes qualifying, statements which admit that In many in-
stances, the county data is incomplete and" no real concl us Tons' could be stated , .or
justified, without further exploration and detailed underground testing, initiated
over a longer period of time.
These points were brought out in testimony by expert witnesses before the State
Water Polution Control Board. This refutes, in a large part, the real reason for the
original building ban placed on the ULID area, by the Department of Ecology.
It has been said that this is one of the largest unsewered urban areas in the
United States. It may also be said that "this is one of the largest areas in the
United States of sand and gravel soils, suitable for the septic tank system". (Ident-
ified on Pgs. 51, 52 thro 65, & 73 of the Impact Statement)
The area of the greatest need, as it effects the Clover Creek and Steilacoom
Le'
-------
Page 2
There are certain areas (Pgs. 48-52) where soil types are suitable -for the drain-
field system of discharge. This is acknowledged by Pierce County Government and the
Dept. of Ecology, in continuing to allow high density building in the Ban areas. It
is unfortunate that much of this has been allowed near the banks of lakes andstreams
ir. high water table areas, over the protest of the citizens. This indicates to us that
the County and the Dept. of Ecology Is encouraging interim polution. (See attached
clippings).
The report is short as to domestic, water supp_fy FnformatFon of Lakewood Water Dept.
end McChord Field. We would like to have included in the Impact Statement the "Lake-
wood Water District Comprehensive Plan 1974-1984". We are including Pgs. 5, 6, & 13
of that report, which disproves many prevfous statements that the water supply m the
greater populated area of the UL1D is contaminated, chemically or bacteriologically.
{Pgs. 64 thro 73 of the EPA Impact Statement is consistant with above conclusions)
The discussion of alternatives appears to be a rehash of the Pierce Sounty Impact
Statement prepared by Kennedy Engineers.,
The Lakewood Sewer and Water Uowm-rftee has never advocated the *No Action After-
native". We have, on the contrary,, advocated the-concept generally discussed as "Alter-
native 111..Community Systems."
We see a reluctance on the part of engineers involved in this project to take a
new approach to sewer treatment. Tt would appear that the engineers are locked in to
the same old solution to sewage disposal of 40 years ago, with the grave likelihood
that more construction and money will be required in the not too distant future, for
final upgrading of effluent quality. The continued polution of Puget Sound is not a
good trade off of problem solving.
We do not believe the figures which Kennedy Engineers have advanced at this time,
iri regard to the cost of package plants. If those package plant cost figures are over-
stated as much as the $45,677,000 for this program is under-estimated, then a cost effect-
ive alternate has not been developed, or offered, as is required under law.
We submitted, along with our March 14, 1975 Impact comment, a list of firms and
jsers of packaged treatment plants which could be installed. The Impact Statement men-
tions on Pg. 129, Para. 2, how little time the E.P.A. had to spend on analysis of small
scale package treatment systems. We can understand this, however, we have since 1970,
brought to the attention of the county, the need to solicit input from these package
plant manufacturers, and governments using such systems. To our knowledge this has
not been done. We wonder why? ( See E.P.A. Document-E.P.A.-r2-73-238 Tertiary treat-
ment of combined domestic and industrial wastes)
Figures 5-7, and page 47 identifies areas where tertiary discharge from package
plants would require little acreage for lagoons, and could very well be an improve-
ment to the existing ground water supply. The Dept. of Ecology regulations on the dis-
charge of effluent into streams, are not laws, but are regulations issued pursuant to
lows, and therefore could be modified to allow for effluent discharge as long as the
streams and creeks could accommodate the extra volume of water.
The County is legally bound not to proceed with this current ULID program unless
27 least 50* grant funding is available, with the projected cost of $45,677,000, plus
other assessment requirements. The County stated this in their letter to property
owners of the intent to form its ULID, dated April 30, 1973. (Enclosed). This is
not the same program as we know it today. Even Kennedy Engineers' 1975 starting cost
figure of $45,677,000 is approximately 100? under the E.P.A. estimated cost, and can-
not be justified wholly on the basis of inflation.
202
-------
-_'"-~- " -/' --- ;__ ' "- '- -. -.Pac&3-_- . . .- - ;-;"-" :_~ -->.--. ---. --.-',
The withdrawal of Pierce County from the "Puget Sound Council .of. "Governments^
has left Focal governments without any legs! 'voice In programs deve I oped by the
County." The duplications. of engineering costs of the Lakewood area, (lakewood Water
District Sewer PI an) -4 \Park I and, (South Suburban 'Sewer Distrfct'Pfan. .ct Ipplrfg en- "
closed) identifies the failure of the county to adhere to cost effecrlve
Any water management and fand use p Tan _F.-r,p fernehted by- the county, wTtKout any - ; - ----
fegal status by the local governments involved,. Is- go ing -to create considerable fitv-^ ^
ancial, fegaf-^- and environmental .problems .for those f oca J_ governments. This seems
contrary to the desire of program p fanning as. de-fined under 'the E.P.fi. Act of \972~.~ '--
Comprehehsi ve land use and water managenent planning Is a basin-wide require-
ment. Where are the solutions in the plan, of the. upper Parkland, Midland, and Brook-
dale areas? (roadside discharge pipe Pg-
State Law R.C.W.~90.48.080^ in brief, says "it sha If .be unlawful for any person
to~.thrcfrf,-.dr.afn>torjlfscharge j'pto any waters of the .state^ pofutaats.. . ,-.-w. Should not,
the Dept. of Ecology respond to this, in vievf of- condittons^Tdentif teo-on Pg'. -.72 of ; -i
'the Impact -Statement? - Has the law been Ignored rrvsrtuatiFons "such as 'fhTs? ".CSee.:t -;.-"--"-".
enclosed clippings tn .regard, to haphazard . ler.i use planning procedures )i.;. '-'...'. ':' ''-7
The program Is Mmited in its alternatives. There fs no doubt In this comm-
ittees view, that most of ^Stage I of the County Plan was used as a funcino vehicle,
because of the high assessed valuation, not because of its priority need for envir-
onmental solutions.
In brief, this is needed to be included in the Impact Statement:
1. To identify areas suitable for septic tank systems, basin-wide.
2. A more strict enforcement of the laws, in regard to septic tanks, their
installations, and inspections. .county-wide.
3. A tax structure for solutions to envi ronrrental problems: possibly a part
of the County road fund designated for surface water drainage co-.trol.
4. A County-wide septic tank pumping fee, *nth the funds to be usec only for
sewer treatment plants and collection systems, in those areas w^ere needed.
5. Change the area assessment method of financing: This tends to ercourage
greater density construction, which is undesirable in some areas yet to
be developed, and increases the population density in existing large lot
homes i tes.
6. Develop a governmental structure which p-ovides legal participation of
local governments.
There is little public support for the County to be the authority for these
matters. (Failure of petition drive versus edsotion of the resolution TO form a
ULID, by the Commissioners
Despite the requests by our committee, and other citizens groups, to part-
icipate with the county and state, to work reward ccmpatable alternatives, we
have been, for the most part shut out, and ojr vie,vs ignored.
203
-------
Page 4
A number of lawsuits have resulted, and other legal actions are anticipated, be-
cause the government has disregarded the requests of the citizens involvement.
This is not a constructive approach to problem solving, as defined under the
Federal Water Polution Control Act Amendments of 1972, for citizens involvement.
Can we be ignored now, when our help may be needed later?
Respectfully submitti
Col. Charles 0. McDanieI C.E. USA Rerd.
Techanical Advisor
Lakewood Sewer & Water Committee
8801 Highland Ave. S.W.
Tacoma, Wash. 98499 - 584-4422
B.S. University of Illinois 1929 Arch. Engr.
Former Fellow American Society of Civil Engrs.
Former Post Engr. - Ft. Lewis, Washington
Former Head of Const & Maintenance - USA Caribbean Div.
Former Asst. Div. Engr. - North Pacific Div., Portland, Oregon
Former Commanding Officer - 24th Engr. Const. Group - Korea
Prof. Emeritus in Civil Engineering - St. Martin's College
Professional bngineers License - State of Indiana
Inspector General, Corps of Engineer World Wide Construction
-------
RESPONSE TO THE
LAKEWOOD SEWER AND WATER COMMITTEE
The extensive remarks of a general nature are appreciated and will
be considered in the final decision making process. The additional
information enclosed with the Committee's remarks is also appreciated.
However, at this time, all major feasible alternatives have been
considered. Consequently, no new alternatives will be developed
for the final EIS.
Six areas are enumerated which the Committee feels should be considered
in this EIS. As to the first item, this information may be found on
pages 51-53. The remaining items could be considered as mitigating
measures, but generally these are local solutions. Consequently,
these items are not within the purview of EPA's EIS.
205
-------
CONCERNED CITIZENS «
. PIERCE/ __^__ Tacoma, Washington
of Pierce County, Inc.
RE: E.P.A.-X DRAFT E.I.S. FOR CHAMBERS CREEK SEWERAGE SYSTEM
U.L.I.D. #73-1 PROJECT # C530565-01
PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
The Concerned Citizens of Pierce County, Inc., wish to protest to Region
X-E.P.A., and to NEPA the administrative action of awarding grant funds for a
sanitary sewerage plan, U.L.I.D. 73-1, project #C530565-01. Realizing an
Environmental Impact Statement by E.P.A. carries more weight than an Impact
Assessment, such as presented by Pierce County Utilities Department in February
1975, it is dis-heartening to find "the one used as a major resource document" for
the other, and furthermore, prepared by a local firm we had hoped at the
least for an "outside" independent inspection, with some field work as to land uses
and conditions, mores, details pro and con; rather than the same hash we have had
for years from Pierce County Utilities, State Department of Ecology, and Region X-
E.P.A.
This particular "non-plan" is not new to the Basin Area, it pops up like
the ground hog year after year. Since land areas and land uses under consideration
have changed over the years from small huddles of homes and commercial buildings
mainly of summer resort types, to metropolitan suburbias of approximately 100,000
persons - one might have hoped for changes in plans also.
A main reason this E.P.A. report is presented to the citizens to justify
EPA involvement with the Pierce County ULID plan as presented - is because of
organized opposition to the plan - not the least of which is that the whole matter
has been heard in U.S. District Court - by Judge Bowen, Judge Kilkenny, Judge Beeks:
who have taken the matter under advisement. The Concerned Citizens pursued this
route via - the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco - for numerous reasons:
many stated in the E.I.S., some not.
Mentioned, and as usual brushed aside are: many requests for up dated
technological plans. Such plans as are in the ULID, are incomplete, can carry
no competency or financial credibility, the project will not solve many problems
(some of which are nonexistent even in the very D.O.E. and E.P.A. files) - it will
create other vaster environmental problems - IT IS WRONG - from its plans on paper
through'implementation, and is, incidently, contrary to Federal Regulations and
goals of the Federal Water Pollution Law of 1972 - as amended.
There is a work coming into use today - as we are beginning to realize
QUALITY, and COST, and QUANTITY of life - this word freely translated from its
greek root means "to keep your House in order".
ECOLOGY
ECO-SYSTEM)
ECONOMY
These should come to a balance some where, but in 73-1 they do not.
206
-------
ECOLOGY - no where in today's world are we directed otherwise than to use
wisely, not abuse, NATURAL RESOURCES. The quality of our life depends upon water.
Living in this region we realize how precious our water is: for uses domestic,
farming, horticultural, recreational - and all coming from private or municipal
wells, from our underground water supply. The E.I.S. mentions we have more rain
than absorption - true indeed - but enough for their plans to take 6,000,000 to
20,000,000 million gallons per average day from this water supply, not to be replaced,
to be pumped into the fishable and navegable waters of Puget Sound, as simi-raw
sewage. What will this do to our water balance? And this only concerns our one
U.L.I.D. and service area, not others to come. r/»Ai f\f*\l *)
cCULUbY;
We realize that the EPA does not pay to "over-achieve", but where does this
intercept with short-sightedness, and horrendous cost over-runs. We are not at this
moment having domistic supply problems, although in the ULID contingency plans have
been made to pipe water to us from our mountain water-sheds, if needed: to replace
what we will throw away. It is also true that our proposed treatment facility
plant (plans on paper), are drawn to be up-dated: "over-achieve" or "short-sighted-
ness"?
The E.I.S. mentions that the opposition objects to the costs and financing -
we most certainly do. We still circulate "wooden nickels" in our area at forest
festivals, but we recognize them for what they are! How in any kind of financial
thinking can the submitted plans make economic sense. We DO OBJECT to initial
under financing for long - time economic feasibility - what guarantee do we have of
continued year by year Federal funding, after being originally under-estimated.
We do not want a sewerage system or treatment plant implemented in FY 1975 that
will not meet laws of FY 1985 - or when. The technology is available, it is
feasible in our area; yet it is completely taboo, or indifferently received, to
mention more advance plans. Spending $10 millions today, while needing $50 millions
tomorrow for corrections - does not lend financial credibility.
ECOLOGY?
ECONOMY?
Numerous ones of us have asked for consideration of a system using advance
waste treatment methods of some sort: we have submitted lists, and brochures we
have ourselves obtained - to no avail. We asked for preliminary planning of a
system with at least two A.W.T. systems - not necessarily to tertiary or drinking
water standards. Studying maps of our River Drainage Basin as outlined as 6,000 A
or 50,000 A - this is a vast project, even with interchangeable acreage.
The Eastern area is mainly small domestic, small commercial, small farming:
grange and 4-H type living. It has high water unsolved flooding, one tertiary
high school sewage plant that does not work because of insufficent in-put, and one
private University sewage plant that regularily over-flows into Clover Creek,
because of too much in-put. This whole area also is badly in need of storm and
surface water drainage. Here we do find some pollution in front yards, back yards,
and ditches. The first person who demonstrates how one can hook a head or two of
live-stock, cows, horses, pigs, fowl - to a domestic sanitary sewer system - deserves
a medal! Sanitary sewers will not help this!
ECOLOGY?
207
-------
The Western Basin area is basically prairie land, formerly nearly all
residential and farming: now with scattered commercial areas, shopping areas,
professional centers, resteraunt rows, industrial parks. Here you also find modest
housing and internationally known residential estates of officials from Hooker
Chemical, Weyerhaeuser, Georgia Pacific, Louiesiana Pacific, St. Regis, Pennwalt,
and many more. Here also are the lower reaches of the Creeks and the Lakes. Our
own particular residential area is in fact called Lakewood, and one Lake is called
Gravelly. Several of these lakes are of sufficient size not only for playing,
swimming, small boating, water skiing, float boats, but also home port for float
planes (for commuting) at bases or private home beaches. Our neighboring Fort
Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, Madigan Army General Hospital, American Lake Veterans
Hospital - all have their beach areas also - would "Uncle Sam" allow this on
ECOLOGY?
ECO-SYSTEM: ECONOMY!
when, is it more economical to
build an obsolete sewerage system in need of immediate up-dating, endanger the
water-balance of our most VITAL RESOURCE - WATER - to implement a vast system
that ignores polluted ditches, dairy farms, rendering works, etc. - to spend millions
today for a "holding system" which seems unnecessary, to add to the need to spend
zillions tomorrow on the same project. Let us spend what is needed today for a
complete adequate proven plan, protect our domestic water - and be done with it!
Also technological systems themselves - from the geographical view point as
well as the environmental - why are we denied again and again some type of advance A
waste system of two or more parts. One East-side, one West-side - 2 small treatment ^T*
plants, AWT but not necessarily to tertiary or drinking water - to return water into *
the ground - nature's way with a little man-made help. Covering the area in
Question, whether 6,000 A or 50,000 A - a system granted by 80% collector system
(for which I believe the E.P.A. does not fund) - would there not be a terrific savings
in actual labor and materials: smaller ditches, smaller pipes, fewer miles of pipes
and interceptors, fewer pumping stations, smaller machinery, and better and newer
technology than one man-one shovel-and incidently meeting Federal Water Pollution
goals: would not some similar idea perhaps be the best over-all economics?
ECO-SYSTEM: ECOLOGY ECONOMY?
Ours is a very moisture - oriented environnient. We are called the Evergreen
State, our state flower is the wide-leafed native rhododendron, which grows wild in
the forests and domesticated and hybridized in our gardens. Wide-leafed flora
in my simple horticulture means easily available water; as cactus and sage mean
desert, and palm and eucalyptus mean Southern California. Also, except in commercial
developments, we have trees! We love and need our trees: and a mature tree, each
one, wiJl absorb from the ground 300 gallons of water a day. We believe a few of
the facts will put the figures of "obsorption and precipitation" in their proper
perspective.
ECOLOGY?
Much of our area is unincorporated, unfortunately, so opposition is scattered
and not too well organized. But we all have the same concern over our fragile water-
balance and all it connotes.
208
-------
What of our Lakes, again - our aesthetic pleasure, affecting the moisture of our
air content, recreation, horticulture, irrigation - our water-table goes down,
so does the level of the Lakes - which would start another viscious circle of more
pumping for irreplacable domestic water from the water table and gardening from the
Lakes and table - execpt that farming and horticulture do recycle water. Also it
seems unknown at what degree of with drawing ground water that we break the #hydro-
static seal and we get saline waters - a delightful thought! WE CAN NOT, WE DARE
NOT, EITHER ECOLOGICALLY OR ECONOMICALLY DESTROY THIS BALANCE.
ECOLOGY - recuntly some of us spent hours studying Soil Conservation Service,
Department, of Agriculture, materials - wishing we had discovered there sources
much earlier. No where did we see any information, guides, goals, or directives
other than to care for and use wisely the world in which we live. We can not, we
dare not abuse what we have of natural resources, they are not finite! Rather - we
saw many ways to aid or correct existing problem spots. Every one else seems to
know of this, other than our Pierce County Utilities Department and State Department
of Ecology. It makes us wonder if any of this available information was even
considered by the powers that be of our plan: an if not, why not?
Our Drainage Basin not only does not have any real, comprehensive Land Use
Plan as yet, nor Zoning plan - it does not even have a sensible or complete U.L.I.D.
project plan. It is easy to understand why the Director of Utilities admits he has
to spend 80% of his time in Court. This is all part of why, after years of non-
response from County and State, some of us have gone to Court. We are a group of
every day citizens who say: we believe this is wrong - wetadll try to force our
sense of responsibility into a day in the light. There is so much talk of citizens
apathy, cynicism, Watergate, etc. - no, gentlemen - just plain disqust at continually
butting into a brick wall. There was no tftte allowed on this U.L.I.D., it was
formed by DECLARATION, weighted by land mass (government, commercial, developmental,
private; all together).
I inject this fact becouse among the Flora and Fauna affected by the ULID are
us - HUMAN BEINGS - people - who feel it is time some one listens to homo sapiens -
poor saps - and understands we are not frivolous in beginning to stand up for what
we need and want. We are not engineers, sanitarians, health professionals, (even
though we run to do a pretty good job with our families) - but moving, living,
men and women - not words printed on a page or a piece of sod. Too often the "being"
is lost among the technological statistics - but is not all this in respect for
the ultimate way of life for this BEING?
ECOLOGY?
As I write this I am temporarily away from our files and papers - except for
the E.P.A. - E.I.S. - so I perhaps wander - but not as far as the EPA does from a
sanitary sewerage project. I would not touch with asbestos gloves "needs associated
with growth and development - permitted by land use plans, include sewer, and water
supply, transportation, etc. Any impact could be minimized with proper planning by
local governments". Does this sound as if we at present have proper planning, as
demanded prior to federal funding. Even our local Regional federal funding umbrella,
the Puget Sound Governmental Council jP&eA Puget Sound Council of Governments, is
presently in disarray - suffering growing pains and internal power struggles. The
County recently decided to declare a county E.P.A. - one Commissioner (we have three),
the Utilities Director, and head of Planning (or their designers). This surfaced
recently, to be postphoned for future action. A close little group-
209
-------
Another statement from the E.I.S. - regarding marine waters along the shore-
line glacier sand and gravel submarine out-fall - "areas of important biological
activity do not occur at proposed out fall site, the results would be known only
after it is operational - and, any way would need permit from Master Shoreline Program,
from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) from State of Washington Department of Ecology.
All of this at the very time Brand X daily newspaper in Seattle is running
a series of articles on Puget Sound, Sink hole of the Northwest - quoting among
other acute areas of concern, the seals off Gertrude Rock, off McNeil Island Federal
Penitentiary. These seals have developed a 30% increase in birth defects. ADOE
employer living on Budd Inlet, further south on Puget Sound, says not to worry - seals .
are plentiful there. Well, Budd Inlet is the farthest southern spot in our in /Q
land Puget Sound waters - so our seals have retreated to th£££ last area either for
self protection or for their food - &PA mentions shells and salmon, but not seals.
Also near this area our State is constructing a major fish hatchery! I am most
sure the E.P.A. -X, D.O.E., and State Department of Natural Resources did not
collaborate on this.
ECOLOGY?
Why is this included? - one of the noted accute causes of concern is the
Chambers-Clover Creek treatment facility - which isn't even in existence yet!
An obvious misprint - but also sure sign of future trouble - and where E.P.A.,
Wifcey and Ham, and D.O.E. - found nothing. Complete plans? One wonders what will
happen when 73-1 is added, to wash right by and into the current, past the hatchery
and seal rock, on its way to Budd Inlet.
A casual EIS statement refers to the state of Washington; that an EIS
pursuiant to N.E.P.A. would also satisfy S.E.P.A. We are sure it would! S.E.P.A.
is our old friend the State Water Pollution Board, resurrected as S.E.P.A. - to
draw a set of guide lines for making state required E.I.S. - then to self-distruct
again until next needed. I heard these very words at their meeting!
TO SUMMARIZE
E.P.A.-X Draft EIS for U.L.I.D. 73-1 project #C-530565-01
Pierce County Washington
The subject of this EIS is awarding of grant funds to Pierce County,
Washington State, for a sanitary sewerage system.
among sundary items we learn that sewer line installation will not be
highly distructive to native and ornamental vegetation. CORRECT! The sewer line
goes down the middle of the road. But may we point out that whether this project
covers 6,000 or 50.000A - there are no dollars in the ULID to repair the roads.
Also there is no money in the county treasury no for more than bare maintainence of
existing roads.
Economic plus or minus?
210
-------
we learn statements of the water table situation are sadly incomplete.
Granted we have more precipitation than absorption in normal times - but this
does not lead to the EIS conclusion that "anticipated lowering of ground water, or
water table level will not affect vegetation", "because vegetation is primarily
maintained by precipitation". This when one mature tree absorbs 300 gallons of
water, a day. And we are about to throw away 6,000,000 gallons a day.
ECOLOGY?
we did mention genetic defects to the s^sfc-even without our additional
out fall.
ECOLOGY?
what do we learn of the farm and live stock in the fields, the dairies, the
ditches, the rendering works. These will stay.
ECOLOGY?
contamination of surface water with septic tank affluent? I respectfully,
perhaps from ignorance, would suggest that drain fields and ditches are contaminated
by standing water. My small knowledge of septic tanks, when they are improperly
cleaned and maintained, is that they have a most unpleasant habit of backing up
into domestic house hold plumbing; and that ground water would tend to drain down
or^de-ways, unless behind the force of an artesian well. Also it might help if
some county or state standards on tank cleaning were instituted.
ECOLOGY?
momentarily, again - PEOPLE. Individuals. Home owners, business and
commercial people, developers, shcools, government. The U.L.I.D. plan was not
well received to start with: when allowed a vote it was soundly defeated, as
poorly planned and conceived among other reasons. Later tttSWie State D.O.E.
a septic tank ban was put on the area, along with various ULID boundary maps - and
we rand that such as Pacific Lutheran University, the Schools, Lakewood Industrial
Park; West Tacoma News Print, Apartment, housing, and professional developers
(many out of state), the large shopping malls. - were told they would instal
their own individual tertiary or AWT systems, unless our particular Basin wide
plan were adopted. Adopted it was indeed!, you may believe. Our County Services
Act of 1967 State Legislature (I believe), was the vehicle, with its "police powers"
of emminent domain.
The U.L.I.D. was adopted by Resolution of County Government, and the 1971
ban restricting anything less than tertiary was relaxed - allowing for some
septic tanks, and also allowing for community and development interim sewage
treatment systems. To the average individual: an interim system is more than
merely a monster septic tank requiring regular pumping - it also has to have a
gravel drain field and the likes. To me at least, a glorified septic tank serviced
by the county.
ECOLOGY?
211
-------
while pierce County describes our ground as a great sponge unable to absorb
one more drop of affluent for nature to filter through the ground back into the
water table: during the last quarter of 1974 and first quarter of 1975 - permits
for interim systems for over one thousand homes and two thousand apartment units
were listed. These are enclosed - and I do believe the covering letters for the
forms are most interesting! These are the latest figures I have received, but
visibility there there thousands more. _
ECOLOGY?
which come first; the chicken or the egg? Developments or sewers? Well,
we don't have sewers, but we do have our peculiar "interim"system. And our land
is being covered by a fungus of developments - we don't mean individually developed
homes. Yet what pollution we have.
ECOLOGY?
fortunately, or unfortunately, we are an area of expansion to the North
slope of Alaska, to the Pacific Rim countries with their expanding trade and have
a large military population. We have Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, United
States Army Madigan General Hospital, U.S. Veteran's Hospital at American Lake:
we are in commuting distance to Seattle, Olympia, Bremerton Naval Yard, and now the
new Trident Submarine Base which is to replace Posidon. We do not complain - we
enjoy our neighbors and appreciate the financial base to our economy - yet, you
can see we are in constant state of flux of moderate and low cost housing and
rental demands, mostly transient. Also we have wonderful and valued neighbors
amongst a large group of military retirees who are going to be hit hard by this
U.L.I.D. - they and their dependents.
one developer publicly stated "each lot not developed is depriving someone
of a home" - few are being denied - whether on land suitable for building or not:
gravel pits, wet lands, fill-high density next to low density - where housing
should never be allowed. Any and all land seems to being surfaced, thus further
cutting down on permeability. The pertinent question - IDEA - THEME - here is
our property tax base. This is not current or present use, but HIGHEST AND BEST
USE. This statement commands some solid thought in regard to E.P.A. financing of
this project - is there any validity at all in thought to QUALITY OF LIVING.
ECOLOGY?
not only for those of our approaching senior citizen status, but for our
children who want a little elbow space for themselves and their young families - a
little privacy, a little peace-of-mind, away from wall-to-wall "busy-ness". Nothing
elaborate, perhaps a green space or neighborhood play lot and a parent or two for
support*and supervision, forgetting back a little to the basics of living. Where
does the E.P.A. fit here? - by providing funds the EPA condones what is done
with these monies. In other words you take our taxes and redistribute them -
unfortunately in many cases under misrepresentation of what is to be accomplished.
We don't know the solution - that is the purpose of this presentation. But it
would certainly seem that for inpartial, a-political inspection and decision, a
team from out of area should be designated for most all federal fund requests.
This is only one solution, for poorer of courses than the Constitutional idea of
letting those involved vote on the project affecting them.
212
-------
what is E.P.A. and Pierce County offering to partially finance for the
citizens of this Water Basin Area - a solution to water pollution?, what water
pollution has been proven to exist? A few ditches, samples from public bathing
beaches where we also feed our wild water fowl? Future pollution? Our young
28 year old lass recently contacted hepitites from a well known night spot in
Seattle - not from our Lakes. Future pollution sources could be corrected, even
where they are not being so now, and many more sources are created daily.
Even County, State, and Inter-state Highways drain into the Lakes in our area.
So does the logging debris, the farming and horticultured, where applicable, and
the newly poorly constructed community interim systems with their puddles.
ECOLOGY?
Pierce County and State Health Departments have been strangely quiet on this
subject. As we understand the order of the totem pole; they do not iniate, but
can stop harmful processes. Our dire predictions seem to have been from the
Pierce County Utility Department and our state D.O.E. when I personally asked the
appointed head of Ecology, Mr. Beggs, why we were being refuse the availability of
a system that would meet Federal Goals: his re-answring answer was that he
"bet" that these regulations would never come into being. He may well by
right, but the regulations are there, they are our millions he is betting with,
and he will be long retired while we are still begging more millions.
The final summation of the EPA-EIS is just more of the same. An incomplete,
unworkable, "un-plan", around for years: little that is new, no new technology.
To say there are no AWT systems to study or compare is rediculous - they are in
use country wide. Yet Pierce County and EPA X still flogs the old horse and
buggy.
ECOLOGY?
One new discription has emerged with the EPA figures. - a new description
of a most pecular fact. This ULID was presented as covering some 6,OOOA, then
blossomed to 50,000+A, now back to 6,000. As stage 1 of project - as to E.P.A.
and all at the same price $46 million inflated to $70,000,000. The 50,000 acre
figure put together to appear as the second largest urban unsewered area in the
nation (Long Island with 7,000,000 people was 1st.) must have quite an attention
getter for those who dole the dollar. We were told of a project, not phase 1 of
a project - I would have to feel the use of the term fraud might almost come close
to the matter without the "clarification", especially with the same financial
figures used. Which is still quite amazing when we hear it is going to cost
Seattle $60 million to up-date one plant with its main interceptor, and we start
ECONOMY?
Gentlemen - this plan need planning. We do not object to spending millions -
we do object to mis-spending millions; we would prefer to spend and budjet extra
millions to receive in our rather odd way - "a better gross national profit".
A well financed and implemented project, that has a reason for being, and problems
to correct properly, personally know of water pollution - a part of our family
live in greater Metropolitan Washington D.C. area - and we have seen and smelled
pollution in the country ditches in Virginia and Maryland.
213
-------
we are rather young out here to be celebrating our Bicentennial. The
school my daughter and I attended was in being before Washington was a state.
So you see we still have time to look to the future. We want to care for our
Country - not just play games with it. We also have many uses for our water;
our expanding "Bread-Basket" in Eastern Washington, our electric power.
This power comes mainly from our massive hydro-electric dams, and dec.reas-
ingly from British Columbia. It is because of this increasing power demand as we
grow, that we are turning as we can to nuclear power. We of course have Bonnevilie
Power, but that is not all ours. Even during our "Brown-out" summer of 1973, when
we exchanged "Kill-A-Watt" for "Reddy-Watt", took out our free-way lighting, our
out door and decorative lighting - cutting consumption over 25% contracts to provide
California and Nevada with power - some 10%. We do care, we are aware, that is
why we are trying to get some common sense into this plan.
Having been told by Pierce County that the E.I.S. has really nothing to
do with funding of a project: just to notify citizens of changes to be made - never
the less we hand this presentation to you, realizing there are shorter, more
technical replies to your Impact Statement - so we chose to try to present a view
of what a project actuates with in a Community - or Basin Area such as this one is.
These projects are not only printed words, financial figures, charts and graphs.
They are also PEOPLE.
"Limited time precluded exploration and design possibilities and full
analysis of small scale regional systems". - would not have to go to creeks so
would not have to be to tertiary. Fewer pumping stations. Construction Costs not
available. "Amen!" Please delay this ULID as even EPA had limited time for study!
BALANCE
ECO-SYSTEM
Edith Fogg Henderson
Secty Concerned Citizens
of Pierce County, Inc.
E.P.A.-X
U.L.I.D. 73-1
Project #C530565-01
Pierce County
Washington
MRS. JOE M. HENDERSON
8110 Washington Blvd. S.W.
Tacoma, Washington 98498
-------
RESPONSE TO
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PIERCE COUNTY, INC.
1. EPA has followed the requirements of NEPA and has given the
project an independent and objective analysis. The EIS includes
much information from the County's assessment because the assess-
ment is quite complete in including all available information. A
thorough analysis of all available data has resulted in EPA's
recommendation of the interceptor alternative. The public (taxpayer)
cannot afford a complete duplication of comprehensive environmental
studies.
2. The expected decline in groundwater levels of 6 to 8 inches as a
result of the interceptor alternative will not adversely impact
the groundwater system or surface vegetation. However, without
a regional sewerage system in the Chambers Creek area, the evidence
points to a continued decline in the quality of the groundwater.
Inadequately treated sewage would not be pumped into the Sound as
a result of the proposed action; the treatment plant will discharge
into the Sound waste that has undergone secondary treatment.
3. The interceptor alternative will not result in the need to import
domestic water supplies.
4. There is no guarantee of continued Federal financing year after year,
although it would appear that Congress (and the public) are
committed to cleanup of lakes and streams and will not stop short
of a reasonable solution. The facilities proposed under this project
will be designed for achievement of the 1983 "Best Practicable
Waste Treatment Technology" requirements of P.L. 92-500. The 1985
goal of "no discharge of pollutants" will shortly be reviewed by
Congress in response to the National Water Quality Commission studies.
The facilities will be designed so as to accommodate future upgrading,
if required. This is the cost-effective approach.
5. Advanced waste treatment systems have been considered in Alternative
3. Economically, they are not cost-effective from the point of view of
energy use and public expense. The extra operation and maintenance of
these systems will result in significantly greater yearly costs than
with an interceptor. The advanced wastewater treatment facilities
would require more expensive and complicated facilities. In addition,
more energy and greater quantities of chemicals would be required.
When evaluating environmental impacts of the alternatives, EPA must
consider the long term impacts of cost, energy use, and environmental
degradation.
215
-------
RESPONSE TO
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PIERCE COUNTY, INC. (Continued)
6. Though a sewerage system obviously will not control non-point
source pollution of surface waters, it will eliminate the potential
for septic tank contamination of groundwater. It will also eliminate
surface health hazards from failing septic systems.
7. We are unaware of any scientific support for salt-water intrusion
being a likely consequence of groundwater depletion due to discontin-
uance of septic tank discharges. If in the future, this develops
into a possible problem, storm water recharge techniques are available.
8. Pierce County does have a comprehensive land use plan and a zoning
plan. To the extent that these are adequate and meet the needs of
the citizens depends on the citizenry itself, not the Federal
government. Land use planning and zoning is a local issue.
9. The necessary permits will be obtained.
10. There is no evidence that the effluent to the Sound from the
sewage treatment plant will adversely affect seals.
216
-------
Cottage Number 11
Lakeside Country Club
Lakewood Center, Wash 981*98
October 28,197^
Quriornmental Agency
1200 Sixth Atre
Seattle, Wash 98101
Mr. Richard Thiel
Sir:
I am a reitdent of the American Lake drainage basin. It appears that
this area is not in need of a sewer system. In fact seweBs may do more
harm than good.
About the time that the County Commissioners decided that sewers
might be a good idea the State and County Health Departments commenced
a series of tests. These tests of the water in American Lake and nearby
wells were ineffectual and no basis for the need of a sewer system to
replace the existing septic tank system was established.
This area is prairie and has been since Fort Steilacoom was first
recorded in history. Spring was greeted with Jonnie Jump Ups, Violets,
and green grass. Soon the flowers were gone and the grass dried up.
In the late thirtys people started building back away from the lakes.
Shortley therafter septic systems became the accepted sewer disposal
system for the area. An unexpected bonus was the result. The water
table was raised and trees, shrubs, and tall grasses grew. There is
no reason to believe that if we stop returning the water directly to
the ground that the water table will drop and the trees and shrubs
die. We would rather have the green foliage and our septic systems
than prairie country and a sewer system*
Our particular area is zoned to exclude concentrations of
people,
RECEIVED
OCT 301975
217
-------
RESPONSE TO
H. A. BRINGOLF
1. There are many conflicting opinions concerning the available water
quality data for the project area lakes, streams, and groundwater.
It should be noted that if a solution to the existing and potential
future problems is delayed and if the deep groundwaters, which are
used as a water supply, do become contaminated, it will be too late
to protect a valuable resource.
2. As explained on page 113, the vegetation in this area is maintained
primarily by precipitation with some ornamental vegetation maintained
by lawn watering. It is estimated that the project will cause a 6 to
8 inch drop in the water table; therefore, natural and ornamental
vegetation should not be adversely affected.
218
-------
^
«.^S*»'-..^ k"+ VC%.« tr»vA»«l
«^ T» TW* ^».
Cl«.
\>Ac^'uftjL^v^. A.-VX&
o<«.
V^^^JL.
/, V &>
. /
BURKHALTEK RECEIVED
TAr-«M7 -~ILAAKEN DRIVE
JACOMA, WASHINGTON 98499 , r -r.w i iQ7r
''. -' >' i _ 10/0
219
-------
RESPONSE TO
EDWARD BURKHALTER
Your comments are not completely understood. We are not aware
of any special design considerations related to this type of average
project which cannot be overcome by recognized sanitary and civil
engineering design firms. May we suggest that your comments may be
more appropriately directed to Pierce County for a response. We have
no reason to question the design engineering competence of County
personnel or their consultants.
220
-------
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Chambers Creek Sewerage System, Project # C-530565-01
Since the fierce County Environmental Impact Statement for the Chambers Creek
ULID 73-1 has already been issued in its final form, it is of paramount importance
that the EPA Environmental Impact Statement address those aspects of the plan
vrhich the Pierce County statement shows to be most inadequate.
Residual Chlorine
The EPA draft states on page 111 that "it is not so certain that residual
chlorine and nitrogen chlorides will have negligible effects. In particular,
these residents (sic) may be toxic to the salmonid species using the Chambers
Creek Basin for spawning. If possible, attempts should be made to use alternative
detoxification than chlorine, or to include residual reduction mechanisms to
achieve 'zero1 residual chlorine." On March 25, 1975. Dr. Larry Esvelt of iJovay
Engineers, Inc., told the Northwest Regional Physical-Chemical Waste water
Treatment Short Course at the University of Washington that the EPA has in draft
form a proposed standard of 0.003 mg/1 residual chlorine. Piefece County proposes
release at 1.0 mg/1 decreasing to 0.01 mg/1 at the edge of the mixing zone
(Environmental Impact Statement, September, 1975, pase V-16).
In response to comments about residual chlorine, Pierce County quotes
consultants as stating that steelhead and salmon fin&erlings and adults would
net be affedted significantly (page X-18). If ;he EPA does in fact support
the need for a substantially lower level, it should require dechlorination or
alternative detoxification as a condition for the release of federal funding
for the project.
Chambers Greek Canyon
I'he EPA draft is inadequate in its consideration of the impact of placing the
main interceptor line within Chambers Creek Canyon. The route selected, on the
north wall of the canyon, is described in the draft as a mitigating measure for
the impact of placing the line within the creek bed. That location was rejected
by Pierce County as more costly and in potential conflict vtith the Shorelines
Management Act. Comparison of the route chosen with a less favorable alternative
s'lould not be used to obscure the damage -which will result.
The consultant who actually studied the canyon area in person concluded that
this route woiild cause soil erosion resulting in serious siltation of the creek.
The poor soil types present would require up to 100 years to reestablish natural
srowth in the construction corridor. Pierce County acknowledges a permanent impact
to the vegetation of the canyon because of the need for service access (pa^e X.-20).
The route along Chambers Creek Road outside the canyon was rejected because of
higher costs? however, no cost figures were cited for the permanent destruction
of this portion of an irreplaceable natural resource in the canyon, so the cost
comparison is invalid.
Without federal funding the project cannot proceed. The jinvironmantal Protection
Agency should not approve the use of federal funds for the unnecessary and
irreversible destruction of a portion of the Chambers Creek Canyon. Rather,
approval of the funds should be panted only on condition that the main interceptor
be located outside the canyon, nuch as alons Chambers Creek Hoad.
William F. uiddings
12211 C Street 'South RErFl\'-^ * ^
Tacoma, ML 98U4i »«.EIV,.D November 15, 1975
-------
RESPONSE TO
WILLIAM P. BIDDINGS
1. EPA regulations require facilities to be designed so that they
will be amenable to additional treatment processes, including
dechlorination, should they become necessary.
2. See the Preface and Chapter VI.
222
-------
(page)1
Copies available: ( To all interested parties ) Oct. 6th.1975
"Preview of comments on"
E.P.A. -- Draft Environmental Impact Statement, For Chambers Creek
Sewerage System - U.L.I.D. 73-1; ( By Edward A. Newton )
The Ecology Dept. Septic Tank Ban, Was imposed "Only" and intirely
within the specific boundries of U.L.I.D. 73-1 "Note" Therefore (No)
other areas, such as the (Westside water district) and the Town of Steil-
acoom- were affected by said Ban, only to the extent that developers
moved some of their operations to these and other locations; More-over
assessments notices that were sent to ( property owners ) within U.L.I.D.
area; Were Not sent to residents outside boundries of U.L.I.D. 73-1
I therefore contend this Draft Impact Statement should No_t include
any other areas Outside U.L.I.D. 73-1 boundries in their consideration of
funding of constrution of project 73-1. "Note" The the only legal way other
areas can be included in Stage One Construction Grant, would be to
abandon U.L.I.D. 73-1 and start from scratch by drawing up a completely
(New) U.L.I.D. and include any other areas by realigning any boundries
to inculde any such areas as is deemed necessary for stage one construction;
Thenl due to the extreme legal questions still unanswered, I highly
recommend that all registered voters be given ample time to study and
decide their choice, if or not they want an obsolete sewer system which
discharges semi-treated sewerage into Puget Sound, and in time of emergency
Raw Sewerage: "Take Note" Oceans, Bays, Etc; Do Not purify Sewerage or
other Contamination; whereas Horizon - A - of the earths surface is,through
bacteriological action, the largest purifier of All contaminantes on this
planet; "Note" Unwritten Laws, and plan common-sense out-look on All land
use planning, by the voice of All the people, and not Just the voice of
our Public Servants, many of whom seem to value the average citizen only
as slaves, rather than their Masters; Sol I say, give all the people the
chance for a choice between the proposed obsolete system design over
ultimately All of South Pierce County: Or a series of Modern A.W.T. plants
designed for modern living, and the preservation of our dwindling fresh
water supplies of a drinkable- and potable quality. (In areas where needed).
(Note) It is impairative that such decisions be made by a true
Impartial Vote of all the people (Land owners, or Not) in this or any
other case where "Note" a developed or semi- developed areas are involved,
The (rule) of one man, one vote must prevail. No procedure such as used
in the case at hand- where no action or protest by special interest groups,
and County owned, or controlled property becomes a Yes vote for said U.L.I.D
by - No action: Thus this U.L.I.D. became a land area Vote- by No Protest;
If this procedure goes unchallenged or unnoticed, it serves the purpose
of a valid law ( and has no doubt been used as such in other cases ) How-
ever it well not stand up in a Fair Court of Law "Because" land or any
other immortal substance, such as money, stocks, bonds, etc.etc.; True
attempts have been made to use such things, (example) The Standard Oil
Company used a "Voting Trust" in 1882, and other companies soon imitated
it s example. But voting trusts did not last long, because the Courts held
that they were unlawful. "Note" The Government does allow some voting
trusts, among them are Utilities, because their operations are supposed
to serve the public interest and give them greater control over their
operation, however I doubt (The Sherman Antitrust Act(1890) expected such
things as (The County Area Services Act (1967) which totally removes All
participation by the people in the case of their formation of U.L.I.D.
73-ls. (Thus we have No control, If this project is started)
Unless there is Immediate intervention through investigation into
countless number of water pollution standards, which are being violated
every day in this U.L.I.D.; by State and County (Health Officials, Utility
and Public Work Directors, County Commissioners) and others: Then it is
High-Time for a Grand Jury investigation to take over.
"Continued"
223
-------
"Answer of Intent requested;" (page)2
"Preview"- of Comments on E.I. 8. (U.L.I.D. 73-1)
(Note) At this time I must call to the attention of Mr Richard Thiel,
Chief Environmental Impact Section, M/8 443: That-. --there must be a
much longer time, granted to study this E.I.S. than the proposed Nov. 17,
1975 date mentioned for comment*. Due to the complexity of this book,
and the countless number of unanswered questions, and total lack of factual
information or any semblance evidence to substantiate large number of claims
regarding water pollution (said) to be related to failing septic tank
Nltrof ication Fields; Yes I there are some septic tank systems that have
problems, but their locations are the -answer to why they failed, and the
other part of the answer can be found in the (Gross" Negligence) in Fierce
County Health Dept. records, which shows numerous permits were issued in
areas totally unsuitable for septic systems; Note the Health Dept. knew
exactly where all these bad systems were located, as is noted by the '
location of the 96 water samples taken by the Tacoma Fierce County Health
Dept. and the fact that Not One test was taken from the out-fall pipe of
a legal or properly installed drain-field; Note these tests were (NOT)
taken to be used by the Dept. of ^Ecology, however they were submitted to
them Mar. 9th. 1971:: In what would appear to have been a Fropganda move
to Justify the D.O.E. issuance of their. preliminary report on which the
subsequent septic Ban was imposed. I agree with your notation on page 67
regarding coliform and fecal coliform bacteria testing, and along this
same line, it may be well to note, prior to Sept. 12th. 1973 : by their
own admission the Pierce County Health Dept. (Did Not have the required
equipment to even differentiate the different between Vegetation and
coliform bacteria.
A very important segment of this project, remains unplanned, this
segment is around the lakes and should be placed at a high level on the
planning stage, yet I was told by Mr. Richard Dunlap, P.E. for Utilities;
They did not have to submit a plan for this segment; and would do so only
after the project was under way; ftow? may I ask with this costly segment
oaitted, can there be any reasonable estimate in the over all cost of this
U.L.I.D. ?. I would also like to know, Just who played the major role in
this Draft E.I.S 1 was it the E.F.A.? or Wilsey & Ham, Inc.? And from
what source their information was obtained?. For the most part it seems to
follow the Feb. 1975 County E.I.S., which was mostly Hear- say andt willful
Propaganda ; And certainly, the small amount of citizen impute in' this bobk
does very little to dispel my fears, that I am right in my statements, That
this is Just as I have named it (A huge premeditated conspiracy) or to
say the least, it does not follow The rules of The 1972 Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, but rather ignores these rules by acting like slaves
to the State and County Government, instead acting under their appropriate
Title of (Administrator of this Act).
Time will not permit further Preview on. this E.I.S. report, which
due to the countless missleading statements, and many of these remarks had
to come from the County E.I.S. (The "Data" is Too Fat to have came from any
other source), therefore on this point alone it renders this E. P. A. -E.I.S.
useless, without a Vast revision, to bring it back in focus worthy of
citizens comments.
Sincerely,
Edward A. Newton
12616 47th. Ave. S.W.
Tacoma, Wa. 98499 PH. 588-3704
cc: copies to those of my
choice:
-------
"Certified Mall" ~~ «"1 "w "~, , "
October 22nd, 1975
. - i
Environmental 'Protection Agency cci rights reserved RECEIVED
1200 sixth Avenue M/S 443- - ncucivcu
OCT231975
EPA-FI
-------
RESPONSE TO
EDWARD A. NEWTON
FIRST LETTER
Your general remarks are appreciated. A concern raised is the method
by which the service boundaries were selected. The selection of these
boundaries is a local issue and has been dealt with at a local level.
Such issues are not generally within the Federal purview unless they
constitute a significant environmental impact, which is not apparent in
this case.
SECOND LETTER
A question is raised as to whether data was insufficiently considered,
or not considered at all. As brought out in numerous places in the EIS,
there is disagreement about the reliability of existing groundwater data.
Because of this disagreement, extensive consideration was given to a
great variety of data sources. Consideration was also given to the fact
that the methodology and sampling techniques vary depending on the
researcher and the use to which such data is put. As noted in the EIS,
the relationship between water quality and the geologic formation is such
that the project is warranted for the purpose of long term protection
of valuable groundwater resources.
226
-------
'
RECEIVED
I.TjV 141975
-------
ZAr^VLS *f**
+^& ff^^> **ZX^'+~'
RECEIVED
NOV141975
-------
229
-------
RESPONSE TO LETTERS FROM
JOHN G. LEWTAS
NEDRA E. FORBES
JOANN B. NORTH
After a thorough analysis of the interceptor route alternatives,
the route on the canyon wall proved to have the least adverse environ-
mental impact.
We would like to mention that, as a result of your letters and
those of others, the interceptor route out of the canyon was given
special consideration. An additional investigation was undertaken and
the two routes were reconsidered. This investigation confirmed that
the canyon wall alternative, Alternative Route 1, is the most environ-
mentally preferable. An explanation of this decision is given in the
Preface and in Chapter VI.
230
-------
II
IN3Wd013A3Q
QNV HiflOyD
1N3W3DVNVW
3NI13V10HS
S3IM3HSU
ivsodsia
31SVM
anos/39ams
SlOVdWI
sinoy 1
lyOdSNVyi]
NV1d/3Sn
QNV1 J
ASOIOyQAH I!
Aonod
ssAiivNyanv
H11V3H 1 x
AinvnT) yaiwjl x
sisoo jj
Alddns y31W\
Table V
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
LU
O
\-
z
LU
0
SPEAKER
LU
Q
support ive
Mr. Robert E. Leaver
Department of Social and
Health ^oruirpc
LA LA
CTN
-
X
X
- X
X
X
D
' 8.
Q.
0
Col. C.D. McDaniel
Lakewood Sewer and Water
x
-o
OJ
in
O
Q.
Q.
O
O
O (U
(D Ol
CQ C
- c
oo
5 in "o
> -S. o
'
X
X
supportive
c.
E
co
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
opposed
c
c
T3
T
X
c
t£.
in
z.
"
X
X
X
supportive
Mr. Bob Huesers
-
x
X
X
X
T3
O
Q.
Q.
O
(U
J2
(D
5
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
-o
0)
in
o
a.
a.
o
Mr. Al Rasmussen
x
X
X
X
X
T3
-------
"*'
£>
NS
A
r« w
M!
^^^%
%t * '*
APP^N
** * % .. v*-^»
, 11 - a. \ **
-------
APPENDIX A-l
Subsystem Alternatives
In selection of the proposed alternatives, several subsystem alter-
natives were systematically screened and those eliminated which were
not feasible. Areas considered in the screening process include:
Flow and Wastewater Reduction Measures
Collector and Interceptor Sewers
Waste Management Techniques
Sludge Disposal
Flow and Wastewater Reduction Measures
A significant reduction in Wastewater flows may be accomplished
with the elimination of excessive infiltration and inflow from existing
collection systems and by properly designed and constructed sewers in
proposed new collection systems.
The major portions of the Chambers Creek DUD 73~1 area are unsewered
and do not presently contribute to an infiltration/inflow problem. As
previously noted, there are existing collection systems which could be
candidates for reduction of infiltration/inflow.
In addition to the limited opportunities to effect a reduction in infil-
tration/inflow the most significant area to consider for flow and
waste reduction measures will be in the area of wastewater discharge
to the collection system. Pierce County has adopted a firm policy to con-
trol the discharge of high volume or high strength wastes to County facilities
with the adoption of provisions for high flow and high strength surcharge
fees. The County Utilities Administrative Code provides that all sewer users
will pay in proportion of usage based on the amount of discharge relative
to a single family residence. This "equivalency factor" applies to all
commercial and industrial discharges to the system and will provide economic
incentive to dischargers to control the amount and strength of flow discharged
to the collection system. In addition, high strength industrial wastes, if
they should develop within the basin, will be subject under the code to a
surcharge based on periodic monitoring of excess biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Household conservation of water use is currently stressed by all of the
municipal water utilities within the ULID 73~1 area and will be further
emphasized and supported by Pierce County. The Pierce County Utilities
Administration Code further prohibits any connection of storm drainage facili-
ties to the sanitary sewer system.
Collector and Interceptor Sewers
In development of the alternatives, consideration was given to the
area of service, routing of collector and interceptor sewers, design capa-
city and period, and phasing of construction.
A-l
-------
A. Service Area
The area to be served by the proposed project is located within
Chambers Creek Utility Local Improvement District (ULID) 73-1. A
cost-effective analysis was performed in the 1969 Chambers Creek
Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan Report and updated in the 197^
Chambers Creek Basin Water Quality Management Plan. Service outside
of ULID 73-1 was also considered.
1. Town of Steilacoom - Elements of comparison were:
The continued operation of the Steilacoom Plant including the cost
for increasing the plant and outfall capacity to meet the forecast
flows, upgrading the plant to secondary treatment and for the
operation and maintenance of the plant were compared.
The transfer of Steilacoom flows to the Chambers Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant which included the abandonment of the Steilacoom Plant
and construction of a pump station and force main and the construction
of the Chambers Creek Plant and outfall of sufficient capacity to treat
the combined flow, including the operation and maintenance costs for
the combined facilities.
The analysis in the 197^ plan indicated it is slightly more cost
effective to combine the flows from Steilacoom with the Chambers
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
2. Westside Water District
Sewage treatment and disposal for the Westside Water District is
provided by interim treatment facilities with a combination storm
water and effluent sewer to Puget Sound for ultimate disposal.
Approval of these interim provisions for sewage treatment and
disposal by the State Water Pollution Control Commission was based
on the condition that the District system be incorporated into a
permanent system when that system is available. The general plan
for area-wide sewer service provides for incorporation of this
collection system and abandoning the interim treatment facilities
and outfal1.
3. Provide Potential Relief Capacity of Consolidate Certain Elements of
the City of Tacoma System
This alternative considers incorporation of elements of the City of
Tacoma Sewerage Facilities. Final resolution of this alternative will
be by the City of Tacoma based on an evaluation of water quality
effects, disposal of treated effluent and sludge and economic and envi-
ronmental considerations. The areas of the City of Tacoma where con-
solidation with the Chambers Creek Basin System is possible have been
studied in detail and are discussed in the 1969 Chambers Creek-
Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan.
A-2
-------
The conclusions of these studies are that the South Tacoma service
area of the Tacoma Central System should remain in that system. It
has been suggested by the City of Tacoma that they would like to have
the option of future relief capacity in the Chambers Creek System.
The Chambers Creek System Plan as proposed can and will accommodate
this need so long as the City makes a formal committment as to amount
of capacity required prior to implementation of Stage I construction
under ULID 73-1 of the Chambers Creek Systems.
The area of the City of Tacoma lying within the Chambers Creek Basin
tributary to Leach Creek has been reviewed with-the conclusion that
this area of Tacoma and Fircrest should eventually be diverted to the
Chambers Creek Basin System, as part of the Stage II project.
k. Treatment of Wastes From the Boise Cascade West Tacoma Mill
This alternative would provide for domestic and industrial waste
treatment of the West Tacoma Mill wastes, at the proposed Chambers
Creek Plant. The mill presently has an average flow of 5 mgd and is
operating under a waste discharge permit which requires that Boise-
Cascade Corporation prepare an engineering report indicating proposals
to reduce effluent BOD. Preliminary studies concerning the technical
feasibility of treatment does not favor consolidation of this type
of industrial waste with the predominantly domestic waste from the
remainder of the service area. This evaluation does not indicate a
sufficient economic benefit to Boise-Cascade to make the combined
treatment problems worthwhile. The potential for salvage of pulp
fiber in the operation of a separate industrial waste treatment plant
appears to outweigh the basic economic advantages of consolidation of
waste flow.
5. Abandonment of Tacoma's Western Slopes Plant and Transfer of Wastes
to an Enlarged Chambers Creek Plant (Not Discussed in Main Text)
This alternative considered an evaluation of transferring flows from
the Western Slopes area to the Chambers Creek Wastewater Treatment plant
versus treatment at the Western Slopes Treatment Plant. This alterna-
tive was also considered in detail in the 197^ Chambers Creek Basin
Water Quality Management Plan. The comparison included:
The continued operation of the Western Slopes Plant versus the trans-
fer of Western Slopes flows to an enlarged Chambers Creek Plant with
the abandonment of the Western Slopes Plant and constructing a pump
station and force main. The analysis indicated the systems should
remain as a separate facilities.
6. Upgrade Fort Lewis Plant to Provide for Secondary Treatment for Fort
Lewis and Certain Other Residential Areas (Not Discussed in Main Text)
This alternative considered combining flows from the Tillicum and
American Lake Garden Tract with flows from the Fort Lewis Plant. The
present Fort Lewis Plant is being upgraded to a secondary level of
treatment. The capacity of the upgraded plant has been designed based
on the flows from the military installations and additional flows from
other sources were not specifically considered.
A-3
-------
Evaluation of the capacity to be provided by the Fort Lewis facility,
the probable military demands on that system, and the relatively small
additional increment of flow generated by American Lake Gardens and
Tillicum indicate that service for these communities to the military
system would be technically feasible. From the strict perspective of
optimum wastewater management planning of the basin, it is clear that
the most cost-effective solution for sewerage service to American Lake
Gardens and Tillicum is to incorporate this service with the military
system as is currently provided for the Town of Dupont. In addition
to optimum cost-effectiveness benefits, this alternative would elimi-
nate multiple stages of raw sewage pumping. These studies were made
during preparation of the 19&9 Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage
General Plan and are reported therein. Service to the above area
will not be provided in the proposed plan.
7. Abandonment of Fort Lewis Plant and Transfer to Chambers Creek Plant
(Not Discussed in Main Text)
This alternative considered the transfer of wastewater flows from
the Fort Lewis Plant to the Chambers Creek Plant. Multiple stages of
raw sewage pumping would be necessary to transfer waste flows from
American Lake Gardens, Tillicum, and the City of Dupont to the Chambers
Creek Treatment facility. This proposal was not cost-effective and
received no further consideration.
B. Wastewater Conveyance - Alternative Collector and Interceptor Routes
For the most part, alignments recommended for collector sewers fall
within public owned streets and rights-of-way and no alternate routes were
considered necessary. An exception to this is the alignment of the pro-
posed main interceptor in the Chambers Creek Canyon from the mouth of
Chambers Creek to the confluence of Chambers Creek and Leach Creek. Three
possible alignments for the interceptor route were considered: In the
creek bottom, along the canyon wall, and out of the Chambers Creek canyon.
All of these routes would involve use of the proposed treatment plant
location immediately north of and adjacent to the mouth of Chambers Creek.
A detailed discussion of the three alternative locations of that portion
of the main interceptor from the treatment plant to Bridgeport Way is
discussed in Appendix A-2.
C. Treatment plants, interceptor sewers, and trunk sewers are designed
for the flows expected by the year 2000 (20-25 years). Design flows are
based on a per capita dry weather flow of 95 gallons per day, a peaking
factor, an allowance for inflow/infiltration, and the year 2000 popula-
tion. Other design periods, including saturation densities were considered
and subsequently rejected due to Federal requirements.
A-4
-------
D. Phasing of Construction
The 1969 Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan called
for construction and financing of the facilities by stages. Stage I and
Stage II are proposed to be constructed in immediate sequence with the
remaining schedules of construction dependent upon future growth and
development of the area. It was anticipated that sewerage growth and develop-
ment would be a continuous activity with construction of trunk sewers and
other facilities as the needs arose.
The most critical stage of the development was the Stage I area
which consists of the Lakewood and Parkland areas. The formation of
the ULID in 1973 essentially encompassed those two areas and is not
that portion of the basin which is being planned for construction.
In addition to the ULID, the need for upgrading of wastewater
facilities for the Town of Steilacoom and the Westside Water District
should be considered in the final selection of alternatives.
Wastewater Management Techniques
Alternative Waste Management Techniques have been analyzed on the
basis of meeting the various State and Federal water quality requirements
established for streams, lakes, and the Puget Sound. Treatment and discharge
to surface waters, wastewater reuse, and land application alternatvie have
been considered.
A. Treatment and Discharge to Marine Waters
In accordance with the latest EPA guidelines for disposal of wastes
to surface waters, effluent quality standards are the determining
criteria for permissable quality of treated wastewater discharges
unless it has been determined that special consideration of receiving
water quality require a better quality discharge. The waters of
Puget Sound in the vicinity of any possible marine discharge from the
Chambers Creek Basin are not considered by the State Department of
Ecology to require such measures. Current standards require that the
discharged effluent meet the standards for secondary treatment. These
standards are set forth in Federal Register Volume 30, no. 150 as follows.
A-5
-------
1. The minimum level of effluent quality to be classified as secondary
treatment is defined in terms of the following values for paramenters
in plant effluent:
Maximum Mean* Value
Parameter Sampling Period Effluent Quali ty
BOD (5 day) 30 consecutive days 30 milligrams per liter or
15 percent of the mean influent
BOD, whichever is smallest
BOD (5 day) 7 consecutive days kS milligrams per liter
Settleable 30 consecutive days 30 milligrams per liter or
Solids 15 percent of the mean influent
SS, whichever is smallest
Settleable 7 consecutive days A5 milligrams per liter
Sol ids
Fecal 30 consecutive days 200 per 100 mill(liters
Col 5 form 7 consecutive days *»00 per 100 mil li liters
pH Continuously Within the limits 6.5 to 9-0
'^Arithmetic mean for BOD and SS, geometic mean for Fecal, Col i form
2. Special consideration is given to treatment plants serving areas
with combined sewer and certain industrial waste categories.
a) Treatment works which receive flows from combined sewers
may receive special consideration in the standards to be
met while handling wet weather floor on a case by case review
basis.
b) Certain categories of industrial wastes which discharge directly
to navigable waters or through a municipal treatment plant to
navigable waters are subject to possible effluent quality adjustment
for BOD and SS. Where the flow is treated in a municipal plant, it
must exceed 10 percent of the total flow to be eligible for
consideration.
Biological secondary treatment utilizing the activated sludge process,
with discharge by submarine outfall to Puget Sound was considered as an
alternative for discharge to surface waters.
Physical-chemical treatment will not be required to meet discharge
standards for surface water disposal of effluent. This optional alternative
for surface water disposal will be considered to the extent that it's
cost effectively competitive with biological treatment alternatives.
A-6
-------
Alternatives utilizing disposal to marine waters will utilize an outfall
location immediately north of the mouth of Chambers Creek. The selection
of the outfall locations has been based on outfall currect studies by Kennedy
consulting engineers and review of the bottom topography offshore at the
proposed outfall location. Further detailed studies are presently being
performed by Northwest Consultant Oceanographers which will be the basis
for the final outfall design.
B. Treatment and Discharge to Inland Waters
Alternatives proposing treatment and discharge of effluent to the
inland receiving waters of the basin would be receiving water quality
determinative and would require a dilution ratio of 20:1 plus restrictive
permissible nutrient loading limits.
The alternative considering disposal to inland waters using multiple
treatment facilities has been reviewed in response to public interest in
this concept, in spite of the apparent problem of limitations due to dilu-
tion requirements previously cited. This alternative utilizes advanced
treatment technology based on the following assumptions:
1. Collection to a single point in the Chambers Creek Basin is not
requi red.
2. Feasible technology will be developed in the future that would
allow the utilization of advanced waste treatment and inland
disposal in a manner which would permit relaxation of the
receiving water dilution requirement.
3- Final disposal would be discharged to an existing stream, or lake.
A. Treatment would include physical-chemical treatment using
lime, ammonia, stripping and carbon absorption. Demineralization
was not assumed.
C. Wastewater Reuse
This alternative wastewater management has been considered to
the extent that water reuse opportunities exist in the basin and to
the extent that this alternative is compatible with the alternative
for discharge to inland surface waters described above. Wastewater
reuse opportunities in the basin include the following:
1. Industrial processes.
2. Groundwater replenishment through recharge.
3- Prevention of saltwater intrusion into a water supply aquifer.
k. Supplementing surface water supply.
5- Providing water for recreational lakes.
Due to the abundance of economical natural water resources of the
Basin, there are no significant needs for wastewater reuse within the
Chambers Creek Basin at this time.
A-7
-------
This fact plus the recognition that reuse or recycling does not
constitute ultimate disposal of wastewater does not encourage serious
consideration of this alternative subsystem or suggest that considera-
tion of reuse of wastewater should significantly influence siting of
treatment facilities.
Land Application
Three acceptable approaches to land application have been considered
These include irrigation, overland flow, and infiltration percolation.
For irrigation the ultimate disposal may be to either groundwater,
evapotranspiration, or surface water. For overland flow the ultimate
disposal is usually to surface water. For infiltration-percolation
the ultimate disposal may be either groundwater or surface water.
Acceptable irrigation techniques include spray, ridge and furrow and
flooding. Acceptable plant cover includes annual and perenial crops,
both harvested and unharvested, pasture, landscape, tree farm and
forest. The general criterion for acceptability is the functional
adequacy of the combination of application rate, soil type, topography,
depth to groundwater and cover material. There are no stated limita-
tions on the character of the wastewater as applied. Suggested criteria
for irrigation are listed below:
Quality of Applled
Irrigation Waters
Secondary Effluent
with Disinfection
Secondary Effluent with-
out Disinfection
Permitted
Irrigation Used
Landscaping with public access
eluding golf courses.
m-
2. Sale to farmers for uncontrolled
general irrigation of pasture and
crops other than those in contact
with the soil or which could be
contacted by water during irriga-
tion.
3. Irrigation of Christmas tree farms.
4. Spray irrigation of forest lands
from which public is not excluded.
Spray irrigation on pasture and
croplands controlled by the waste-
water management agency.
Spray irrigation of forest con-
trolled by the wastewater manage-
ment agency.
A-8
-------
Overland flow relies upon treatment achieved on the surface of the
vegetation and ground surface rather than within an entire zone of
the soil as is the case for irrigation. Percolation to groundwater
is usually small or negligible since relatively impermeable soils
are usually selected for this purpose. The application rates for
overland flow disposal are not related to evapotranspiration or per-
colation but rather to contact time as the flow, in excess of what
can be utilized by the cover crop or absorbed by the soil, transverses
the surface. The treatment process is more analoguous to a trickling
filter in that biota on the cover crop and ground surface act similar-
ly to the biota on the media of the filter.
As for irrigation, no criteria are given limiting the quality of
wastewater as applied to overland flow treatment. The proposed
guidelines indicate that the basis for design is usually a liquid
loading rate, with the cautionary comment that organic-load ing or
detention time criteria may be developed in the future.
A suitable site providing an acceptable combination of soil charac-
teristics and depth of groundwater are critical to infiltration-
percolation treatment which will satisfy BPWTT. Soils that are too
coarse and allow the applied wastewater to pass through the upper
layer too quickly to experience the necessary biological and chemical
action are not acceptable. Depth to groundwater should be at least
15 feet to insure treatment before the wastewater enters the saturated
zone. Soils with inadequate permeability will not support hydraulic
loading rates that make the method economically competitive with other
land application methods.
As for the other land application methods, the proposed guidelines
do not specify any limitation on the quality of the wastewater as
applied. The interrelationship between quality applied and maint-
enance of hydraulic loading capability is pointed out. It is noted
that most successful systems for municipal wastewater have applied
waters of secondary quality.
A review of the Chambers Creek Basin indicate that spray irrigation
is the only suitable Land Application alternative. An evaluation was
made to determine if irrigation would be feasible in the Chambers
Creek Basin based on the following assumptions:
Application rate 2 inch/week - 20 weeks summer
1 inch/week - 32 weeks winter
Storage - 16 weeks
Flow rates - 16 MGD summer
19 MGD winter
Based on the above data, it was determined that some 550 acres would
be required for winter flows with an additional 325 acres needed for
storage.
The above area requirements and suitability requirements of soils
and agricultural utilization limit the location of land application
sites to areas in the vicinity of Frederickson.
A-9
-------
The following summary of costs for delivering treated wastewater
for land application in the basin is conclusive that this subsystem
concept for disposal of wastewater within the Chambers Creek Basin does
not warrant further serious consideration for inclusion with plan
alternatives. Cost, climatic conditions, and site availability limita-
tions are each negative factors which preclude utilization of land
application disposal of wastewater in this basin.
LAND APPLICATION DISPOSAL SUBSYSTEM
Item Capital Cost Annual Cost
1) Land $ 4,230,000 $ 464,400
2) Earthwork 4,691,000 515,000
3) Application Systems 331,000 36,300
4) Transmission Pipeline 15,573,000 1,709,800
5) Pump Stations 18,216,000 2,000,000
6) Operation and Maintenance - 523,000
Costs
TOTAL $43,041,000 $5,248,500
E. Groundwater Discharge
1. Individual Disposal Systems
The disposal subsytem based on individual disposal systems is
based on continued utilization of individual septic tanks and
small interim community disposal systems, all of which discharge
to groundwater.
The performance of the septic tanks in this area has been
discussed earlier and indicate significant water quality
problems are presently being generated under this alternative.
However, since this is the "no project" alternative it Is
considered in Appendix A-2.
2. Infiltration-Percolation Disposal
Disposal of treated wastewater by means of infiltration-
percolation to the groundwater has been considered. This disposal
subsystem alternative will require preliminary secondary treat-
ment plus denitrification to meet the current EPA standard for
discharges to groundwater which require the percolate meet U.S.
Public Health Service drinking water standards. The configuration
of this subsystem is similar to the land application subsystem
previously described utilizing land disposal sites of slightly
less area than required for land application by irrigation.
Feasible siting would also be limited to the Frederickson area.
Costs for infiltration-percolation disposal are of a similar magni-
A-10
-------
tude as those for irrigation land application with the added sub-
stantial cost for denitrification facilities. Transmission piping,
pumping requirements, and energy costs would be almost identical
to those for land application by irrigation. The somewhat lesser
area requirement is more than offset by added earthwork costs and
particularly the substantial added cost for denitrification.
For this reason, a detailed separate cost estimate has not been
prepared and for this reason this subsystem alternative is not
considered feasible and is not given further consideration.
F. Sludge Disposal
An analysis of sludge handling and disposal was performed by Consoer
Townsend and Associates in July, 197^, as part of the Basin Design Data
prepared in connection with the preliminary design of the proposed Chambers
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
A suitability analysis examining the available treatment and disposal
techniques was made along with a cost evaluation of the various alternatives.
The analysis considered the following unit process:
Thickening
Thickening or concentration can be defined as the process of removing
water and wastewater. The basic objectives of thickening is to reduce the
volume of liquid sludge to be handled in subsequent sludge disposal process
Gravity. Thickening by gravity is the most common concentration process.
It is the most common concentration process. It is simple and inexpensive but
does not produce as highly concentrated sludges as other processes.
Flotation. Flotation thickening units are becoming increasingly pop-
ulate at sewage treatment plants especially for handling activated sludges,
with activated sludge they have the advantage over gravity thickening tanks
in that they offer higher solids concentrations and lower initial costs for
the equipment.
Dewatering
The primary objective of any dewatering operation is to reduce the
sludge moisture content to a degree which allows ultimate disposal by in-
cineration, landfilling, heat drying, or other means. Dewatering differs
from sludge thickening in that the sludge is processed into a non-fluid form.
The following dewatering processes are most common: (1) vacuum filtra-
tion, (2) pressure filtration, (3) centrifugation, (k) sand bed drying, and
(5) screening.
A-ll
-------
Sludge Digestion
Anaerobic. Anaerobic digestion can be defined as the decomposition of
organic matter in the absence of free oxygen. Design engineers do not express
uniform opinions on the merits of anaerobic digestion because there are sign-
ificant advantages and disadvantages, it application should be thoroughly
evaluated for each individual situation.
Aerobic. Aerobic digestion is not commonly practised at sewage treat-
ment plants. Its major advantage is that it produces a biologically stable
end product for suitable treatment in a variety of processes.
Conditioning
Conditioning is a means to reduce or eliminate the need for chemicals
and to increase sludge production rates. The most common means of conditioning
\s exposure to heat. Exposing the sludge to heat and pressure coagulates the
solids, breaks down the gel structure, and reduces the hydration and hydro-
phi lie nature of the solids - the liquid portion can then be easily separated.
Combust ion
Incineration of municipal and industrial refuse has been a standard
practice for many years. The combustion of semi-solid sewage and industrial
waste sludge is a relatively recent innovation. Sludge combustion is be-
coming increasingly popular as land areas for sand beds, lagoons, and land-
fills become more difficult to find and more expensive. The land situation
is magnified by ever-increasing volumes of sludge to dispose of and by the
encroachment of urban neighborhoods on land disposal areas.
Incineration is practices for two basic purposes, volume reduction and
solids sterilization. Fulfilling these purposes is expensive and it may
cause an air pollution problem. But the economics of combustion appear more
favorable each year as the alternative sludge disposal methods become more
expensive. Air pollution problems can be solved by proper equipment design
and operation.
Ultimate Disposal
Ultimate disposal of sludge either to the ocean or to land (i.e., open
dumping, lagooning, land application, land reclamation and sanitary land
fill) were considered. Sanitary landfill was determined to be the most
feasible process.
A-12
-------
APPENDIX A-2
ALTERNATIVES DERIVED FROM POSSIBLE SUBSYSTEMS
ALTERNATIVE I I
Description
The Applicant's Proposed Action
An Interceptor to a Central Treatment Plant with disposal to Puget
Sound through a marine outfall.
Alternative II is the first stage of the .officially and legally
adopted Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Sewerage General Plan, which is
the project proposed by the applicant.
The applicant's proposed service area includes ULID 73~1 (Stage I),
the Town of Steilacoom, and the Westside Water District. The applicant's
proposed project includes collection, trunk, and interceptors, sewers a
secondary biological treatment plant, and a submarine outfall. For the
purpose of this analysis, the various possible sub-alternatives are
compared in Appendix A-l and should be referred to for greater detail and
elaboration of information.
The 197^ Chambers Creek Water Quality Management Plan provides subsystem
alternates for three locations of the main interceptor sewer in Chambers Creek.
The route recommended is high within the Chambers Creek Canyon, because it
was determined that the added costs of pumping and realignment do not justify
relocating the line out of the canyon. All of these routes would involve use
of the proposed treatment plant location north of and adjacent to the mouth
of Chambers Creek. In the 1969 Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin Sewerage
Plan, two sites were considered for the centralized sewage treatment plant
in the vicinity of the mouth of Chambers Creek. However, since the original
study, it became necessary to find an altogether new location for the treat-
ment plant because of the unsuitability of one site and the infeasibi1ity of
the other. The alternative interceptor locations and treatment plant sites
are discussed in greater detail below.
Alternative Interceptor Routes
ROUTE 1
Route 1 located the interceptor higher on the canyon wall to
minimize environmental impact adjacent to Chambers Creek. Gravity flow
to the relocated treatment plant would be maintanined. This is the route
proposed by the grant applicant. The interceptor alignment under this
alternative is entirely on the north side of the Chambers Creek Canyon
A-13
-------
and eliminates two Chambers Creek crossings but adds an interceptor
crossing of Leach Creek and a trunk crossing of Chambers Creek, the
Hipkins trunk. Some additional pumping will be required with this
route. Figure A-l shows Alternative Route 1. The annual cost is shown
be 1ow.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 1
Capital Annual
Construction of k,188,000 359,000
Interceptor
Sewage Treatment Plant 4Ht,000 36,000
Land Purchase
Line 03
Pump Station 378,000 32,000
Operation & Maintenance - 16,000
Force Main 106,000 9,000
Gravity Sewer 28,000 2,000
Zircon Drive
Pump Station 392,000 3^,000
Operation & Maintenance - 12,000
Force Main 37,000 3,000
Gravity Sewer 38,000 3,000
Hipkins Trunk
Creek Crossing kk],000 38,000
Town of Steilacoom 854,000 73,000
Realignment
Operation & Maintenance - 9,000
TOTAL $6,876,000 $626,000
A-
-------
-------
ROUTE 2
The alignment of Route 2, while not in the creek, does closely parallel
Chambers Creek near the bottom of the canyon to the confluence of Leach
Creek and then along Leach Creek to Bridgeport Way. This route is thought to
conflict with the objectives of the Shoreline Management Plan. This
alignment would require two creek crossings using pipe trestle in order to
minimize the disturbance to the creek bed. This configuration is shown on
Figure A-2. The estimated annual costs for Alternative Route 2 are shown
below.
Lift Station
Sewage Treatment Plant
Land Purchase
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 2
Capital
2,345,000
Operation & Maintenance
Interceptor Construe-
tion
Town of Steilacoom
Real ignment
Operation 6 Maintenance
TOTAL
Cost Dollars
4,763,000
854,000
_ - _
$8,376,000
55,000
409,000
73,000
9,000
$783,000
A-16
-------
-------
ROUTE 3
Route 3 locates the main Interceptor out of Chambers Creek Canyon
entirely and relocates It in County right-of-way. A major wastewater
pump station is added In the vicinity of Bridgeport Way and Leach Creek with
some 4,000 feet of force main going north on Bridgeport Way then west along
Chambers Creek Road to a point where it connects to the gravity portion of
the main interceptor and from there the interceptor continues in Chambers
Creek Road to the treatment plant site. Under this alternative, three
pump stations are required with a force main crossing of Chambers and Flett
Creeks. Alternative Route 3 is shown on Figure A-3. The estimated annual cost
of Alternative Route 3 is shown below.
Ultimately, it was determined that the additional costs of pumping
do not justify locating the line completely out of the canyon.
A-18
-------
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 3
Capital
Annual
Interceptor Construction
Pump Station
Operation 6 Maintenance
Force Main
Gravity Sewer
Line 03
Pump Station
Operation & Maintenance
Force Main
Gravity Sewer
Zircon Drive
Pump Station
Ooeration 6 Maintenance
Force Main
Gravity Sewer
Line 06
Pump Station
Operation & Maintenance
Force Main
Town of Steilacoom Realignment
Ooeration & Maintenance
STP Land
TOTAL
2,425,000
-
552,000
2,165,000
378,000
-
106,000
28,000
392,000
-
37,000
38,000
644,000
-
254,000
854,000
-
414,000
208,000
139,000
47,000
186,000
32,000
16,000
9,000
2,000
34,000
11,000
3,000
3,000
55,000
31,000
22,000
73,000
9,000
36,000
$8,287,000
$ 916,000
A-19
-------
= =
a. in
-------
Location of Treatment Plant (Figure A-A)
Alternative Site A
Alternative Site A for the treatment plant is a higher elevation
site, which requires a lift station in order to avoid conflict with exist-
ing quarry operations. This is the site proposed by Pierce County in
their ElA, because of the infeasibi1ity of Site B and the unsuitabi1ity of
Site C.
Alternative Site B
Alternative Site B is the Glacier Quarry site which is owned by
the Glacier Sand and Gravel Company. The expressed willingness of the
Glacier Sand and Gravel Company management to negotiate site acquisition
permitted the original analysis of this site.
In order to utilize the treatment plant site as proposed in the 1969
Sewerage General Plan, it would be necessary to perform extensive earth-
work and to relocate the present quarry operation of Kaiser Sand and Gravel,
since the company's quarry operations have changed since 1969 when the site
was originally proposed. Consequently, this site is now regarded as
infeasible.
Alternative Site C
Alternative Site C is located in the bottom of Chambers Creek Canyon
approximately one and one-half miles upstream from the mouth of Chambers
Creek. This site was originally considered in the Lakewood Water District
Sewerage Plan. Later, an analysis performed by Dames and Moore for the
1969 General Plan recommended against this site:
"It is also our opinion that there are several locations
nearer to the mouth of Chambers Creek which, from the viewpoint
of the soils engineer and geologist, provide better potential
treatment plant sites. We recommend consideration of these
locations as laternates to the Chambers Creek Channel site."
A-21
-------
-------
Outfall
Submarine Outfall
The submarine outfall preliminary design calls for an outfall
extending approximately 600 feet offshore to a depth of 130 feet
including a nominal diffuser section. Several alternative outfall sites
were considered prior to making the site selection based on oceanographic
investigations. The site selected maximized the diffusion of discharge
pollutant and minimized the return to shore of same. Final outfall and
diffuser designs are dependent to planned detailed measurement of the
discharge zone receiving water dynamics and physical and chemical
characteristics of the receiving water.
A-23
-------
APPENDIX B
Ground Water
The occurrence of groundwater in regions of Pierce County is described
in the Washington Department of Water Resources, Water Supply Bulletin No.
22 (3). Four of these regions occur in the vicinity of the project. They
are the "Fircrest-North Tacoma Region", the "Tacoma-Fort Lewis Region",
the "Summit Region" and the "Southern Region". The following descriptions
of groundwater conditions in these regions are abstracted from the referenced
Bulletin No. 22 (7).
Fircrest - North Tacoma Region
Although the surface layer above elevation 240 in this area is
primarily a Vashon Till mantle of low permeability, there are local deposits
of gravel which are recharged by rainwater. Shallow wells in these gravels
have limited yields, tend to run dry in the summer and are subject to
surface contamination. The aquifers below this shallow surface layer are
largely recharged by water which moves laterally underground from the south.
Well yields tend to increase with depth until a very high yield formation
is reached between 40 feet above sea level to more than 100 feet below sea
level.
Tacoma - Fort Lewis Region
The majority of ULID 73~1 lies within the Tacoma-Fort Lewis groundwater
region. The surface layers in this region are generally mantled by
Steilacoom Gravel and Vashon recessional gravel. Below the gravel layer
there is a 20 to 30 foot thick layer of Vashon till that, in some locations,
reaches the surface. Colvos Sand and Salmon Springs Drift occur at sea
level. The water bearing portions of the surface layers are in general
too thin to produce large yield wells, but there are local exceptions. Most
wells in the region are drilled to the aquifers at approximate sea level.
The yield of the sea level aquifers is variable due to the nonuniform!ty
of the formation, but there are areas of exceptionally high yield like to
City of Tacoma wells in the South Tacoma area. Recharge appears to be
largely by local rainfall that penetrates the Vashon drift which has
nonuniform area and thickness distribution. Groundwater movement in this
region is generally toward Puget Sound. The total discharge of groundwater
by springs in this region is estimated to be 42,000 gpm of 68,000 acre-feet
per year. This estimate is probably low because some water undoubtly
escapes directly into Puget Sound through submarine springs.
B-l
-------
Summit Region
The surface of this region is mantled by a layer of Vashon till
material that is up to 200 feet thick. Below this layer of low permea-
bility there are Vashon advance gravels and In some areas non-water bearing
cemented sand and gravel. Within the study area the upper limit of water
bearing material appears to be at about elevation 250 feet; however,
occurrence of useable well yields for even domestic use 'in this stratum
are frequently not realized.
Southern Region
Vashon recessional gravel or Steilacoom Gravel mantles large areas
within this region. These gravels are underlain by Vashon till which
is in turn underlain by Vashon advance gravel. Most of the wells in this
area are shallow wells for domestic supply so that data for deep and large
yield wells is scarce. Recharge of the permeable surface layers appears
to be from rainfall.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
Flood Hazards
Flooding has occurred in the past at various points along the Chambers
Creek-Clover Creek stream system. Recent channel improvement and channel
realignment projects have been completed in order to minimize the possibility
of future floods, The unincorporated areas of Pierce County, including
Lakewood and Parkland, have not yet been officially investigated for flood
hazards nor has the Lakewood and Parkland area been .included in any Flood
Hazard Boundary Map.
Flood Hazard Boundary Maps are issued by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and identify special flood hazard areas in accor-
dance with the National Flood Insurance Program, as authorized by the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (k2 U.S.C. 1*001-1*127) and the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-231*, 31 December 1973). Until HUD
or the Army Corps of Engineers performs an official flood hazard investi-
gation of the Chambers Creek-Clover Creek Basin, information about project
area flood hazards can only be obtained from past flood records and studies
and from discussions with DOE staff or Pierce County engineers. In this
manner, information was obtained about the following areas.
Chambers Creek:
Flooding occured on 9 May 1972 along Chambers Creek between the Fish
Hatchery near Steilacoom Lake to the confluence with Leach Creek. During
the 1972 flood, some stream-side residential properties along the reach of
Chambers Creek described above were affected by bank erosion. During
August through October of 1972, that reach of large stones piled along the
channel sides. The channel improvement cost about $85,000. The effectiv-
ness of the Chambers Creek channel improvements with respect to flood control
is not known.
Clover Creek downstream of McChord Field:
Some areas adjacent to Clover Creek downstream of McChord Field have
occasionally been flooded. The area north of Clover Creek between
Steilacoom Lake and McChord Field known as Tyhee Park was flooded in
December 1933. February 1951, and February 1961.
The most extensive flooding of the Tyhee Park area west of Bridgeport
Way and north of Clover Creek resulted from the 1973 flood. Discharge and
recurrence interval data for the above mentioned floods are presented in
the following Table.
The following description of the flooding the area of Clover Creek
downstream of McChord Field is abstracted from the 1962 USGS Clover Creek
flood study.
"The 1951 flood covered Bridgeport Way and was up to the edge of
the pavement of the old Highway 99- It topped the bank just below
the Northern Pacific Railway bridge and some flow escaped into the
old channel which led to Ponce de Leon Creek, but it did not flow
past 112th Street SW."
C-l
-------
FLOOD DISCHARGES AND RECURRENCE
INTERVALS ON CLOVER CREEK
Location
Clover Cr. at
C Street
Clover Cr. near
Till! cum gage
Di scharge
Date ->Dec. Feb. Dec.
1933 1951 1955
630 A30 300
800 568 -
in cfs
Nov. Feb.
I960 1961
183 171
162 275
Recurrence interval in years
Dec. Feb. Dec. Nov. Feb.
1933 1951 1955 I960 1961
over
50 23 622
over
50 2k - 1 2
-Values for December 1933 cannot be considered better than approximate.
C-2
-------
"During the 1933 flood Pacific Highway (old U.S. 99) was under
water for several hundred feet between Clover Creek and Carlyle
Road, but water reportedly did not overtop the Northern Pacific
Railroad fill. Water is said to have flowed like a river in the
overflow channel at lllth Street.
A 1974 Army Corps of Engineers backwater map of Clover Creek in the
area downstream of McChord Field shows a 100-year flood contour which encloses
an area north of Clover Creek similar to that inundated by the 1933 Flood.
The total area within the 100-year flood contour is approximately 120 acres
adjacent to and north of Clover Creek between McChord Field and Sterlacoom
Lake. The area downstream of McChord Field and within the 100-year flood
contour includes portions of Arrowhead Drive, Pawnee Drive, Seminole Drive,
119th Street SW, 117th Street, 55th Avenue, 119th Street CT., 58th Avenue,
and and area east of Interstate 5 bounded by 47th Avenue SW and including
the area around 123rd Street SW.
Clover Creek in the area downstream of McChord Field is privately
owned. The residents in that area have occasionally removed portions of
the berm along the creek channel because it is unattractive, and they have
also dammed the creek to produce fish ponds. These actions make flooding
unpredictable in that area.
Clover Creek upstream of McChord Field:
Upstream of McChord Field, areas adjacent to the old Clover Creek
channel and the new Clover Creek alignment (but before its recent improve-
ment) were flooded in 1933. 1951> 1955, and 1961. Flooding also occurred
along North Fork Clover Creek during the 1933, 1951, 1955, and 1961 floods.
Flooding in these cases occurred mainly adjacent to stream channels. The
most extensive flooding occurred in 1933 when overbank flood waters were
generally less than approximately 300 feet on either side of Clover Creek
and the then unimproved bypass channel.
Drainage areas of Clover Creek and North Fork at their confluence
are approximately 43 and 6 square miles, respectively. About 5 square miles
of the North Fork basin is underlain by relatively impereable layers of
glacial till and compacted gravel which cause the North Fork to flow full
during heavy rainfall. Most of the surface of the Clover Creek basin is
underlain by glacial san and gravel that is highly permeable. The differences
in surface permeabilities result in generally higher peak discharge rates
in the North Fork, especially in early fall. It has been reported that at
times the North Fork was at flood stage when there was no flow in Clover
Creek at 136th Street in Parkland.
Upstream from McChord Field the floods of 1951 and 1955 inundated only
slightly more area than was inundated by the 1961 flood but less area than
was inundated in 1933- The following description of the various areas of
Parkland which have been flooded in the past is abstracted from the 1962
USGS flood study of Clover Creek.
C-3
-------
"The February 1961 flood (discharge 171 cfs at C Street, recurrence
interval 2 years) inundated D Street near 1^3rd Street,13^th Street
between Pacific Avenue and A Street, 127th Street kist east of Park
Avenue, and Tule Lake Road near Spanaway Loop Road. At 127th Street
overflow lasted almost two weeks, At the intersection of 133rd
Street and Pacific Avenue water just reached the pavement. A small
amound of water backed in over 125th Street. (D Street was built up
at the point of flooding during the summer of 1961 and a culvert was
placed under the road.)
"C Street, south of 130th Street, and 128th Street would become
inundated by flood stages slightly higher than those of the
February 1961 flood. A flood of about 280 cfs (recurrence interval ,
5-5 years) would overtop C Street amd 128th Street. Several additional
streets were overtopped by the 1955 flood. In the area upstream
from McChord Field all but three streets (A, 130th, and L) were
overtopped by the 1951 flood."
In 1966-67, Pierce County built a paved, straight, box culverted bypass
flood control channel for Clover Creek upstream of McChord Field. The
bypass channel begins approximately halfway between Pacific Avenue and
C Street at 131st Street, then flows west to McChord Field. As discussed
previously, the crest stream gaging of Clover Creek near Tillicum was
discontinued in 1970, but from 1962 through 1970 no peak discharge exceeded
the 1961 flood discharge of 275 cfs. Therefore, the effectiveness of the
Clover Creek bypass channel to control floods the size of the 1961 flood or
greater has not been proven. However, the new Clover Creek channel was
designed for a flood stage flow of 650 cfs which should be adequate to
handle conditions similar to the 1933 flood. The 1933 flood had a recur-
rence interval greater than 50 years.
Pierce County has recently requested that a National Flood Insurance
Program survey be performed in the County. The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development is now organizing such a flood study. When completed,
the HUD flood study should provide substantial information on flood
hazards, if any, in the Chambers Creek U.L.I.D..
-------
APPENDIX D
Seismic Hazards
The Chambers ULID Project is located in the southern portion of an
area which has experienced a number of moderate to strong motion earth-
quakes during the past 100 years. In the last 50 years, only the earth-
quake-prone portions of California, western Nevada, and southwestern Montana
have exceeded this degree of seismic activity within the continental United
States. While most of these earthquakes have been small, several severe
shocks have been experienced in the area. Two of these, called "strong-
motion" earthquakes, have been measured directly, having occurred in more
recent times (expressed on the Richter Scale, the measure of magnitude),
while earlier events have been classified by their historical intensity
(expressed by the Modified Mercalli Scale, the measure of direct intensity).
By comparing the maximum intensity and size of the "felt" area of historical
earthquakes with more recently measured earthquakes occurring in all parts
of the world, geologists have been able to express the magnitudes of these
older events on the Richter Scale. Tabel D-l shows the maximum intensity
(Modified Mercalli Scale), size of the "felt" area, and the Richter magnitude
for the strong-motion earthquakes that have occurred in the Puget Sound area
since 1870.
The ratio between the number of events of a particular Richter mag-
nitude and the number of events of a larger or smaller magnitude is called
recurrence. Geologists have found that, in general, the number of events
decreases exponentially for a given time interval as the magnitude increases
and remains constant for events of the same magnitude. The interval between
large-motion earthquakes in a particular region can be hundreds or even
thousands of years. Events of less magnitude occur more often, and events
with a very slight magnitude (known as microseismic events, preceived only
with instrumentation) occur daily. Table D-2 shows the recurrence intervals
for the southern Puget Sound region.
The entire Puget Lowland can be categorized as having a potential for
high seismic activity. Construction projects planned for this area are,
therefore, required to conform to the specific design regulations of the
Zone 3 seismic risk category.
The important question to be answered with respect to the impact of
a seismic event on a sewer line or network of sewer lines is the response
of a particular site seismic activity. Two considerations are of primary
importance in answering this question. First, the geological character of
the site selected and, second, the location and activity of specific faults.
With respect to geologic character, rock or sediment types, their
distribution, water content, and the level of the water table are all
variables which interact to create the way a particular site reacts to
a seismic event. Certain conditions may lower the intensity of an
earthquake by attenuating the seismic energy, while other conditions may
amplify seismic motion. For example, bedrock acts as a dampener, while
sediment usually acts as an intensifier, with thick deposits of saturated
sediment most susceptible to amplification of seismic motion.
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l
STRONG MOTION EARTHQUAKES IN THE
SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND REGION, 1870-1965
Date
1872
1880
1895
1903
1913
1916
1928
1931
1932A
1932B
1934A
1934B
1939
19AOA
1940B
19^5
1946A
1946B
1949
1950
1954
I960
1961
1962
1965
*Magni
Source
Intensity (M.M.)
VII
VII
V-VI
V
V
V
VI
VI
V-VII
V
V
IV-V
VII
IV
V
VII
VI 1
VI
VIM
VI
VI
VI
VI-VII
VI
VIII
tude measured
: Carver, et al , The
Felt Area
150,000
10,000
8,000
12,000
10,000
14,000
7,000
10,000
10,000
60,000
15,000
12,000
45,000
70,000
150,000
7,000
17,000
14,000
7,000
13,000
130,000
Nisqual ly Delta,
Richter Magnitude
6.6
5.5
5.2
5-2
5.0
5-3
5.0
5-2
5-3
5-0
5-1
5.1
5.9
5-4
5.2
5-7
6.0
5-1
7.1*
5.1
S.k
5.2
5.2
5.3
6.5*
Science Publication No. 1, University of Washington, 1971
D-2
-------
TABLE D-2
RECURRENCE INTERVALS FOR THE
SOUTHERN PUGET SOUND REGION
Richter Magnitude Recurrence Intervals (Years)
3-5-4.0 .25-.5
4.1-4.5 -5- 2
4.6-5.0 2- 5
5-1-5.5 5-10
5.6-6.0 10-30
6.1-6.5 30-60
6.6-7.0 60-150
7-1+ 150+
Source: Carver, et at, The Nisqually Delta, Department of
Geological Science Publication No. 1, Univeristy
of Washington, 1971
D-3
-------
The result of such amplification can be several types of ground
failure, including slumping and surface subsidence. In some cases,
localized ground failure could result in the rupturing or separation of
sewer lines. This danger is slight and certainly mitigated by the
construction specifications of a Zone 3 seismic risk category. Since the
glacial deposits in the Puget Lowlands are well consolidated and since the
topography of the ULID is for the most part flat with no extreme slopes,
with the water table well below the surface, adverse seismic responses
should be minimal.
With respect to the location and activity of specific faults, there
is very little information upon which to predicate an informed judgment,
since recent glaciation of the surface topography in the Puget Lowland
and the present condition of heavy vegetative cover make it difficult to
ascertain the location of specific fault zones.
-------
o
LU
O.
a.
CO
z
o
H-
<
«
u.
CO
co
^5
o
^.
>-
_i
<
&
(£.
LU
Z
o
1-
o
z
X
co
ai
u.
o
LU
i-
^~
.j£
o£
LU
i^
r~
^
Z
CO
LU
ce.
li-
ce
o
u.
CO
a
DC
o
<
1-
co
>-
_1
<
^f
Q£
LU
K-
3
K
z.
<
1-
O
O_
£
(/I
t/1
re
o
0)
re
_j
^-^
L.
^
o re
u.
^_^
TD
^_^
^^^
4-1
C
4)
^ *~
0)
U
X
LU
^-^
^__^
>^
L_
re
c
s ?
0
re
4_)
X
LU
^^^
t_
0)
4-J
0)
E
l_
re
o_
c
re o
TD CM
« *J
c.
re o
o
TD CO
i v|
c
re o
o
TD 0
C
re
o
TD -3-
£ vl
c
re
o
TD m
- u
3 0)
in in
re re re
E ^ 3
O 4J
o ro
Z TD C
o
in
in
\O
A
o
*
oo
A
"?
(T\
A
C?
CTI
£
C
0)
O)
X
o
"O
0)
1
o
I/)
in
Q
Q)
0)
C
re
u
0)
p
.a re
re i- to
1- 3 C
3 4J O
m re
ro c 4-«
0) .-
E E TD
O c
O L- O
z n- o
in
p-^
vM
o
I***.
N/l
in
vO
VI
o
vO
vl
^^
in
4-1
«
**^ c
U- =3
o
« ' TD
1_
c
(0
L.
*^~*
(/)
c
o
1 1
+^
TD
C
O
u
^
ro
L-
3
4-*
ro
c
*~
re
3
4_l
re
c
^5
( ^
-9 (U
in o
zo
1-
"> ^
0)
o >
o
ID
h-
^^ L.
0)
o >
0
,_
re
L.
3
4-1
re
c
^
H- u
-> «)
in o
»
re
3
L.
4-1
re
c
»- I-
-5
in o
c
O '"»
in in
<^ 4J
O
re c
-5 3
^ '
>.
1 4J
«
>--o
t 1 t^
.- ^J
-0 L.
3
J3 4-1
U
3
h-
(/)
C
O
4J
^
-o
c
o
0
^K
re
L-
3
4-1
re
c
^
re
u
3
4-1
re
c
in
c
O
4-1
-o
0
u
in
C
O
4-1
'-5
C
O
o
U)
c
o
4-1
o
§
trt
c
.2
4-J
T3
O
u
m
r«*v
^_
*«
a>
c
3
in
-o
i_
re
D
c
ro
4-1
CO
>^
4J
^->
re
3
O'
(U
4-1
re
>«.
O^
o
^
8
LLl
l^
o
4-J
C
4)
E
4->
L.
re
CL
0)
o
^
c
o
4-1
Ol
C
_
f"
I/)
re
3
O
(U
4-1
re
4_>
CO
E
O
u
14_
TD
(U
Ol
TD
U
-Q
^f
*
E-l
-------
SUMMARY OF CLASS-AA MARINE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
PARAMETER
CRITERIA
Median Total Coliform Organisms
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Dissolved Gas
Temperature Level
T (°F) over ambient
Turbi di ty
Toxic/Radioact ive/Deleterious
Materials
Aesthetic Values
£70/100 ml, with less than 10% of
samples>230/100 ml when associated
with a fecal source.
>7.0 mg/1
^110% saturation at sampling point.
<55°F (12.8°C) if partially due to
measurable (0.5°F) human activity
increases.
St = 2V(T-39), T = water temperature
due to combined causes.
^
5JTU above natural conditions.
-------
It.
X
o
z
III
Q-
0.
CO
o
CO
1- Z
CO <
LU
cc t£.
LU 1-
o
2 LU
4 cc.
U
h-
1- UJ
1 ^^
i cf
LL.
cc. o
LU
1-
<
.*
olved Oxygen Conduct inity
(mg/1) pH (micromhos) Source
Ift
U)
o
1-
LU
< O
0_ t-
LU CO
ro oo
01 1
C CM
ro
cc
c
4-1
K
-Q -5
L. >*
3
V-
(U
z
0) <
Ol Z
c
ro
cc
Q)
L.
3
W
U H?
0) o
Q.- *
E
K
T3 -O
O *-
.- >4- 0
U 0 0
0) (U
O- cc
c
ro
Qj
-
vo cn
cn
i
r-
LU
CC
< O
Q- 1-
LU CO
CM
O
vO
OO
1
vO
O
-3"
CO
1
CM
*
OO
LA
O
I»H
|
CM
CM
LA
0*1
p*^
1
OO
CO
CM
CM f--.
vO CT»
cn ^~
i i
i-
LU
< O
Q. 1-
LU CO
LA
O
1
CM
OO
OO
O
1
LA
vO
CO
1
OO
OO
LA
O
CM
1
O
CM
LA
O
1
O
-3-
LA
CM VO
vO O~>
cn
~- i
LU
§
-3-
0
CM
CM
CO
-3-
vO
cn
vO
oo
CO
vO
LA
oo
oo
CM
CO
1
LA
-T
CM
"~
O
CM
i~-
1
O
CM
LA
00
vO
LA
J"
LA
CM VO
vo cn
cn *
i
LU
< 0
Q- I-
UI CO
LA
vO
i
o
CM
oo
1
vo*
LA
vo
o
vO
CM
1
0
on
-3-
IA
ftaw
1
O
o
LA
cn
LA
1
CM
-3-
LA
CM VO
vo on
cn F"
i
LU LU LU
O O O
o o a
oo
cn
o < <
-z. -z.
\
CO
CO
O CM
LA
<
P*v "Z.
\
LA
i cn
vO
CO
< <
z z i
vO
r-.
< < <
z. z z
-3-
-3-
< < LA
Z Z LA
cn
CO
CO
CM !*» CM CM
^^ O"\ ^* ^^
o^ F~ cr\ &\
r I F r
E
ro
-^.
o ro
u CQ
ro
(U x~.
> o
-------
to
0
L.
CO CO
LU
O£ ^
UJ <
1- -1
O
< <
O£ LU
-C <
0
t-
>- 0
1- LU
-3
_ 1 O
< cc
=> o.
o1
u.
oe o
LU
h-
3
*
flj
o
3
O
to
^ ^
E
U
>* """x.
4-* tO
o
> JC
E
** O
0 L.
3 O
"D
C E
O *
O
Q.
.;;
to ^
^ -
_J --^
\ CD
to E
co
"O
0)
*
o
U) U) ^
._ -O
Q . v^
O1
0 E
fO CO -
4->
O
t-
ro . ^
1 Li-
CU o
Q. -
E
o r^
r^» cn
cn
r |
C
ro
o
L.
d)
E
cC
t-
LU
< 0
0- 1-
LU CO
CO
LA
p«
OO
P
1
-a-
.^
^-~
(^^
CM
|v^
1
OO
.
VO
f^
O
0
O
1 CO
0 0
o
o
O 1
LA
cn
LA
_
r
|
LA
00
-j;
Z
-a-
LA
1
|
O
P-.
cn
^
>.
^_
0)
>
ro
i_
0
t-
LU
C£.
< 0
0_ 1
LU CO
CM
CM
i
^
_a*
^_
i
0
0
cn
t^
CM
cn
i
03
vO
_
*~
O
o
OO
CO CM
0 0
o
c
0 1
CO
oo
CTi
oo
1
-a-
i*-
^~
vO
CO
I-..
1
^~
LA
r-.
0 0
r--- cn
cn
r 1
E
8
U
0)
^~
*
(U
4-1
to
1-
LU
C£
< 0
OL- H-
LU CO
r
r**>
-a-
p^
i
LA
vO
,
CO
p"x
r--
P^
i
cn
vO
CO
r
o
o
CO
»-~ vO
0 0
0
o
O 1
-3-
-T
1
'
LA
O
r-
i
o
-a-
CO
px.
cn
f
CD
JC.
O1 O 4J (/)
C O 0)
co ro o
jc c)
(/) 2C >
ro 4-> L.
3 Q. T3 (U
0) C CO
o ro
CM
cn
< cn
z. c
L-
3
U)
-a- o
o
P"""" ^«
0)
co
r*x jc
r>
i ro
CM 0)
. T
vO
o
C
ro
ro
r
0 0
o
O CO
14-
o
vO
-a- 4J
o o c
O 0)
0 E
O 1 4->
ro
Q.
0)
o
c
O
+-J
O)
c
-C
< ro
z. 3
0)
f
4-1
>»
_O
I/I
(U
Q.
E
< ro
z m
»
to
,_
O
CM
r~- to
cn OQ
*
U)
4J
C
ro
4-1
D. O
o ro
-C V-
o^ ^~
3 3
ro co
3 -K
.
CM
cn
^_
i
ro
3
L»
J2
u!
C
M
c
-------
CO
LU
O
LU
h-
Z
r
(0
+J
o
(-
I/I
u
4J
I/I
_
0)
4J
u
(0
u
«D
£
^^^^^
4J
- *>.
* I"
3*
O1
^
(U
4-1
(0
jf
0)
0
IB
li
*t"
3
CO
0>Z*
O 1/1
nj u ro
2s~
c
O 0) , v
04 Z
C O
(0 t- i/)
FT* j * (TI
W* *"* *v
i_ .-
O Z
(Dx-s
* Z
c
Q (A
c *n
5
0) x-*
4-1 Z
u !S
.
Z
fl)-^
4-1 Z
fO
V- VI
4J «0
Z
4)
^J
(0
x:
Q.
I/I x^
O 0.
.c
Q. U)
(0
"ro
4->
O
1-
4)
(Q
^ ^ ^
O.Q.
I/I
O tn
£ (0
O
^
4->
^_
O
o
4->
o. a
4) E
CO
a>
it
(0
o
4)
(0
_1
on-a* oo ro o o oo o
O O sO *~" *" OO CA i p
o ~-
CM CM CA CM CM !**
1 1 1 O O rA O O O
O
vo \o o r>. CM oo
1 1 1 0 O PA O O
O
O vO O CM PA O
o -a- o -a- vo
1 1 1 O O C O O CM
o
OOCMOOCMCMt vQ
O
C) PA vO PA O O vo o CO
f~\ ^B* ff} f^ f*. (^ (^ r~* CO
OOOOOCMOOO
o
OOOOOvOOOvO
ooooo ooo
o o o
t*~ c~) f^i CA ^^" F^* PA *^T *^
LA on -a* oo -a~ vo
10 (ororo (O-
f^
0)
>
(D
1_
C9
vO PA -a1 OO LA LA
CTV LA CM CM O
PA CM CM
1 1 1 O O O
LA PA PA
1 1 1 O O O
OOO
OOO
1 1 1 0 O O
ry
CM o o o o -a-
o on LA CM CM o
o
o vo vo LA on CM
O O PA LA LA LA
O O O O 0 O
o
CD CD CD on c*j on
o o -a* LA -a*
000000
o
o r*- PA o P~
on o o o o o -c
vo CM P*- P~- i r-» 4->
^Nfc *v» *^s, *"^ "^^ "*^ L-
PA on on CM CM CM o
CM ^^ PA CM CM CM
on CM vo o o o
c: ^^ ^~ *"^ TO
o
8
(0
^~
.
a)
CO
-C
4-1
3
O
CO
^
F-3
-------
SURFACE WATER NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS
WITH TROPHIC LEVEL COMPARISON
Selected Trophic Level Paramteters (mg/1)
Nitrate Nitrogen
(as N)
Range Mean
Ammonia Nitrogen
(as N)
Range Mean
Total Phosphate Period
(as P) of .
Range Mean Record
General Trophic
Levels: *
01 igotrophi c
Mesotrophic
Eutrophic
0.01-01
0.1-1.0
1.0
0.01-0.1
0.1-0.5
0.5
0.005-0.020
0.02-0.5
70.05
Project Area Lakes:
American 0.0-0.67 0.16
Gravelly
Steilacoom
Louise
Spanaway
Waughop
0.04-2.7 0.79
0.04-1.30 0.57
0.01-1.0 0.19
0.01-0.8 0.18
0.01-2.45 1.30
Project Area Streams:
Chambers (at 0.02-1.04 0.49
Stei1 acorn Lake)
Chambers 0.01-1.70 1.06
(below Leach
Creek)
Chambers (at 0.10-1.70 1.06
Chambers Bay)
Clover (at 0.14-1.63 0.71
Steilacoom Lake)
Clover 0.63-1.59 0.99
(upper reach)
Flett
Leach
1.12-2.05 1.63
0.29-1.22 0.91
Morey 0.64-1.07 0.86
Ponce de Leon <0.02-8.59 1.59
Spanaway 0.02-1.07 0.58
0.0-1.30 0.31
0.05-3-1 0.85
0.02-0.49 0.16
NA
3.1-0.13
NA
NA
0.04-0.32 0.16
0.01-0.32 0.14
NA
NA
0.0-0.4 0.02
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0-0.20 0.04 9/69-97
^0.01-0.78 0.17 9/69-10/
0.0-0.079 0.035 9/69/9/71
0.008- 0.04 1/72-8/
^0.01-0.85 0.09 3/72-8/73
0.04-0.42 0.20 1972
0.02-0.33 0.09 10/62-9/70
0.02-0.14 0.06 10/71-
0.02-0.14 0.06 10/71-9
(N03 1972-
1973)
0.01-0.12 0.03 10/62-9
0.01-0.05 0.02** 8/72-9/72
<0.01-0.02 0.01** 2/72-9
0.04-0.17 0.065 10/62-9/
<0.01-0.03 0.02 2/72-3/7
0.01-0.17 0.06 5/67-1/
<0.01-0.01 <0.01** 8/71-9/72
*Ranges of nutrient values indicative ot trophic levels were compiled from
Reference 111-27, 111-28, and 111-29.
** Ortho-phosphate only
NA, not available
F-4
-------
GROUNDWATER QUALITY FROM SELECTED WELLS *
PARAMETER
Well No.
Date
Silica
Iron
Manganese
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Phosphate (as P04)
Total Solids
Hardness (CaC03)
Specific Conductance
(umhos/cm)
PH
Color (std. units)
Turbidity (JTU)
Depth (ft.)
J-l
4/25/72
26.20
0.06
0.003
13.6
9.23
7.0
1.95
90.28
1.8
9.0
0.62
1.5
0.018
0.15
116
72
168
7.1
5
1.0
158
LAKEWOOD
D-2
ft/25/72
39.0
0.36
0.006
10.4
9.23
6.8
2.05
70.76
4.3
2.5
0.11
0.026
0.040
0.30
110
64
112
7.3
5
0.9
502
K-2
1/27/71
7.50
0.30
None
10.4
4.4
5.6
1.4
80.52
8.1
12.5
0.06
0.84
0.063
0.32
91
44
120
7.25
10
2.5
572
2
3/3/71
7.50
None
None
11.6
8.0
7.2
1.0
40.3
11.7
6.75
0.05
2.9
-
0.10
77
62
140
7.3
13
0.3
PARKLAND
3
3/3/71
2.0
None
None
11.2
7.3
7.0
1.0
44
9.0
6,25
0.04
2.8
0.06
68
58
130
7.0
12
0.4
5
3/3/71
3.5
None
0.015
16.8
7.3
7.6
1.2
43.9
7.4
8.0
0.13
4.6
0.32
79
72
154
7.4
5
0.3
LAS
5/11/72
0.016
0.021
*References:
State of Washington, Department of Social 6 Health Services Division,
Water Quality Analysis from Lakewood Water District Wells,
1971-72.
F-5
-------
APPENDIX G
LIST OF SPECIES AND THEIR RELATIVE ABUNDANCE WITH ASSOCIATIONS
FOUND WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA OF THE CHAMBERS CREEK ULID
Species
Association
Pseudotsuga/ Tsuga/
Holodiscus Berberis
Tsuga/
Pol ysti chum
Trees
Pseudotsuga menziesi
Taxus brevifolia
Thuja pi icata
Acer macrophyl 1 urn
Arbutus menziesi i
Tsuga heterophylla
Shrubs
Gaultheria shalIon
Holodiscus discolor
Acer ci rcinatum
Corylus cornuta californica
Vaccinium parvifolium
Rubus ursinus
Symphoricarpos albus
Berberis nervosa
Rhododendron macrophyl1 urn
1
2
3
k
k
\
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
k
2
2
it
2
It
Herbs
Linnaea boreal is
Whipplea modesta
Synthyris reniformis
Polystichum munitum
Coptis laciniata
Viola sempervirens
Tiarella trifoliata
Disporum smith!i
Tri11i urn ovatum
Hieracium albiflorum
Gali um tri florum
Oxalis oregana
Struthiopteris spicant
Asarum caudatum
Festuca occidental is
Iris tenax
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
it
3
k
3
k
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
Abundance of selected species in three associations found in the Tsuga
heterophylla zone of Western Washington. 1) abundant 2) common
3) occasional k) rare.
G-l
-------
List of common names of plant species.
Scienti fie Name
Common Name
Acer ci rci natum
Acer macrophyl lum
Alnus rubra
Arbutus menziesi i
Asarum caudatum
Berberis nervosa
Betula papyri fera
Coptis laciniata
Corylus cornuta
Disporum smith!i
Festuca occidental is
Gali urn triflorum
Gaultheria shalIon
Hieracium albiflorum
Holodiscus discolor
Iris tenax
Juniperus scopulorum
Linnaea boreal is
Oxalis oregana
Pinus contorta
Pinus ponderosa
Polystichum munitum
Populus tremuloides
Populus trichocarpa
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Rhododendron macrophyllum
Rubus ursinus
Salix sp-
Struthiopteris spicant
Symphoricarpos albus
Synthyris reniformis
Taxus brevi folia
Thuja piicata
Tiarella tri foliata
Tri11i urn ovatum
Tsuga heterophylla
Vaccini urn ovatum
Vaccinium parvifolium
Viola sempervi rens
Whipplea modesta
Vine maple
Bigleaf maple
Red alder
Pacific mad rone
Wi Id ginger
Oregon grape
Northwest paper birch
Cutleaf goldthread
Cali fornia hazel
Smi th's fai rybelIs
Western fescue
Sweetscented bedstraw
Salal
White hawkweed
Creambush oceanspray
Iris
Rocky Mountain juniper
Twin Flower
Oregon oxalis
Lodgepole pine
Ponderosa pine
Sword fern
Quaking aspen
Black cottonwood
Dougl as Fir
Pacific rhododendron
Trai1 ing blackberry
Willow
Deer fern
Common snowberry
Snowqueen
Western Yew
Western red cedar
Three leaf coolwort
T r i 1 1 i urn
Western hemlock
Evergreen huckleberry
Red huckleberry
Evergreen violet
Whipple vine
G-2
-------
CO
CC.
^f
y
LU
CC.
0
0 Z
LU
_1 O
3 <
Q
a£ Z
LU 3
LU CO
DC ^
O
CO
cc.
LU
oa
^
T:
o I
O 1
LU
CO CO
o <
u. L
0
oe
O-
LU
h-
Lu
O
rf
LU
CC.
LU
O
^
CC
LU
(/> LU
X Z
U
oe
0 U-
u.
t-
h- z
tO LU
j u
to
CO
LU
O
LU
0.
CO
LU
U.
M,
|
Q
_J
jfc
CO
LU
O
LU
Q.
to
C
O
O>
c
x:
in
re
c
4)
4-1
V)
4)
3
c
c
E
o
0
* *
O 0 0 O 0
Lu ^ Lu Lu ^ Lu
_J
Lu
N^
3333 33
Lu Lu Lu Lu lu lo-
in
3
in in
CO in
4) c in O
o x:
in 01 in O
in 4) c c
re u. 4-> 4) > re
TO '> o) re «- 4)
O c > c
4) 4> in o re i-
XI XI 3 t 4*>
^- re Q tf
re i- 3 4->
4) o re c in in
-o 4-> 4-j co re re
U 3 b L- C C
c c
0 i-
l_ 4)
4) 4J
x: 4-14)
c in
4) O DO O
31- 0
4) C 13
oa 3: re "o
o re u,
co 4J c xi re re
Q re 4> >- re 3
oe 4) 4) 4J C X
L. i_ E flj (o re
OQ O CD ^ O £ CS
0 U
22
l^ LU
in
in
c
4)
re
4-* O
3 U
o re
re o
m in
re re
,»
re
£
X)
4)
Ol
C
'3
re c
C 4)
o_ «j
o
?
u.
m
i_
O
in
ng
in
re
,__
re
4)
0)
en
c
'3
3
CO
o
?
u*
re
4)
4-1
a
o
re
>.
in
re
c
re
4)
i-
c
£~
re
c
o
o
g
U_
&
0
c
4)
a
re
0
4)
i_
re
c
O
4)
Ol
XI
C
re
4)
a.
u
3
LU
O
?
UL.
re
re
o
u
E
re
re
o
4)
l_
re
c
8
o)
XI
c
re
o
1
o
?
u_
m
4-1
re
4)
a
>
o
re
p_
3
4->
re
a
CO
u.
4)
U
0
CO
u
o
?
U_
re
in
c
O
a.
in
X
<
0
3
/~\
O
O
o
L^
?
u_
re
c
re
o
h
E
re
re
x:
4-1
^
XI
re
i
XI
4)
0 0
U. Ix.
22
U. l^
in
~
^:
M
(0
fQ
>«
x:
4-1
>>
O
3
a a.
^ 00
o
C 4)
01 in
c in
._ a)
£
U_
S
L^
re
*3
Ol
C
re
0
re
^~
re
a
0)
o
3
4)
0)
0)
-o
i
c
Q
O
0
1 1
U
£
u_
re
"o
4)
XI
re
(0
re
a
0)
o
3
4)
x:
4)
i~-
14-
14-
3
CO
0
1 ,
U
?
LLi.
in
in
c
4)
O
i
re
i
re
i_
3
X
X
o
3
TO
>-
X)
XI
CC
in
4)
i_
re
"re
4->
c
4)
XI
in
4)
1_
c
o
c
ft
u
1 ,
LL.
_i
in
in
c
4)
O
£
re
i
0
4)
4J
3
3
re
X3
_
re
4->
i
XI
4)
oe
C-}
_l
in
3
U
>
re
/^
m
O
O
^^
re
3
re
3
u.
u
re
a.
CO
0
>
_l
in
3
4-t
re
u
4-J
in
u.
4)
4-1
^
O.
O
o
\/
3
re
XI
c
c
x:
i
Q.
1_
re
x:
CO
0
1 .
U_
_i
_
.
u.
0)
a
8
0
1_
Q)
4_J
f-mt
a
.
0
o
1
X
in
_
u
4)
a
8
O
tj
1
oo
"s^
_J
(/)
3
0
«
c
1_
o
it-
re
o
x
>s
4-1
U.
O
f
a
O
fmm
're
3
re
c
i_
O
4-
re
o
in
re
4)
V-
re
^~
re
4)
x:
u
0)
a.
*
CJ
_i
in
3
0
x:
0
"o
0
in
3
C
re
_
in
re
-C
4-1
C
re
in
re
4)
a.
X3
4)
o
4)
^
i
O)
c
oi
o
O| !
IX.
2i
m
3
1_
4)
re M-
c
re o
0 O
i_
4) in
E 3
re
u>
re x)
o re
. >_
re
3 x:
4-1
8
0
C L.
re 4)
0 4)
- Xi
i_
g~
.
re
E
X) TJ
C C
re re
u. ^
4) 1-
4-> re
re a.
J «x,
in .* c
4) o re
U XI
u- c x: c
re 4-1 re
X) XI
C XI U
ro E 3 3
1_ U JD
4-> c re £ 3
re u. co oo
4-1
II II II II
XI
re 3 -i i- a.
o
"O ^""
4) 4-1
XI
L.
O
o xi
4) re
V- XI
0) O
0 4-> L-
C 3 O.
4) X)
xi 3
4) 4) 0
O > O
C 4) C
4) 4) >-
X) C XI U
«~ o)
> > >
4) >- 4)
o re
C 4) C
> re o»
J- C C
in 41 O >
>. in ~ >
re -Q in re
3 o re re £
o c
re >- o o 4-<
o 3
4-14-1 m _a
in c m re
84) 4) O xi
304)
O" O O Xi
re 4) 4) i-
L- o. m o
in <4- m 4) O
4) 4)
in - o i-
O 4) C 4)
4) Q Q. in
Q. o E in 4)
in 4) E
CL O - U 4)
« in O c 4) O
4J o o. c
c - >- E in 4)
re c E i-
4) XI Q u, o * *-
O C E O 4) 3
c 3 E re c >- o
re xi o LU z> re o
XI < O o£ O
C II II
UJ XI O O
s£ < < cj LU 3 oe
G-3
-------
to
DC
LU
CtL
0
Z
"*
LU
O
Z
Q
Z
CD
QQ
<
h-
1
OQ
3:
LU
y
^
z
o
U_
1-
LU
o
to
to
LU
^
o
LU
0.
to
O O
O <£ E
TO TO
TO 1- JO
O TO 3 p-
in "E ~
3 3 TO O
1- p- C 4J
TO O 4) >
_l 0 M I
4)
4) >
0. O
a
C 4>
tO > Olr
O c 2
C 0 - 0
E "" V L- C
E -" O 3 i-
O 3 o O (E
(_> cj3 «v y cQ
o o
=
_, _,
u
o
c.
in
3 E
E in
E 4>
TO
«H "oj
TJ
O L.
O
in jc
< 0
*s
P_ ^
2 ID
o jc
4->
TJ -C
0) en
u .
TO Z
0)
1 C
L- jj£
O E
JC O
to o
o
to
in
3
14
3
V-
in
3
L.
O
JC
Q.
in
re
*4>
to
TJ
L_
_
-Q
C
|
3
31
in
3
O
3
a£
0
to
Q)
a
o
p_
r
TO
U
TO
3
p
0
_
LL.
C
Q
C
E
0
O
o
U)
3
M
J_
n
>
in
3
O
'a.
TO
>x
JC
a
to
i_
4)
U
3
in
a.
TO
to
TJ
4)
^
4)
-Q
I
2
Q
P_
P
4)
>-
O
in
c
4)
u
in
o
3
a.
in
O
a.
o
u
E
T>
C
4)
a
U,
4)
U
4)
a.
TJ
o
o
>^
c
Q
O
o
Li-
en
3
C
C
TO
>»
4->
in
3
C
C
TO
H
"^
L-
-Q
ai
c
5
c
l_
4)
4J
in
TO
LU
O
^
in
._
P«
(0
u
M
1_
0)
in
3
C
TO
h-
TJ
u.
_
JO
cn
c
2
c
i_
0)
4-1
in
Q)
3
o
CD
.
p_
p
«
TO
1_
4-1
^
TO
1
*
I
IU
L-
0)
f-
u
4->
TO
O
X
Lu
in
p
r
_
TO
i.
h-
O
-°
t_
L.
4)
in
P
O
JC
L.
0)
JO
o
X
TO
C
O
a
LU
L.
4)
O
4-1
TO
O
r
Lu
>*
\s
U
3
a
o
^
in
3
P_
3
^j
TJ
U
O
in
in
3
a.
o
4-J
C
o
o
4)
4)
2
4)
a.
TJ
0
^
c
1_
4)
4-1
in
4)
3
u
in
L-
4-1
in
4)
a
*_
TO
TO
JC
a
£
4)
LU
u.
TO
_ j
TJ
4)
C
U
o
3:
o
TO
U
_
4-1
in
3
1_
O
TJ
C
3
.!:
~T~
J
.2
P^
TO
2
I/)
C
TO
CO
O
TO
C
in
in
TO
TO
JC
4_l
TO
4-1
0)
c
u
JC
0
TO
h-
3
0
r
TO
3
to
c
4)
4)
1_
Di
|
4-*
0)
,
0
>
o
L.
0
"o
u
JO
4)
C
u
o
a.
o
TJ
£
_
J
£
,_
fD
2
(/)
(U
0)
L.
i-
o
in
,_
^
O
u
14
3
L.
X
>s
L.
4)
O
a
o
»
4)
4-1
to
5
Q
P^
r
TO
2
to
TJ
4)
a>
c
2
JC
cn
3
Q
ac
0
3
X
TO
L.
0
u
in
3
>
L.
0
O
C
4)
TO
C£.
C
Q
^
E
O
o
**
to
in
O
JC
o
c
JC
1.
>^
JC
u
TO
L.
JO
in
3
5»
I-
0
O
i
l_
0
c
fi
£
o
u
o
to
^^
in
3
*_
r^
-
a
TO
u
i.
4J
TO
in
3
TO
a.
4)
4)
TJ
TO
v
O
JC
o
TJ
4)
a.
a.
TO
u
i
^
u
TO
CQ
°
to
v.
in
3
E
C
^
E
in
3
L.
TO
a
u
4-1
p
TO
in
Q.
4_t
_
4-1
JC
in
3
CQ
C
o
^
g
o
o
o
LJU
to
in
^
in
c
4)
C
p»
O
TO
U
TO
4-1
4-J
to
JC
O
4-J
TO
JC
4J
3
Z
T>
4)
in
TO
0)
o
1
4)
4-J
*.
JC
3
o
CD
to
V.
in
.
in
c
4)
TJ
TO
C
TO
O
TO
4-1
I/I
JC
O
4-1
TO
JC
4-J
3
Z
TJ
4)
in
TO
4)
L.
r»
1
TJ
0)
O
to
-^
c
o
TJ
4)
TO
in
4)
>*
^0
"cn
O
t
c
0)
3
4)
in
3
O
ac
<_>
Lu
ts>
-
J^£
O
^
2
4)
JO
in
4)
c
1
o
u
JC
h-
c
4)
V.
3
in
\/
u
'i
4)
CQ
<
to
in
3
,
L.
O
4-J
TO
u
cn
'I
in
3
TJ
U
3
H-
c
JO
o
a:
o
t .
LL.
_j
TO
TO
"3
4-1
in
3
TO
JC
U
u
o
~T~
JC
in
u.
3
JC
1-
in
c
O
in
c
._
TO
2
to
C-J
^
_,
TO
a
re
V.
4-1
TO
in
in
"3
cn
4)
on
4-1
4)
"cn
c
.^
\s
TJ
4)
C
O
u
O
1
c
4)
TJ
"o
a
JC
in
TO
E
TJ TJ
C C
TO TO
P
»- -^
4) 1-
4-> TO
TO D-
3 *J
JC 4) TJ
in -^ c
(U U TO
i- TJ
M- C JC C
TO 4-J TO
TJ JO
C JO U
TO E 3 3
p U u. JO
4J C TO J= 3
TO Lu tO tO
~ II II II II
JO
TO 3 1 1 CU
3: Lu LU to to
M-
0
TJ
TJ 4J
O '^
O
4) JO
1- TO
4) JO
O 4J O
C 3 U
4) JO CL
TJ
tt) 4) 3
O > O O
C 4) C
4) 4)
TJ C TJ >-
U.
> > 4)
4) >- 4) >
TJ
C 4) C TO
> TO
u. c cn
in 4) O >- C
X in *
TO JO in r >
3 O TO TO TO
o c jc
TO X 0 O
o - >-
4-J 4-> in JO
in c in TO
Q '4> 4) O TJ
E 3 O 4)
cr O O TJ
TO 4) 4) 1-
u. Q. m O
-
U 4) C 4)
4) O Q. in
Q. U E in 4)
ui 4) E
D. O - O 4)
- in O c 4) O
4-1 O a. C
c - > E in 4)
TO C E >-
4) TJ Q >- O >-
O C E O 4) 3
C 3 E TO C 1- O
TO -Q O lJ- CD TO U
TJ < 0 cd O
C II II
> 3 || II ||
LU JO O O
*£ < < O Lu CD CH
-------
to
:*:
ce.
UJ
cc
Q
z
UJ
0
z
o
z
CO
1
1-
CO
X
UJ
y
u
u.
w
H
z
UJ
<_>
to
(/)
UJ
-_
0
UJ
a.
to
o
U_
re
3
TJ
C
4>
re
u
m
3
Ol
CC
4-1
4)
"oi
C
s
TJ
4)
Q
L.
U
^
JO
3
OH
0
o.
00
re
's
u
1-
s
(0
f
u
1
o
GO
Ol
c
X
re
c
re
'I
P
O
O
4)
8
>
TJ
4)
(U
1
TJ
O
3
Ol
O
4)
8
>
Ol
c
_
^~
r»
!_
3
o
re
4-1
re
4)
u
re
u
0
E
4)
0)
r
jQ
re
^5
TJ
4>
C
2
8
U
I
0)
01
c
re
o
0
re
^_
,_
a.
re
u
u-
3
re
o
«
4)
1_
4)
J3
re
^
4)
^_
,_.
>
JZ
in
re
0
re
u
4)
4-1
4)
a
re
u
«
o
TJ
1
4)
Q
t-
m
5
Q
*_
p-B
0)
0
'a>
~.
E
O
4-1
tn
K
C
o
I
0
,_
r
.a
L.
03
jg
IA
>*.
TO
*
PM
M
U
U
re
o
tn
JZ
u
'u
"a
P
>s
jz
4-1
O
C9
4-1
re
o
i_
JZ
5
Q
.
U
^
c
Q
£
fc
0
o
o
re
r_
in
3
a
re
c
O
in
5
^
4)
L.
to
^
tn
«
c
O
«
5
a_
oo
in
3
U
4-1
i
o
-a
u
4)
in
re
a.
2
Q
U
re
a.
to
4)
in
3
£
O
re
4-1
u
4)
"01
4)
C
re
»
4)
C
u
3
to
^
L.
re
g
TJ
re
a>
c
v-
4)
in
:s
o
a.
to
in
3
4)
U
C
1
a
in
3
-
re
1
TJ
._
J3
0
re
CD
TJ
0)
01
c
^
2
TJ
0?
O
U
"
V
o
O
in
3
^
4)
4-1
U
4)
"o
L.
O
c
L-
"o.
L.
3
a.
o
in
3
C
a
in
3
C
"a
to
c
£
in
M
tn
0)
c
0-
o
in
4-1
in
u
4-1
tn
3
C
a.
JZ
o
c
w
M-
TJ
*»
O
t3
C
re
o
^
A)
|
O
0.
00
>^
in
3
E
re
JZ
JZ
a
O
u
4-1
£
4)
O
'a
a.
re
tn
3
C
re
Ol
Q)
L.
O
0
u
c
3
-5
O
u
c
3
^
C
o
01
a>
u
0
0
Q.
00
^-^
^^H
1-
00
re
c
^
4)
in
in
re
a
re
^~
r
0)
N
'a
to
2
Q
U
TO
a.
to
Ol
c
_
Q.
a.
^
o
o
a.
oo
i-
to
~^
in
>*
S-
JZ
a
O
u
3
4)
re
u
i.
4^
O
o
M
Q
l_
U
re
a.
00
TJ
4)
C
§
U
O
I
4)
4-1
_
JZ
U
a.
00
1-
00
^
re
r
^-*
i
a
re
u
i.
4-1
re
re
o
L.
4-1
O
O
M
,
L.
L-
re
Q.
00
TJ
4)
C
2
u
u
i
c
4)
TJ
^
O
O
a_
oo
^^
^^
to
>^
li-
re
u
re
re
r
4)
u
4)
in
in
re
0.
2
u
L.
re
a.
X
o
u.
a.
00
^^
^^
to
^.
ti-
re
TJ
Q
1
re
Nl
4)
a.
in
_£
4)
5
o
t
re
a.
to
Ol
c
O
00
TJ
C
re
TJ
re
re
a.
4)
4->
re
S £ _
_C. (U i3
in -^ c
4> u re
u -a -
«*- c jz c
re 4-1 re
TJ .o
C J3 L.
re E 3 3
c re jz 3
U- OO OO
II II II
-11-0-
u. to to
4)
O
C
re
TJ
c
3
^^P
.
re
2
"re
4->
in
Q
g£
^-«
re
in
4)
«
U
0)
a.
in
*
4-t
C
re
TJ
c
3
.n
<:
u
<
TJ
4)
>
u
4)
in
J3
O
>.
4-1
C
4)
3
CT
4)
1_
M-
in
U
4)
Q.
in
*
c
E
£
O
U
II
0
4)
0
C
4)
TJ
»
>
4)
C
>-
t
re
c
O
in
re
u
u
o
in
4)
'o
4)
a.
in
*
c
Q
E
E
O
U
>.
I_
re
_
U-
II
o
LL.
but recorded
4)
O
c
4)
TJ
4)
C
>-
^
re
c
O
in
re
u
u
o
in
4)
'u
4)
a
in
V,
c
Q
E
^
O
U
c
II
o
>-
4-1
re
J3
8
a.
2
O
^
u
>
re
Ol
c
'>
re
4-1
3
jQ
TJ
4)
TJ
L.
O
o
4)
in
4)
'o
4)
a.
in
V
4)
re
cc
II
cc
4)
U
C
4)
1_
1_
3
U
U
Q
G-5
-------
to
DC
UJ
C£.
Q
Z
LU
O
a
z
ID
OQ
1-
h-
00
LU
y
^
Z
o
_
LL.
I
Z
LU
^~
O
to
to
UJ
o
LU
a.
to
o
Q-
to
in
TO
t
01
3
O
TJ
_
in
TO
"01
3
O
TJ
in
^
L.
3
O
in
TO
'i
TO
1-
1)
1*
.t
3
cr
to
in
to in
1 TO
z: "en
z: 3
^ o
Z! O
O
2
3
0
14-
_
O
TO
Q.
L.
0
4-1
O
c
o
u
o
Q-
c
8
o
o
TO
ce
o
a.
to
v^
i
a.
in
X
0>
o
in
dj
^
f
to
O
a.
to
^^
i
a.
in
3
O
in
i"
O
in
^
TO
a
3
in
L.
m
£
in
-C
Q.
D
ai
*u
,__
,_
>
i
>»,
t/>
4_j
. .
O
.0
(D
C£L
.
O
21
a.
in
TJ
CD
4«>
TO
t
<0
4-1
TO
OQ
C
3
0
CO
2.
4J
4->
._
1
0
£
TO
O
j;
4_l
^
J3
._
N
TO
4-1
TO
TJ
C
O
4-»
TO
L.
V
I/I
3
z:
o
3
a.
in
TO
0)
4-1
in
3
z:
^
C
^
z:
tj
g
in
in
c
(U
TJ
TO
C
TO
U
TO
u
4-J
3
1
U
0)
4-1
4-J
O
o
3
in
in
c
(U
TJ
TO
C
TO
O
L
o
4J
in
TO
O
(U
>
TO
0)
OQ
.C
in
L.
TO
T3
C
TO
TO
in
(U
TJ
c
TO
(!)
ra
a.
TJ
c
ro
TO
O
l_ TJ
>*- c J: c
TO 4-> TO
TJ .0
C J3 1-
TO E 3 3
. U U J3
C TO -C 3
u. to to
II II II II
-
u. to to
(U
o
0)
-a
o '>
c a)
(U
TJ C
TJ
C (U
> TO
L. c
in 0) O
>~ in
TO .Q in
3 O TO
O
TO X U
0
4-J 4-J
in c in
Q 4) 0)
£ 3
cr o
TO Q) flJ
i- a.
in M- m
0)
.- in
O 4) C
D .- O
OL O E
in o E
a. o
... m o
4-1
c - >-
TO C
0) TJ 0 1-
0 c £
C 3 E TO
TO -Q O U-
TJ < 0
C II
>- 3 || ||
LU JD U
*Z < < O U-
evidence but recorded
c
>^
^~
r_
TO
C
O
in
TO
O
O
O
in
0)
O
(U
D.
in
.
c
Q
E
£
O
U
c
~>
u
o
=3
4-1
la
TO
-Q
2
a.
i_
u
TO
cn
c
-
>
TO
JZ
>*
o
TJ
(L)
TJ
L.
O
o
(U
!_
in
(U
_
O
(U
D-
in
4)
TO
a:
II
c£
(U
U
c
0)
L.
U
3
U
o
0
G-6
-------
o
z
<
o
<
CO
o
LL. o O O
o_
to
_
U. U- U.
Ul
3
4)
3
^^
0
U
in
3
4-1
O
c
o
V-
V.
(U
CD
TO
(U
TO
4-1
4-1
O
J3
TO
C
._
V.
ro
o
4-1
a. u
in
a
in
r"
a
o
c
E
ro
JZ
H-
(/>
>S
E
a)
V)
fl) i- L. 0)
_C (U 0) 4->
4-1 J3 4J C
I. JQ »_
O 3 TO TO
cc
s:
LU
O2
O
Z
"*
LU
O
Z
o
z
CO
^
h-
t
ca
i
LU
Z
^
Z
0
LU
«_
K-
z
LU
~
to
(/}
LU
^
O
LU
a.
to
o
Lu
Lu
ro
in
O
3
C
TO
U
Ol
TO
.c
o
TO
t-
4-J
0)
z
a
(U
c
c
z
in
CO 1
.c
2: oi
O- 3
Z O
o
Lu
2
Q)
r
._
O
OJ
01
(TJ
£
o
4-J
in
J3
^
v_
4)
O
C
£
TO
"TO
to
c
u.
4)
in
(U
3
.c
4-1
U,
0
z
o
Lu
2
E
3
^_
>s
4-1
O
ro
o
0
o
fO
E
(n
£
0
in
1
L.
a
c
TO
E
TO
TO
to
in
(U
O
4-1
01
C
0
1
o
LL
2
in
3
4-1
TO
in
c
0)
c
o
4-1
Q_
£
TO
U
a
i_
4>
-a
c
£
TO
TO
4-*
C
TO
CJ
U
14
_
O
TO
a_
o
_ 1
u_
"S^
2
in
TO
0)
O
_a
o
y-
3
CO
o
2
TO
u.
O
3
TO
TO
TO
DC
o
2
.
(U
3
L.
4-J
in
3
r~
a.
TO
o
in
0
2
TO
r
P_
._i
Ol
0)
TO
^
^
o
2
TO
in
O
in
_
4J
*- c j: c
TO 4J TO
4-1 i Ol
C -Q V.
ra E 3 3
U V- Ji
4J c ro .c 3
TO Lu to to
II II II II
-0
TO 3 -1 I- Q-
I LL. LL. to to
U-
O
15
n
T3 TO
0) J3
d) T3 O
0 u. u
C 0 Q.
0) U
o (U 3
(U . i_ o
0 >
C 0) 4-1
0) 3 >-
T3 C JQ L.
>
0) >. U
-a c ro
C 0) O
> TO "O Ol
u. c C
in a) O >
>~ l/l 0) >
TO .Q in TO
3 O TO C .C
^- 0
ro >- o 4->
~ 0 E 3
4-> 4-1 O -O
in c in "O
o u a>
- in O C 0) O
4-> Q Q. C
C > >> E i/) 4)
TO C E «-
4) "0 Q O * »-
O C E u. o 4) 3
C 3 E TO C i- O
TO J3 O Lu 3 TO O
-a < o at o
C II II
>- 3 II II II
LU JD 00
111
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
H-l
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STUDIES RELATING TO CHAMBERS CREEK
Draft Chambers Creek U.L.I.D. 73"! Environmental Impact Assessment, Pierce County,
March 1975-
Chambers Creek Basin Water Quality Management Plan; State of Washington Water
Resource Inventory Area No. 12, Pierce County Washington 197^.
Chambers Creek- Clover Creek Basin Sewerage General Plan, Pierce County Washington
1969.
State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services Division, Water
Quality Analyses of Water from Lakewood Water District Wells, 1971 and 1972.
Technical Sub-Committee of the Healthy Environment for Lakewood and Parkland
(HELP) Citizens Organization, "Help Report," 1972.
Lakewood Unlimited and Pierce County Planning Department, "A Comprehensive Planning
Study of the Lakes District," Pierce County, Washington, August 19&7-
Pierce County Planning Department, "Pierce County Shoreline Master Program
(Preliminary Draft)", Pierce County, Washington, December 197^.
Consoer Townsend and Associates, Inc., "Chambers Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Pierce County, Washington, Basic Design Data for Preparation Contract Drawings
and Specifications," July
Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield, "Comprehensive Sewerage Plans for
Lakewood Water District," July 1968.
Harstad Associates, "Report on Updating of Sewer System Comprehensive Plan, Town
of Steilacoom," November, 1970.
H-2
-------
1-1
-------
1. Miller, D. W.; DeLuca, F. A.; and Tessier T. L., "Groundwater Contamination
in the N.E. States", Environmental Protection Agency, EPA -660/2-74-006,
June, 1974.
2. Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee, "Nitrogenous Compounds in the
Environment", Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-ASB-73-001, December, 1973.
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Soil Service
for Pierce County, Washington", July, 1955-
4. Dames and Moore, "Report of Preliminary Soils and Geologic Evaluation" for
Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin Sewerage General Plan, 1964.
5. Walters, K.L. and Kitnmel, G. E. 1968, "Groundwater Occurrence and Strati-
graphy of Unconsolidated Deposits, Central Pierce County, Washington",
Washington Department of Water Resources, Water Supply Bulletin, No. 22.
6. Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers, "Metropolitan Tacoma Sewerage and
Drainage Survey", 1957.
7. Griffin, W.C., Sceva, J.E., et al, "Water Resources of the Tacoma Area,
Washington", USGS Water Supply Paper 1499-B.
8. Ceilings, M. R., "Data on Selected Lakes in Washington, Part I", U.S.
Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Open File Report, 1973-
9. Foxworthy, et al, "Flood Hazards for the Central Puget Sound Area", USGS.
10. Environmental Protection Agency Executive Order 11296, "Evaluation of Flood
Hazards in Locating Federally Owned or Financed Buildings, Roads, or other
Faci1ities".
11. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, "Wetlands of
the United States", Circular 39, 1971.
12. EPA Wetland Policy, Federal Register.
13- Kennedy Engineers, Inc., "Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin Sewerage
General Plan", 1969.
14. Sceva, J.E., Wegner, D.E., et al, "Records of Wells, Springs, Water Levels
and Quality of Groundwater in Central Pierce County, Washington", U.S.
Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division,
Groundwater Branch, May, 1955-
15- Principles of Biochemistry, White, Handler, Smity & Stellen, 1959, McGraw-
Hill, p. 754.
16. Biological Analysis of Water and Wastewater, Millipore AM 302, 1973, p. 39.
17. Oral and Written Communication with Pierce County Health Department -
Sanitation Division 7/18/75.
18. Oral Communication with Robert Lever, D.S.H.S. 7/17/75-
19. Water Quality Standards for Intrastate Waters, Water Pollution Control
Commission, State of Washington, 1969-
1-2
-------
20. Pierce County Health Department - Sanitation Division
21. Report of the Subcommittee on Water Quality Criteria, F.W.P.C.A., U.S.P.I.,
April 1, 1968, Section 1, Recreation and Aesthetics.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Proposed Criteria for Water Quality",
Volume 1, October, 1973-
23. Pierce County Draft Environmental Impact Assessment for Chambers Creek,
ULID 73-1-
2*t. Technical Subcommittee of the Healthy Environment for Lakewood and Parkland
(Help) Citizens Organization "H.E.L.P. Report", 1972.
25. Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA-625/6-7A-003.
26. Long Island Groundwater Pollution Study, State of New York Department of
Health, April, 1969-
27. Memo to Jerry Louthian from Chuck Cline, Geologist, Water Investigation
Division, Washington State D.O.E., 9/5/73-
28. On Going Study Being Conducted for EPA by USGS Regarding Well Water Quality.
29- Pollution from Urban Runoff, Tafuri, New of Env. Research in Cincinnati,
U.S.E.P.A., April 11, 1975-
30. Chlorinated Municipal Waste Toxicities to Rainbow Trout and Fathead Minnows,
E.P.A., 18050GZZ - October, 1971.
31. Thornthwaite, C.W., and Mather J.R., 1957> "Instructions and Tables for
Computing Potential Evapotranspirat ion and the Water Balance", in C1imatology,
Lab, of Climatology, Drexel Institute of Technology 10, pp. 185-311-
32. Telephone conversation with Jack Watkins of Kennedy Engineers.
33- Thornthwaite, C.W., 19^8, "An Approach Toward a Rational Classification of
Climate", Geographical Review, Volume 38.
3*». Chlorinated Municipal Waste Toxicities to Rainbow Trout and Fathead Minnows,
ibid.
35- Creso, I., Hansen D., and Main, J., "Terrestrial Biological Survey of the
Upper Chambers Creek Basin" prepared.for Environmental Protection Agency.
36. Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management, Washington State, "Interim
Population Projections to Year 2000 by County", October 2, 1972.
1-3
-------
APPENDIX J
INTERIM CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHAMBERS CREEK SEWERAGE SYSTEM
PIERCE COUNTY U.L.I.D. 73-1*
The present report is intended to provide a preliminary assessment
of those cultural resources, both prehistoric and historic, located with-
in the primary impact area of the proposed Chambers Creek Sewerage System
(U.L.I.D. 73-1), Pierce County, Washington. As such, the results and rec-
ommendations to be presented here represent but a summary of a much more
comprehensive evaluation that is currently in progress. This latter re-
port, when completed, will provide a detailed overview of the project
area's cultural resources, an evaluation of impacts to be associated with
the project's implementation, and recommendations for necessary mitiga-
tion measures. In seeking to provide these evaluative procedures, the
current cultural resource assessment has incorporated the techniques of
documentary and archival research, personal interview, and on-site sur-
face reconnaissance. Taken together, these measures will provide infor-
mation both necessary and sufficient for the requirements of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665), the National Environment-
al Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), Executive Order 11593, and the Arch-
aeological Conservation Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-291).
As presently conceived, the proposed Chambers Creek Sewerage System
(EPA Project No. C-530565-01) will provide necessary sewer treatment and
transmission facilities to service an approximately 25 mi.2 area in
Pierce County, Washington. Encompassing the drainage basins of both
Chambers and Clover Creeks, the proposed service region includes several
suburban residential areas south of Tacoma, e.g., Steilacoom, Parkland,
Spanaway, Lakewood, Westside and Fircrest. Typically, these areas are
characterized by high residential densities and have witnessed consider-
able surficial modifications associated with historic Euro-American land
use practices. Those activities and their associated manifestations have
undoubtedly resulted in significant losses to the region's cultural re-
source base. However, the proposed sewerage system could result in fur-
ther significant impacts. It is with these latter impacts that the pre-
sent assessment is concerned.
Survey Strategy, Biases, and Boundaries.
Any assessment of regional cultural resource potential requires not
only a careful consideration of the actual evidence of an area's past
use by man, but also an understanding of the inherent limitations and
biases associated with such evidence. As the goal of the present project
is to evaluate any and all information pertaining to both prehistoric and
historic occupation/use of the proposed Chambers Creek Sewerage System
* Prepared for the Region X Office of the Environmental Protection Agency
by Jerry V. Jermann and Hal K. Kennedy of the University of Washington's
Office of Public Archaeology in partial fulfillment of the requirements
and specifications of P.O. No. WY-6-99-0310-J
J-l
-------
area, several lines of evidence are of interest. Characterization of the
historic aspects of human occupation is most easily and reliably gained
through an examination of relevant documentary and archival sources. Pre-
historic occupation, however, can best be assessed through direct on-site
reconnaissance. Both evaluative techniques are presently being employed
in an effort to isolate sites and structures of potential concern. In
addition, valuable supplementary data is being solicited from interviews
with knowledgeable residents of the area.
Because the direct examination of surficial exposures for evidence of
cultural materials is a very time-consuming and costly procedure, the
entire Chambers Creek service area could not possibly be so treated. There-
fore, certain portions of the proposed sewerage system have been either
eliminated from direct consideration at this time or designated for only
a cursory examination. Specifically, those portions of the project in-
cluded within the Stage II construction schedule have been excluded from
the present assessment. This decision is believed to be justifiable on
two grounds. First, sufficient lead-time exists prior to the initiation
of Stage II activities to allow for the necessary cultural resource as-
sessment. Second, even if sufficient time were now available, the pre-
sent state of Stage II planning would make a thorough assessment difficult
at best. As yet, specific Stage II alternatives have not even been desig-
nated. In the absence of such information, only a very general and cur-
sory assessment would be possible.
In addition to the aforementioned service area, two further portions
of the proposed system have been excluded from detailed consideration.
These include both the Westside water district and the town of Steila-
coom sewer system. In each case impacts potentially associated with the
project's implementation cannot be presently detailed since specific fa-
cilities alternatives have not been adopted. However, consideration is
being given to the presence of registered National and/or State Historic
Sites and direct field examinations are being conducted along the pro-
posed interceptor lines from each respective system to the central Cham-
bers Creek Treatment Plant.
As mentioned previously, the present assessment program incorporates
the usual techniques of documentary/archival research, personal interview,
and direct surface reconnaissance. While each is a somewhat independent
activity, they nonetheless articulate to provide a coherent whole. Arch-
ival research is employed to provide a suitable data base with which to
evaluate just what is already known about a particular area. Typically,
the information gained by a thorough search of library and state archival
sources has a very strong historic bias. In and of itself, this is not a
particular drawback as it is often more informative to know where gaps in
data occur. Interviews with local residents of an area are used to pro-
vide supplementary information about both prehistoric and historic cul-
tural remains. Often, local residents have information about site loca-
tions which are not a part of the historic record or are unknown to the
professional. Finally, the direct surface reconnaissance of an area is
often necessary either to verify the information obtained from archival
research and personal interview or to investigate those areas where docu-
mentary evidence is lacking.
J-2
-------
Registered Historic Sites.
In all, there are eight State or National Historic Register Sites
in the general vicinity of the proposed Chambers Creek Sewerage System.
Four of these are located within the town of Steilacoom. Included among
these are (1) -state Historic Register- a monument commemorating the
first Protestant Church north of the Columbia River (at the corner of
Commercial and Wilkes Streets); (2) -National Historic Register- the
Steilacoom Catholic Church (1810 Nisqually Street); (3) - National His-
toric Register- the Nathaniel Orr Home and Orchard (1811 Rainier Street);
and (4) -National Historic Register- the Davidson Home (1802 Commercial
Street). In all cases it is not known at this time whether or not the
proposed facilities would have any direct impacts on these sites.
Three State Historic Register Sites are located near but not actually
within the study area. These include: (1) the Clover Creek Oregon Trail
marker; (2) the Byrd Cemetary (7801 Phillips Road S. W.)j (3) the Fort
Steilacoom Historic District (Lake Steilacoom Boulevard). This latter
site is presently under consideration for inclusion on the National His-
toric Register.
One State Historic Register Site is located within the primary study
area. Presently the residence of Dr. Glenn Cunter, the Anaworth-Boatman
House (6000 112th St., S.W.) would not be directly affected by the pro-
posed construction. There is the possibility, however, that the project
could affect the remains of "out-buildings" formerly associated with this
structure.
Prehistoric and Historic Aboriginal Sites.
The first historic mention of aboriginal villages within the project
area appears in the journal of John Work for November and December, 1824.
Work makes reference to a village (called Chilacoom) he visited on Steila-
coom (Chambers) Creek. Later, in 1907, Harlan I. Smith mentions an arch-
aeological site on the south side of Chambers Creek. According to Smith
this site was located near the mouth of the creek and consisted of a shell
midden some 100 meters in length with an approximate depth of 1.5 meters.
Herbert C. Taylor (1974), conducting research in relation to the Indian
Claims Commission, visited the Chambers Creek area and reported the pre-
sence of a small, very shallow, site on the same side of the creek as the
site mentioned by Smith. While it cannot be unequivocally proved that the
sites mentioned by Work, Smith, and Taylor are actually the same site, the
possibility does not seem unreasonable. Differences noted in the size of
the midden deposit could well have resulted from disturbances caused by
recent land use activities.
Taylor also notes the presence of another archaeological site on the
north bank of Chambers Creek. This site has been subsequently re-located
during the course of the present investigation and appears to be intact.
However, secondary impacts associated with the proposed sewerage system
(e.g., increased housing) could well endanger its continued existence.
J-3
-------
Reports of "tree burials" in this same general area defied in-field
substantiation. While such a site may or may not exist and may or may
not be within the study area, care should be excercised during construc-
tion in this vicinity.
Marian Smith (1940) has reported the presence of three ethnographic
villages within the study area. One village is reported to have been
located on the present-day site of Steilacoom (this same .village wrongly
assumed by Taylor to have been located on the south side of Chambers
Creek). The two remaining villages (but possible only one) were said to
occur on Clover Creek. Exact locations, however, for the Clover Creek
villages(s) are vague at best; one being near Spanaway and the other "at
the present site of Clover Creek"(?).
Finally, Mr. Cyrus Happy, a local resident, has reported finding an
isolated aboriginal artifact on the north side of American Lake. This
same informant has also reported the existence of a possible enthographic
camp site in the same general vicinity. Both of these localities have
yet to be directly examined by the reconnaissance team. Therefore a full
assessment of this particular area's cultural resource potential will have
to await that in-field evaluation.
Non-registered Historic Sites.
The Hudson's Bay Company established Fort Nisqually in 1833. Prior
to the influx of American settlers, the Puget Sound Agricultural Company
established a number of farms and sheep and cattle stations in the study
area. Indeed, Fort Steilacoom itself began as one of these Hudson's ; Bay
Company farms. Maps used in settling a subsequent dispute between the
Puget Sound Agricultural Company and the United States of American were
consulted in an attempt to locate sites of potential early historic struc-
tures. Unfortunately, these maps were of such a poor quality that the
exact locations of the various structures can not be determined.
Other than the poorly characterized Hudson's Bay Company settlements,
many early structures can be found plotted on Territorial Survey Maps.
These surveys were conducted during the 1860's, 70's, and 80's and the
resulting maps provide locations for such structures as industrial sites,
houses, and occasionally even barns. However, the Territorial Survey Maps
and the Land Donation Claims generally utilize only a single symbol to
designate each place of residence or donation claim. In many cases there
were undoubtedly out-buildings associated with the designated residences,
but these were rarely plotted.
The following list represents a compilation of all those structures
located either wholly within the Stage I project area or in close enough
proximity that associated out-building may be within the impact area. At
present, only one of these structures is believed to be intact. However,
not all of these localities have actually been examined.
The list of historic sites is as follows:
(1) T.M. Chambers Grist and Saw Mill (1850) - T.20N., R.2E., Sec. 29:
located on or near the same location as the aboriginal site on
-------
the south bank of Chambers Creek. This site has been nominated
for inclusion on the State Historic Register; eligibility has
yet to be determined.
(2) Wollen (sic) Mill - T.20N., R.2E., Sec. 27:
The Chambers Creek interceptor alternative near the stream
canyon floor would result in a direct impact to this site.
(3) Saw Mill - T.20N., R.2E., Sec. 26.
(4) Fleets (Fletts?) Residence - T.20N., R.2E., Sec. 26.
(5) Byrd Residence (1853) - T.20N., R.2E., Sec. 24.
(6) Byrd Mill - T.20N., R.2E., Sec. 34:
Included on the State Historic Register, a monument has been
placed at 7307 Steilacoom Boulevard.
(7) Moses Ward Residence - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 1.
(8) Boatman Residence - 6000 112th Street, S.W.:
This existing structure has been placed on the State Historic
Register.
(9) Unidentified House - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 16:
Located on American Lake, it is possible that this site is
assodated with the W. Bonney Donation Land Claim and thus
may not be a residence at all. The Bonney house that is plotted
on the Territorial Survey Map is outside of the Stage I planning
area.
(10) J. J. Westbrook Residence - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 16.
(11) L. A. Davis Residence - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 10.
(12) T. Shelton Residence - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 10.
(13) E. Davidson (?) Residence - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 2.
(14) A. J. Dnicht (Knight) Residence - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 2.
(15) Charles Clarke Residence - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 4.
(16) H. Elder Residence - T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 2:
Located outside the Stage I planning area. However, associated
out-buildings may be impacted.
(17) Spining (?) Barn - T.20N., R.3E., Sec. 31.
(18) W. P. Melville Residence - T.19N., R.3E., Sec. 17.
(19) Henry John Residence - T.19N., R.3E., Sec. 16.
J-5
-------
(20) Peter Smith Residence - T.19N., R.3E., Sec. 8.
(21) F. Wright Residence - T.19N., R.3E, Sec. 16:
located on the edge of the project area; associated out-
buildings might be adversely affected.
In addition to the aforementioned structures, there are also two
historic cemetaries located within or adjacent to the study area. These
are the Gravelly Lake or Steilacoom Cemetary (T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 10) and
the Steilacoom Masonic Cemetary (T.19N., R.2E., Sec. 8). If the proposed
sewer construction is limited to existing streets in each of these two
areas, the cemetaries would not be directly affected. This observation
has to be tempered by the fact that the present limits of each cemetary
may not be those of the original site. Such is the case with the Byrd
Cemetary; the present fence including only about a third of the original
cemetary area.
Horstad Hall on the Pacific Lutheran University campus has been in-
cluded on the Washington State Inventory of Historic Places. While this
site's eligibility for inclusion on either the State or National Historic
Register has yet to be determined, it will not be adversely affected by
the proposed project.
Three additional areas have been included on the Washington State
Inventory of Historic Places. These include: (1) the Chief Leschi Hang-
ing Site, (2) the Naches Pass and Fort Steilacoom to Fort Walla Walla Road,
and (3) the Fort Steilacoom-Fort Bellingham Military Road. All of these
are somewhat enigmatic from the standpoint of impact assessment. Though
of undoubted historical significance, there is little, if any, chance that
any physical remains are extant. This is particularly true of the two
historic roads; both being presently overlain by existing roadways.
Conclusions and Mitigation Recommendations.
As has been carefully noted above, the present assessment represents
only a preliminary overview of an on-going and more-detailed consideration
of the Chambers/Clover Creek cultural resources. While the remaining work
to be completed in documentary research, personal interview, and especially
surface reconnaissance will no doubt add greatly to our present state of
knowledge, several preliminary conclusions can be drawn.
First, there would appear to be a number of potentially significant
historic sites within the study area. Many of these have yet to be exam-
ined. Locations of structures plotted on the Territorial Survey and Do-
nation Land Claims Maps can be precisely located and evaluated. However,
those structures associated with the Puget Sound Agricultural Company have
little chance of being identified because of the poor locational data.
To date, limited surface reconnaissance and personal interviews have
resulted in the identification of several prehistoric aboriginal sites.
While these have yet to be evaluated to assess their significance, it is
apparent that the study area potentially contains many more such sites.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of this resource may be unavailable for
J-6
-------
direct evaluation simply because of the area's high residential density
and the extensive surface alterations associated with historic land use
practices.
Given the number of historic and prehistoric sites identified as
being located within the study area, it is apparent that the proposed
construction will result in significant adverse impacts to the area's
known cultural resources. It is also important to note that the project
will also potentially result in the loss of as yet unidentified (and un-
identifiable) cultural remains. Therefore, it is recommended that certain
measures be adopted to insure against the unacceptable loss of this non-
renewable resource base. In the present instance, mitigation would most
properly include the monitoring of all construction activities involving
surface modifications by a professional archaeologist. Such a system
would permit the careful recording and preservation of cultural remains
should they be encountered during construction.
We would also further recommend that in the event that a significant
prehistoric/historic cultural site i§_ encountered, further more exacting
mitigation measures be undertaken. Typically, this would involve the
limited-scale testing of the particular site to determine the nature, ex-
tent, and significance of its remains. A determination could then be made
as to the need for further mitigation measures, e.g. (1) do nothing, (2)
alter the proposed sewer line route so as to bypass the site, or (3) under-
take full-scale archaeological excavations to remove and preserve the re-
source.
While the aforementioned procedures are directed primarily towards
mitigation during construction, we would also recommend that similar mea-
sures be entertained prior to that time. If, as a consequence of the cur-
rent assessment program, significant cultural resources are identified as
being directly in the path of proposed sewer lines, steps should be taken
to insure against unmitigated impact. Again, this would nominally include
either altering the sewer line route(s) to avoid the site(s) or undertaking
limited-scale archaeological testing to determine the need for further ex-
cavations. Adoption of this mitigation strategy prior to construction
would serve not only to give sufficient lead time for a thorough archaeo-
logical assessment but also to alleviate potential delays that could be
caused if archaeological salvage excavations were initiated during con-
struction.
J-7
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Smith, Marian I.
1907 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound. American
Museum of Natural History Memoirs, Vol. 4, Part 6, Jesup North
Pacific Expedition Memoirs, Vol. 2, Part 6, pp. 303-441. New
York.
Smith, Marian W.
1904 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to
Anthropology 32. Columbia University Press, New Yor.
Taylor, Herbert C.
T974 The Medicine Creek Tribes. In Coast Salish and Western Wash-
ington Indians II, compiled and edited by David A. Horr,
Garland Series, Garland Publishing Inc., New York.
Work, John
1912 Journal of John Work. Reproduced in the Washington Historical
Quarterly, July 1912. Edited by T. C. Elliott.
J-8
------- |