PB96-963101
EPA/AMD/R10-96/131
February 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision Amendment:
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
(West Harbor Operable Unit), WA
12/08/1995
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington
West Harbor Operable Unit
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Super-fund Site
Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington
Amended Record of Decision
Decision Summary
and Responsiveness Summary
December 1995
-------
Table of Contents
Declaration
Site 1
Statement of Basis and Purpose 1
Assessment of the Site 1
Description of the Amendment to the Remedy 1
Declaration 2
Decision Summary
Introduction 1
Site Name and Location
Lead and Support Agencies
Statutory Citation for a ROD Amendment
Date of ROD Signature
Need for the ROD Amendment
Administrative Record
Site History 4
Remedy Selected in the ROD 5
Reasons for Issuing ROD Amendment 6
Description of the Modified Remedy
Evaluation of Alternatives 8
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
Statutory Determination 12
Tables
Table 1 - Stabilization and Cap Action Levels 13
Figures
Fig. 1 - W/EH Superfund Site Operable Units 14
Fig. 2 - Cross Section of Proposed Nearshore Fill 15
Fig. 3 - Conceptual Layout of Proposed Nearshore Fill 16
Fig. 4 - Proposed South Bainbridge Estuary Site 17
-------
Responsiveness Summary
Introduction RS-1
Community Involvement RS-1
Comments and Responses RS-2
Comments on Land Use and Boatyard RS-2
Comments on Nearshore Fill and Habitat Mitigation RS-3
Comments on the Marine Railway RS-6
Comments on Process RS-7
Technical Memorandum -r Supplemental Regulatory Evaluation
Attachment A
Appendixes
A: Clean Water Act Evaluation (including Section 404(b)(l)
Evaluation Permit Application, dated December 1, 1995)
B: Letter of Concurrence from the Washington Department of
Ecology
C: Memorandum of Agreement - WSDOT and City of Bainbridge
Island
D: Memorandum of Agreement - WSDOT and the Suguamish Tribe
ii
-------
Declaration
for the West Harbor Operable Unit
of the Wyckoff/Cagle Harbor Superfund Site
Amended Record of Decision
Site
West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Kitsap
County, Washington
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This ROD Amendment has been developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42
U.S.C Section 9601 et seq.. and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. The
decision to amend the ROD is based on the administrative record for the West Harbor,
which was updated September 13, 1995 to include information generated since the
issuance of the ROD in 1992. The documents added to the administrative record since
September 1992 are listed in Attachment A.
The State of Washington concurs with the ROD Amendment.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances in the West Harbor, if not
addressed by implementing the selected remedy documented in the ROD as amended in
this ROD Amendment, may present an imminent and substantial threat to human health,
welfare, or the environment.
Description of the Amendment to the Remedy
This decision document changes a component of the selected remedial action for the
West Harbor Operable Unit (West Harbor) of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site
(Site). The Record of Decision (ROD) for this operable unit, signed on September 29,
1992, required removal and appropriate upland disposal of "mercury hot spot" sediments,
which contain concentrations of mercury greater than or equal to 5 mg/kg. This
amendment to the ROD (ROD Amendment) will allow containment of most of the
mercury hot spot sediments in an on-site nearshore confined disposal facility (CDF) to
be constructed on intertidal lands owned by the State of Washington Department of
Declaration - Page 1
-------
Transportation (WSDOT). A small volume of mercury hot spot sediments characterized
as hazardous waste will be disposed of in an upland landfill after treatment
In addition, the ROD required an investigation of potential continuing contaminant
sources and the implementation of any source controls necessary to protect sediment
quality and surface water quality. Necessary measures for control of sources in an area
formerly used for shipyard operations (Former Shipyard) were identified during remedial
design. These measures include treatment of surface soil hot spots and physical barriers
to minimize ground water, surface water, and seawater flow through underlying soils.
These measures will also protect human health and the environment for current and
future industrial uses of the Former Shipyard area. To minimize administrative burdens
on the property owner and to ensure a comprehensive cleanup, this ROD Amendment
requires contaminant source control actions at the Former Shipyard to achieve soil
cleanup standards for industrial uses under the State of Washington Model Toxics
Control Act (MTCA). Necessary soil cleanup would otherwise take place separately,
under Ecology oversight.
All other elements of the selected remedy set forth in the ROD are unchanged.
Declaration
Although this ROD Amendment changes a component of the remedy selected in the
ROD, the remedy as amended continues to be protective of human health and the
environment. The remedy as amended complies with Federal and State requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action and is cost
effective. The remedy as amended continues to utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies, to the maximum extent practicable for this site.
Treatment of upland soils containing high concentrations of teachable metals and
treatment of sediments characterized as hazardous waste prior to their off-site disposal
will be required; thus this remedy satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above health-
based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of
remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment
Chuck Clarke 7 T Date
Regional Administrator, Region Iff
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Declaration - Page 2
-------
Decision Summary
for the West Harbor Operable Unit
of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site
Amended Record of Decision
Introduction
Site Name and Location
West Harbor Operable Unit (West Harbor), Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund
Site (Site), Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington
Lead and Support Agencies
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead agency and the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is the support agency for the
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Site.
Statutory Citation for a Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment
Section 117(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9617(c) provides for addressing and documenting
changes to the selected remedy after issuance of a ROD. This ROD Amendment
documents the changes to the remedy set forth in the ROD. Additionally, since
fundamental changes are being made to the remedy, public participation and
documentation procedures specified in the NCP, Section 300.435(c)(2)(ii) have been
followed.
Date of ROD Signature
The ROD for the West Harbor was signed September 29,1992.
Need for the ROD Amendment
The need for this ROD Amendment arose during the remedial design process, but is not
a result of technical or environmental concerns with the selected remedy or the design.
The decision to use a confined disposal facility is intended to resolve a conflict between
the need to expand the existing ferry maintenance facility onto adjacent property and the
desire to maintain current uses of the property which are of value to the community.
The need to address soil cleanup standards under State of Washington Model Toxics
Decision Summary Page 1
-------
Control Act (MTCA) stemmed from the results of a contaminant source evaluation at
the Former Shipyard. The following paragraphs further discuss the events leading to this
ROD Amendment.
Subsequent to issuing the ROD in 1992, EPA negotiated with certain potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) for their performance of the West Harbor selected remedy.
design. In November 1993, EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC)
requiring PACCAR Inc.' (PACCAR) to conduct this work. The State of Washington
(State) entered into a separate agreement with PACCAR whereby the State agreed to
support some elements of the design.
Pursuant to the AOC, the technical consultant for PACCAR and WSDOT completed
pre-design studies, including sediment sampling to refine the areas, volumes, and
characteristics of sediments for remedy design, and groundwater seep sampling and soil
borings to assess potentially significant upland sources of contamination and to support
design for the control of such sources. The sampling identified a subtidal mercury hot
spot separate from the known intertidal hot spot, supported a volume estimate of
mercury hot spot sediment requiring removal, and specified areas where a thick or thin
sediment cap would be necessary depending on contaminant levels and sediment toxicity.
The source investigation sampling indicated that groundwater seeps passing through
contaminated soils at the Former Shipyard were a potentially significant source of
contaminants to the harbor water and sediments. In order to control this contaminant
source, designs for soil stabilization, groundwater controls, tidal barriers, and surface
water controls were submitted to EPA to assure the protection of surface water and
sediments. The ROD did not anticipate that such extensive measures would be needed
for control of sources to surface water and sediments. Examples of source controls listed
in the ROD included the implementation of best management practices for ongoing boat
repair and ferry maintenance operations and surface water run-on and run-off controls.
Soil cleanup, if required under MTCA to protect human health (i.e., to prevent direct
exposure to contaminated soil at the Former Shipyard ), was to be handled by Ecology
separately from source control actions to protect surface water and sediments. However,
measures identified during remedial design as necessary to control upland sources will
also meet MTCA soil cleanup standards for the protection of human health. As a result,
this ROD Amendment incorporates MTCA as an applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirement (ARAR), and compliance with MTCA human health soil cleanup standards
is required.
Concurrent with pre-design studies, WSDOT acquired, through condemnation, 4.5 acres
of land formerly owned by Bainbridge Marine Services (BMS), located adjacent to the
Washington State Ferries (WSF) ferry maintenance facility at Eagle Harbor. The
condemnation was necessary to allow for expansion of the maintenance facility. The
condemned property, part of the Former Shipyard, includes upland and intertidal lands.
Soil contamination in the upland portion is a potentially significant source of
Decision Summary - Page 2
-------
contamination to the harbor, while the intertidal portion is the location of most of the
mercury hot spot sediments. WSF's expansion plan required the relocation of a small
boat repair yard which had operated under a long-term lease on an acre of the
condemned property.
The City of Bainbridge Island, both government and community, voiced a strong interest
in preserving private boat repair operations in Eagle Harbor. A lack of available
waterfront property suitable for such operations, combined with WSF conceptual
development plans and technical and cost considerations, led WSDOT to develop an
alternative to the component of the remedy which addresses mercury hot spot sediments.
The remedy set forth in the ROD called for removal of these sediments (containing
concentrations of mercury greater than or equal to 5 mg/kg) and disposal of the
sediments in an upland on-site, municipal, or hazardous waste landfill, depending on the
sediment waste characteristics.
The proposed alternative which WSDOT submitted for EPA consideration was
construction of a nearshore fill which would function as a confined disposal facility
(CDF) for the hot spot sediments. The berm walls of the CDF would encompass much
of the hot spot area, and remaining hot spot sediments would be added to the CDF and
capped with asphalt. The CDF would be designed to keep the hot spot sediments under
saturated saline conditions to avoid oxidation and mobilization of the metals, and
monitoring would be required to ensure the long-term protectiveness of the CDF.
Mitigation for the loss of intertidal habitat would also be necessary to comply with the
Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(l).
In accordance with the AOC schedule of deliverables, preliminary design of the selected
remedy was submitted in June 1995. The design included the upland source control
actions proposed for the Former Shipyard area. In July 1995, preliminary design of the
proposed CDF alternative was submitted, ulong with a comparison of the proposed
alternative to the selected remedy and a description of potential mitigation options:
«
EPA reviewed both designs and concluded that the selected remedy and the CDF
alternative are comparable in terms of protection of human health and the environment,
and that both would comply with State and Federal environmental requirements
(ARARs). EPA also determined that the source control actions proposed should be
integrated with soil cleanup to reduce administrative burdens and provide more
comprehensive cleanup. For this reason, soil cleanup levels pursuant to the State of
Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) were derived using MTCA Method C
or, in the absence of a Method C standard, Method A using industrial use assumptions.
EPA determined that the changes to the mercury hot spot remedy constitute a
fundamental change to the selected remedy, warranting public involvement through the
ROD Amendment process.
Decision Summary - Page 3
-------
Administrative Record
This ROD Amendment will become part of the administrative record for the West
Harbor, as required by Section 300.825(a)(2) of the NCP, and will be available for public
review on weekdays between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the information repository
below:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Records Center, 7th Floor
1200 Sixth Avenue :
Seattle, Washington 98101
During the public comment period, the administrative record file for the West Harbor
and other operable units were available for public review at the Kitsap Regional Library
on Bainbridge Island, and may remain there as space allows.
Site History
Eagle Harbor is a shallow embavment on the east side of Bainbridge Island, Puget
Sound Washington (Figure 1). Land uses on Bainbridge Island are primarily residential,
commercial, and light industrial. Uses of Eagle Harbor include extensive recreational
boat moorage, repair of Washington State Ferries, and ferry transport of cars and
passengers to and from Seattle, some six miles east of the island. The former Wyckoff
Company wood treating facility is located on the south shore at the mouth of the harbor.
The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Site, added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1987,
currently consists of the following operable units (Ous):
QU-1: Wyckoff Facility (unsaturated soils, buildings)
OU-2: East Harbor (adjacent to the Wyckoff Facility)
OU-3: West Harbor
OU-4: Wyckoff Ground water (groundwater and saturated soils)
The West Harbor OU includes contaminated intertidal and subtidal sediments in the
western portions of Eagle Harbor, as well as upland sources of contamination to the
West Harbor.
Additional information on Site location, land use, and environmental setting is provided
in Section 2 of the West Harbor ROD. A comprehensive Site history, including
background, listing, CERCLA enforcement, and the completion of the remedial
investigation and feasibility study are discussed in Section 3 of the West Harbor ROD.
Sections 6 and 7 of the West Harbor ROD provide summary information on Site
Decision Summary - Page 4
-------
characteristics, the nature and extent of contamination, and human health and ecological
risks. The cleanup objectives are described in Section 10.1 of the West Harbor ROD.
The West Harbor ROD was the first remedial action decision document issued for the
Site. Since that time, a ROD has been issued for the East Harbor OU (1994) and an
interim ROD has been issued for the Wyckoff Groundwater OU (1994). A cap over the
most heavily contaminated sediments in the East Harbor was completed under CERCLA
removal authorities in March 1994; remediation of remaining contaminated sediments in
the East Harbor will occur once contaminant sources from the Wyckoff Facility are
controlled. Source control measures ongoing at the Wyckoff Facility since 1988 will be
supplemented by additional groundwater controls and soil cleanup over the coming 3-6
years. Final sediment cleanup in the East and West Harbor operable units is intended
to result in contaminant concentrations at or below the cleanup objective in surface
sediments throughout Eagle Harbor, as established in the RODs for these operable units.
Remedy Selected in the ROD
The West Harbor ROD includes the following components to address upland sources of
contamination and contaminated sediments (Italicized components are affected by this
ROD Amendment):
further evaluation and control of potential upland sources of contamination to West
' Harbor sediments;
excavation, solidification/stabilization (if necessary), and upland disposal of
sediments exceeding 5 mg/kg mercury (dry weight);
placement of a cap of clean sediment over areas of high concern for adverse
biological effects and potential contaminant resuspension and bioaccumulation;
thin-layer placement of clean sediments to enhance sediment recovery in areas of
moderate concern;
natural recovery and monitoring in areas predicted to achieve the long-term
sediment cleanup objective without sediment remedial action;
continued institutional controls to protect human health from exposure to
contaminated fish and shellfish; and
long-term environmental monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy.
As noted, measures to control upland sources of contamination to surface water and
sediment will also be required to address MTCA soil cleanup standards for protection of
Decision Summary - Page 5
-------
human health (i.e. soil ingestion), while the method for disposing of sediments containing
mercury concentrations greater than 5 mg/kg (dry weight) will change as described
below.
Reasons for Issuing ROD Amendment
The modification to the remedy, which calls for containment of mercury hot spot
sediments in a nearshore CDF, is protective of human health and the environment and
satisfies a community issue regarding the use of waterfront lands in Eagle Harbor. The
CDF will provide 0.9 acres of land to be used for expansion of the WSF maintenance
facility while allowing continued use of an acre of the condemned property for private
water-dependent marine industrial purposes. This land use is preferred by the City of
Bainbridge Island, was required under a 1974 Shorelines Management Act hearings
board decision, and addresses citizen concerns regarding the shortage of boat repair
facilities in Eagle Harbor.
Description of the Modified Remedy
The remedy is changed to include the following:
Source control measures at the Former Shipyard are to comply with MTCA soil
cleanup standards for protection of human health, based on current and future
industrial land use, or for protection of surface water, whichever is more stringent.
disposal of approximately 7,000 cubic yards of mercury hot spot sediments in a
nearshore CDF adjacent to the Former Shipyard. The CDF shall be constructed
on 0.9 acres of intertidal land adjacent to the Former Shipyard, as shown in
Figures 2 and 3.
Source control - Table 1 lists soil cleanup standards which must be achieved by source
control and soil cleanup. The table briefly notes the basis for their selection. As
before, source control measures must protect surface water quality and sediment quality.
Soil cleanup standards were derived based on site-specific data and State of Washington
Surface Water Quality Standards or Sediment Management Standards. For contaminants
which are less leachable, MTCA human health (industrial) standards for a given
contaminant were selected. Institutional controls, such as fencing and deed restrictions,
will be required to ensure the protectiveness of the industrial cleanup standards.
The source control measures include the treatment of heavily contaminated upland soils
in the surface three feet of two source areas, totalling approximately 4,000-5,500 cubic
yards. Soil concentrations at or above the stabilization action levels for copper, mercury,
and zinc listed in Table 1 trigger the requirement for soil solidification/stabilization for
Decision Summary - Page 6
-------
protection of surface water and sediment quality. Remaining stabilization action levels
must be achieved for protection of human health for direct contact. These soils
constitute a principal threat at the site. Stabilized soils will be returned to their original
excavation, creating a low permeability cap over underlying soils. Remaining areas of
the Former Shipyard exceeding 2 mg/kg mercury or 250 mg/kg copper will be covered
with an asphalt cap to minimize infiltration and prevent runoff of surface water
containing contaminated soil panicles. The asphalt cap must be monitored and
maintained to ensure long-term effectiveness. In addition, groundwater diversion and
tidal water barriers will be used to minimize the amount of water entering the
subsurface, leaching metals from contaminated soils, and exiting into Eagle Harbor.
Nearshore confined disposal facility After limited dredging and construction of a
structural base, a berm will be constructed of clean borrow material in the 0.9 acre
intertidal area, extending to approximately feet below mean lower low water (MLLW).
About 2,720 cubic yards of intertidal hot spot sediment will remain in place, either
covered by the berm or within the berm. An estimated 1,970 cubic yards of hot spot
sediments beyond the berm will be excavated from shore or hydraulically dredged and
placed in the enclosure. After dewatering, the dredged material will be capped with
clean fill and paved with low-permeability material such as asphalt to minimize surface
water infiltration.
During construction, short-term releases of contaminants will be minimized through the
use of appropriate dredging controls and proper storage and handling. Waste water
from dredging will be treated as necessary to meet water quality standards and released
to Eagle Harbor. As a design decision, EPA may require the use of an low-permeability
liner under the dredged sediments to maintain the saturated conditions which limit
contaminant leaching. Coarse material will be applied at the berm face to prevent
erosion and provide habitat. Excavated areas will be backfilled with clean material to
restore previous elevations.
Appropriate seismic design standards will be applied to ensure long-term structural
integrity, and if necessary freshwater diversion drains will be used to ensure that the hot
spot materials remain under saturated and saline conditions. The fill must protect both
surface water and sediment quality. Monitoring wells and other monitoring methods will
be used to verify the long-term effectiveness of the containment. Wooden structural
supports of a former marine railway will be partially covered by the fill. Habitat
mitigation as described in Appendix A will be necessary to comply with the Clean Water
Act.
All other elements of the West Harbor remedy (including cleanup goals and objectives
and required cleanup actions) will remain as described in the West Harbor ROD and
summarized in the previous section, with the addition of MTCA as ARAR. As a
possible exception, sediments containing less than 5 mg/kg mercury but greater than 2.1
mg/kg mercury may be included in the CDF at the discretion of EPA, provided the 0.9
Decision Summary - Page 7
-------
acre footprint is not exceeded and sediment and water quality is not affected. Sediments
characterized as hazardous waste total approximately 230 cubic yards and will be treated
to meet land disposal restrictions prior to disposal at an offsite landfill. Treatment of
these sediments addresses a principal threat at the site.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The NCP establishes nine criteria for evaluating remedial action alternatives. A
discussion of the original remedy and modified remedy relative to the nine evaluation
criteria is required by CERCLA. In this section, disposal of mercury hot spot sediments
at appropriate upland sites upland and in a nearshore CDF will be evaluated relative to
each of the nine criteria.
In EPA's Feasibility Study, disposal in a CDF was evaluated as a potential cleanup
alternative for intertidal mercury hot spot sediments. Other alternatives considered for
these sediments included capping, confined aquatic disposal, upland disposal in a
hazardous waste landfill, upland disposal in a municipal landfill (for non-hazardous waste
sediments), and in situ solidification.
The CDF alternative met the two threshold evaluation criteria of protecting human
health and the environment and complying with ARARs. The CDF alternative was also
considered to be equivalent to other on-Site containment alternatives (capping and
confined aquatic disposal) for three of the balancing criteria, but was less favorable in
terms of short-term effectiveness and cost. Compared to capping sediments in place, the
CDF had a greater potential for short-term effects such as worker exposure to
contaminants and resuspension of contaminants from dredging. Also, unlike either
capping or confined aquatic disposal, the CDF would entail the loss of intertidal habitat
The CDF was the most costly of the three on-Site containment alternatives for the
intertidal mercury hot spot sediments.
All of the on-Site containment alternatives, in turn, compared unfavorably to the two
upland disposal alternatives and the in situ solidification alternative in terms of long-term
effectiveness and reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment. After
considering all public comments, EPA selected upland disposal of mercury hot spot
sediments as a component of the West Harbor remedy.
As explained below, information developed since the FS changes the relative strengths of
these alternatives in terms of long-term effectiveness, short term effectiveness, cost, and
reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment.
Recent documentation of the performance of nearshore CDFs suggests that, properly
designed, they can be effective for the long term. Short term impacts from resuspension
of contaminated sediments will be somewhat reduced under the CDF alternative because
Decision Summary - Page 8
-------
most of the hot spot sediments within the CDF footprint will not require excavation or
dredging. Habitat lost as a result of the nearshore CDF will be mitigated through the
creation or restoration of habitat, as described in Appendix A.
Cost estimates from preliminary design of both the CDF alternative and the remedy set
forth in the ROD indicate that the CDF costs somewhat less than upland disposal off
site, with habitat mitigation bringing the two approaches to approximately equal cost.
Under both approaches, a small volume of hot spot sediments characterized as
hazardous waste will be excavated and treated to meet land disposal treatment standards
prior to disposal in an offsite landfill. Remaining sediments do not require treatment
prior to disposal. Thus the toxicity, mobility, and volume is not significantly affected by
the change to on-Site disposal in the CDF.
In addition to these technical considerations, recent local government efforts to maintain
a "working waterfront" with private boatyards in Eagle Harbor are strongly supported by
the community. The CDF alternative, which would accommodate both the WSF and the
community, will provide equivalent protection of human health and the environment.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Combined with source control measures and other elements of the ROD, both upland
disposal and CDF disposal of the mercury contaminated sediments meet the threshold
criterion of protection of human health and the environment. Both approaches isolate
the hot spot sediments from the marine environment, the food chain, and direct human
contact.
Compliance with ARARs
Both upland disposal and CDF disposal comply with the ARARs in the ROD and ROD
amendment.
To comply with the Clean Water Act, mitigation is required for unavoidable loss of
habitat as a result of the nearshore CDF. A mitigation package combining on-site and
off-site mitigation components was proposed for public comment with the draft ROD
amendment (September 1995). The mitigation proposal is acceptable to EPA; its
compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1344, is documented in
EPA's 404(b)(l) evaluation (Appendix A). The off-site component, restoration of a 2-
acre estuary on South Bainbridge Island (Figure 4), is authorized under a Clean Water
Act nationwide permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will apply as
partial mitigation for the nearshore CDF. On-site mitigation includes eelgrass
restoration, habitat enhancement on the CDF berm face, and materials to support a
Suquamish Tribe shellfish enhancement project. Specific plans for the implementation,
monitoring of the combined mitigation will be developed in remedial design. Formal
authorization of the on-site mitigation components will be documented in a Consent
Decree for remedial action.
Decision Summary - Page 9
-------
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) is also
required. During the WSDOT condemnation of the Former Shipyard property, wooden
structural supports for the marine railway built at the turn of the century were surveyed.
WSDOT is completing a report which brings together this information, historical
documentation, and notes from recent sediment cores and soil borings. The report will
support EPA's determination of whether the former marine railway and any other
potential cultural resources are eligible for the National Register. If eligible, EPA will
assess potential effects on these resources and mitigation will be implemented as
appropriate during remedial design and remedial action.
The nearshore CDF will also comply with the State of Washington Shorelines
Management Act, an ARAR identified in the ROD.
In this ROD Amendment, MTCA is an ARAR for source control actions. The soil
cleanup standards listed in Table 1 will be achieved in treating and containing
contaminant sources at the Former Shipyard.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Under the ROD, hot spot sediments would have been disposed in a municipal landfill
subject to state and federal laws for the construction, operation, closure and monitoring
of the landfill. These laws are intended to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the
sediment containment.
The nearshore CDF will be designed, constructed, and monitored as necessary to ensure
long-term effectiveness and permanence. The fill will be monitored to ensure that
conditions are maintained which minimize contaminant leaching and that any
contamination in leachate leaving the fill is protective of human health and the
environment. Monitoring and maintenance will also be required to assure the long-term
effectiveness of the mitigation.
Nearshore CDF have been used to contain contaminated materials, both nationally and
in the Puget Sound. Documentation of the performance of such fills suggests that,
properly designed, maintained, and monitored, they are effective over the long term.
Reduction of Toricity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment
Under both the ROD and this ROD Amendment, a small volume of hot spot sediments
characterized as hazardous waste will be excavated and treated prior to disposal in an
offsite landfill. Remaining hot spot sediments do not require treatment prior to disposal
in either a municipal landfill or nearshore CDF. Both approaches provide reductions in
contaminant mobility through containment, not treatment. Thus, the ROD and this
ROD Amendment do not differ significantly in terms of reducing toxicity, mobility, and
volume through treatment.
Decision Summary - Page 10
-------
Short-Term Effectiveness
Under the ROD, all hot spot sediments were to be removed from the harbor for upland
disposal. Sediments in the intertidal zone were to be excavated from shore at low tide,
while underwater sediments were to be dredged. Hot spot sediments were to be
transported to a municipal landfill by truck or barge.
Under this ROD Amendment, most of the hot spot sediments within the footprint of the
fill will not need to be excavated or dredged (except a small volume of sediments
characterized as hazardous waste). In addition, the upland disposal of smaller volumes
of contaminated material means reduced risks of releases and worker exposure during
handling and transport. For this reason, short term impacts from sediment disturbance
may be slightly reduced under this ROD Amendment.
Implementability
The ROD and this ROD Amendment are equivalent in terms of meeting this criterion.
Both upland disposal and CDF disposal can be implemented readily, using standard
construction and dredging equipment. CDF disposal may require some additional time
for acquisition and transport of construction materials and construction of the CDF. The
required habitat mitigation also adds a degree of administrative complexity, particularly
for off-Site mitigation activities.
Cost
Cost estimates based on preliminary design of the overall remedy with upland disposal
and the modified remedy with CDF disposal indicate that the cost of the amended
remedy ($3,255,200) is slightly lower than the remedial design estimates for the remedy
set forth in the ROD ($3,339,900). When the cost of the proposed habitat mitigation is
included, the total cost for the amended remedy is approximately $3.8 million. The
value to WSDOT of creating additional usable land is not accounted for in this cost
comparison. Costs to WSDOT for ensuring private marine industrial uses of an acre of
land through arrangements with the City of Bainbridge Island are also not included.
State Acceptance
The State of Washington concurred with the 1992 selected remedy and concurs with this
ROD amendment. A letter of concurrence is included as Appendix B.
Community Acceptance
On September 27, 1995, EPA held a meeting in the community to accept comments on
the proposed amendment. In addition, EPA received over thirty comment letters during
the public comment period for this ROD Amendment. The Responsiveness Summary
provides EPA responses to specific comments. Overall, the community endorsed
continued use of the newly acquired WSDOT land for private boatyard purposes, under
any remediation scenario. The Association of Bainbridge Communities (ABC), a
community environmental organization, expressed qualified support for the nearshore
CDF, provided long-term effectiveness is assured through careful design and monitoring.
Decision Summary - Page 11
-------
During the comment period, several commenters referenced a 1974 Shoreline Hearings
Board ruling which required that private water-dependent uses be preserved for the
condemned property. Although the WSDOT condemnation may have voided this ruling,
the ruling documents the community's intention to retain such uses in this area.
WSDOT initiated negotiations with the City of Bainbridge Island during the comment
period to assure such uses for the long term. The agreement is included as Appendix C.
The mitigation proposal was also supported by Trout Unlimited, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the "cooperators" who own land to be used in the mitigation.
The Suquamish Tribe has negotiated a compensation agreement with WSDOT for the
loss of shellfish habitat as a result of the CDF, and supported the CDF and mitigation
alternatives provided the agreement was finalized. The final agreement (Appendix D)
provides for fisheries enhancement and the transfer of approximately six acres of
tideland from the State of Washington to the Suquamish Tribe.
Statutory Determination
The modified remedy satisfies the provisions of Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C
§9621. EPA and Ecology believe that the amended remedy is protective of human
health and the environment, complies with applicable or relevant and appropriate state
and federal requirements, and is cost-effective.
Decision Summary - Page 12
-------
Table 1. Stabilization and Cap Action Levels for Upland Soils
Contaminant
Total Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Soil Stabilization Action
Level (mg/kg)
1,400°
188a
10,000b
l,000d
10e
6,000"
Soil Capping Action Level
mg/kg
in
n/a
n/a
250°
n/a
2b
n/a
Based on MTCA Method C Soil Cleanup Levels for Industrial Sites (Ecology,
1994)
b Based on worst-case soil erosion and sediment transport assumptions (Hart
Crowser, 1995)
c Based on water quality criteria and the reasonable worst-case field-scale
partition coefficient (Hart Crowser, 1995)
d Based on MTCA Method A Soil Cleanup Levels for Industrial Sites (WAC
173-340-745)
e Based on worst case soil erosion and sediment transport assumptions (Hart
Crowser, 1995)
Decision Summary - Page 13
-------
NPE69208 02.04 POR1 U3/94 CJS IKW
CITY OF
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
Approximate Location .
of Property Line
WYCKOFP QROUNDWAEFI:.
'
Note: OU Boundaries are approximate
150 300 600
Scale in Meters
Figure 1
WYCKOFF/EAGLE HARBOR
SUPERFUND SITE OPERABLE UNITS
41
DO
0)
-------
Vf »/VM
4»»U»
Figure 2: Cross Section of Proposed Nearshore Fill
Monitoring Well
Asphalt Pavement Cop
Former BUS
Properly
Monitoring Well
Buffer Material (Sand)
Holspot Sediments
Moved to Fill
EAGLE
HARBOR
Hotspot Sediments
Left in Place
GeotextMe/Membrone Liner
Berm Face Habitat Enhancement-
MLLW - Mean Low Low Water
FIGURE NOT TO SCALE
41
00
a
0*
-------
Figure 3: Conceptual Layout of Proposed Nearshore Fill Area
S,
&
WAiKiyv&vr-/**< t
nor TO sc*.e
N
-------
Figure 4: Proposed South Ba/nbr/dge Estuary Site
Re-Routed
Streom
Channel
Proposed 2-Acre
Estuary
' *i_ feoinbridge \
0 200
Scole in Feet
'
Page 17
-------
Responsiveness Summary
-------
Responsiveness Summary
West Harbor ROD Amendment
I. Introduction
This responsiveness summary meets the requirements of Section 117 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended. The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to summarize and respond
to public comments on EPA's proposed amendment of the cleanup plan for the West
Harbor operable unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site. The proposed ROD
Amendment, issued on September 13,1995, presented for public comment proposed
changes to a component of the remedy set forth in the West Harbor Record of Decision
(ROD) issued in 1992. ~
EPA announced the issuance of the proposed ROD Amendment in two community
newspapers. A thirty-day comment period was provided for the public to read the
proposed ROD Amendment, review, documents in the administrative record, and submit
written comments. EPA held a public meeting at the public library to answer questions
and accept comments.
The proposed ROD Amendment was to change the method for disposing of mercury
"hotspot" sediments. The ROD required removal of these sediments and appropriate
disposal in a landfill. The ROD Amendment proposed disposal of the hotspot sediments
on site in a nearshore confined disposal facility, termed a nearshore fill. EPA's reasons
for proposing this change are detailed in the proposed ROD Amendment. Briefly, the
ROD Amendment is intended to resolve a conflict between community land use
preferences and the expansion of the Washington State Ferries (WSF) maintenance
facility, while providing protection of human health and the environment. Without the
additional acre of land created by the CDF, WSF would need to relocate a private boat
repair operation. The boat repair operation was operating on one of 4.5 acres of
property which Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) had obtained
through condemnation for expansion of the adjacent WSF maintenance facility.
II. Community Involvement
Approximately 35 people attended the public meeting on September 27, 1995. EPA
presented information about both the proposed ROD Amendment and mitigation
alternatives proposed for unavoidable loss of habitat associated with the nearsbore CDF.
Ten people provided formal comments. A transcript of the meeting is included in the
West Harbor administrative record.
Over 30 comment letters were submitted to EPA during the comment period. Over
twenty of the letters were from individual citizens or businesses on Bainbridge Island,
RS- 1
-------
while nine letters provided comments on behalf of agencies or organizations, as follows:
The Suquamish Tribe, The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR), the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(SOAHP), Bainbridge Island Trout Unlimited (BITU), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Washington Department of Health (WDOH),
and the Association of Bainbridge Communities (ABC).
Both written and verbal comments generally fell into the following categories:
comments expressing support for the current boatyard operator, Eagle Harbor
Boatyard, or for the preservation of boatyard operations in Eagle Harbor;
comments on technical aspects of the proposed ROD amendment and the
proposed habitat mitigation;
comments on the historical value of the marine railway;
comments on the relationships between state and local land use plans and
decisions, WSDOTs development planning process, and EPA decisions.
III. Comments and Responses
Comments from letters and .the public meeting are summarized or paraphrased
individually below, followed by EPA responses, under each of the four groupings.
1. Comments Oh Land Use and Boatyard
Comment Overview: Support for the boatyard was the predominant theme in comments
from individual members of the community. Many comments were directed at the
WSDOT and either objected to the WSDOT terms in negotiations with Eagle Harbor
boatyard or emphasized positive aspects of Eagle Harbor Boatyard. All emphasized the
importance of retaining a place in Eagle Harbor for small boat haulout and repairs.
Many remarked on the lack of alternative locations in the area, the importance of
Bainbridge Island's maritime heritage, and the jobs, tax base, high quality work, and
convenience provided by this boatyard. The community comments clearly urged EPA to
support a binding arrangement between WSDOT, the City of Bainbridge Island, and if
possible Eagle Harbor Boatyard, for economically feasible private boatyard operations in
Eagle Harbor.
Response: Because there is not a compelling environmental need for a ROD
Amendment, EPA views this input as critical, and considers an arrangement for such
long-term future uses a condition of amending the ROD.
RS-2
-------
2. Comments on Nearshore Fill and Habitat Mitigation
Comment Overview: Technical comments on the proposed ROD Amendment and the
proposed habitat mitigation were received primarily from ABC, USFWS, NOAA, and
WDOH. Most emphasized the need for careful design, long-term monitoring, and
contingency plans for both the remedy and the mitigation. ABC also expressed a
preference for mitigation alternatives within Eagle Harbor over the off-site estuary
restoration project proposed as a part of the overall mitigation!
Comment: EPA should clarify the volumes of sediment to be contained under the
nearshore CDF berm, under the CDF liner, and within the liner:
Response: This clarification, based on preliminary design estimates, is provided in
the ROD Amendment. The use of a liner is primarily for increasing the depth of the
saturated zone (and thus increasing fill capacity). Materials under the berm and
liner, if not enclosed within the liner, will not pose increased risk of leaching. The
contaminated sediments below the liner, like those within, will be saturated with
saline water, minimizing teachability.
Comment: EPA should ensure that the monitoring plan for the nearshore CDF
addresses potential leaching of metals and includes groundwater and sediment sampling.
Response: EPA will be reviewing monitoring plans during the remedial design
process to ensure adequate assessment of the effectiveness of the remedy. Preliminary
draft plans include, among other things, sampling of groundwater from monitoring
wells in the berm and, if any seeps are accessible, seep monitoring. Periodic sediment
monitoring will also be required as pan of the overall West Harbor monitoring plan.
Comment: The berm on the park side of the nearshore CDF should be designed to
address the need to screen out visual impacts and noise.
Response: Screening will be addressed as a design issue, and must not diminish the
effectiveness of the remedy. As appropriate, the city may impose additional
requirements in its Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for WSDOT facility
expansion plans.
Comment: Additional mitigation should be provided within Eagle Harbor. The
proposed estuary restoration does not result in any significant restoration of natural
habitat.
Response: WSDOT investigated in-harbor mitigation opportunities and ranked them
in terms of cost, availability, habitat type, and other features. Wliile in-harbor in-kind
alternatives are clearly preferable, potential in-harbor sites identified would not
replace the type ofintertidal habitat to be lost. EPA is confident that the estuary
RS-3
-------
restoration project, combined with the other components of the overall mitigation, will
adequately compensate for the unavoidable loss of habitat.
Comment: EPA should require monitoring of proposed eelgrass restoration, and include
a contingency for additional mitigation if it fails.
Response: EPA plans to require monitoring, and will ensure that if the eelgrass
project fails, requirements for additional mitigation can be invoked.
Comment: EPA should clarify how the off-site estuary restoration compensates for the
specific type of habitat lost as a result of the nearshore fill. Will it provide habitat for
juvenile benthic- and epibenthic-feeding fish? Will salmon have to be planted?
Response: A detailed discussion of the mitigation package offered by the WSDOT is
provided in the 404(b)(l) evaluation. Under the Clean Water Act, mitigation follows
a tiered approach. If discharges into the waters of the United States cannot be
completely avoided, then they must be minimized. Compensatory mitigation is
required for those minimized and unavoidable adverse effects of the discharge.
WSDOT performed an alternatives analysis of potential mitigation options, and based
on their assessment, included a package of compensatory mitigation actions to EPA
as part of their proposal This includes, but is not limited to, the off-site estuary
restoration. The habitat lost by construction of the CDF amounts to 0.9 acre of
severely impacted intertidal and shallow subtidal "sand flat." Even if valued at a
hypotheticalfy restored level of quality, the loss is judged to be minor to moderate.
EPA considered the potential for on-site mitigation; however, much of Eagle Harbor
has yet to be remediated. Opportunities for on-site mitigation are limited. While the
off-site mitigation action provides approximately a 2:2 area ratio, it is off site and
out-of-kind. Accordingly, the off-site estuary restoration by itself would not have been
considered "adequate'1 compensatory mitigation. Additional mitigation is provided by
the berm enhancement (on site), by the 0.6-acre eelgrass restoration (within estuary if
not on site) and the other elements proposed by WSDOT. Evaluated against the
impact of the CDF, the mitigation package is judged to be adequate and the
amended remedy in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
Comment: EPA should identify who will be responsible for inspecting and maintaining
the estuary, culvert, and relocated stream channel after construction.
Response: The future owner(s) of the project will be responsible for inspection and
maintenance of the estuary. The determination of who will ultimately own the
estuary and fronting tidelands depends on whether the transfer of DNR-managed
tidelands to the Suquamish Tribe can be completed. WSDOT and USFWS have
entered into an agreement dividing responsibilities for monitoring required by permits,.
WSDOT will conduct ten years of estuary monitoring under this agreement. EPA will
review the monitoring plan as a remedial design deliverable. If additional monitoring
RS-4
-------
requirements are imposed, EPA anticipates that one or more PRPs will implement
these monitoring requirements.
Comment: EPA should require monitoring of vegetation and fish within the estuary to
assess whether the project functions as planned after construction.
Response: EPA agrees that monitoring is necessary to assure that the planned
Junctions are developing. A monitoring plan was submitted in the permit application
process, and certain monitoring requirements are specifically listed as permit
contingencies. Additional monitoring may be required by EPA in the design review
process.
Comment: EPA should ensure that the culvert under Point White Drive will be properly
designed to provide adequate flushing for the estuary and to avoid clogging. EPA should
require a larger channel into the estuary, involving a roadway bridge.
Response: The culvert is a 12-foot bottomless arch. It is anticipated to provide
adequate flushing and is approved in permits. The need for changes to the depth of
the channel will be evaluated during detailed design.
Comment: Monitoring of the nearshore fill should include a biological component.
Caged bivalve studies are recommended, including baseline and reference area
monitoring.
Response: EPA will consider the value of such monitoring along with other
monitoring options prior to approving long-term monitoring plans.
Comment: EPA should test for exceedance of the chronic ambient water quality criteria
during construction.
Response: EPA expects to require appropriate water quality monitoring. In
accordance with EPA policy, water quality will be required to meet acute water
quality criteria. Depending on analytical quantitation limits, comparison to chronic
water quality criteria may be possible.
Comment: NOAA does not support the use of the off-site estuary restoration project as
it is outside the Eagle Harbor marine ecosystem.
Response: Please see our response to the previous comment regarding compensatory
mitigation. EPA recognizes that the off-site estuary will not benefit the immediate
Eagle Harbor ecosystem. Cleanup of the harbor, combined with on-site mitigation
components, will However, in determining compliance with ARARs (ie., the Clean
Water Act), compensatory mitigation is not limited to on-site or in-estuary options.
The off-site component will benefit the aquatic ecosystem by improving habitat at
RS-S
-------
Bainbridge Island and Puget Sound. EPA's Clean Water Act 404(b)(l) evaluation
provides additional detail.
Comment: Although USFWS generally prefers on-site in-kind mitigation, it does not
object to the proposal due to the degraded nature of the lost habitat and the limited
availability of in-harbor mitigation sites. "
Response: Noted.
Comment: The project would result in a consolidated, efficient, and cost-effective facility
that can provide essential boat repair and maintenance services for WSDOT and the
community.
Response: Noted.
Comment: The estuary restoration is the product of coordinated community efforts, and
has educational as well as ecological benefits. WSDOT funding of the estuary project
will allow Trout Unlimited to expand the project area and better fund the reforesting
component.
Response: Noted.
3. Comments on the Marine Railway
Comment: The inactive Winslow Marine Railway should be repaired and re-used.
Cleanup could be accomplished through hydraulic dredging of contaminated material
from around the structure. WSDOT shouldn't limit they ability to gain access to the
railway, because they may need it as their fleet of small boats increases and Seattle
shipyards close.
Response: The railway is not in use at this time. WSDOT has not indicated any
plans to re-use the marine railway in future, and EPA cannot require its use. While
removing the nearshore CDF in future to gain access to the marine railway structure
would be costly, it would not be impossible as the fill will only cover and preserve the
marine railway.
Comment: EPA needs to follow National Historic Preservation Act requirements and
should coordinate with the State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation. The
Marine Railway is an important part of the maritime heritage of the northwest
Response: EPA plans to follow the NHPA and will require WSDOT to prepare a
report summarizing the archaeological and historical resources at the site. If they are
eligible for inclusion on the National Historic Register, EPA will determine
appropriate mitigation requirements.
RS-6
-------
4. Comments on Process
Comment: WSDOT hopes to accommodate community desires for a local boatyard.
WSDOT hopes to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the City of
Bainbridge Island for long-term use (minimum 20 years) of the 1-acre area by a private
marine industrial operation in consideration for City approval of WSDOTs future
development plans.
Response: Noted. The ROD Amendment was conditioned upon finalization of such
an agreement between the City of Bainbridge and WSDOT.
Comment: USFWS will enter into a memorandum of understanding delineating project
responsibilities for the estuary restoration and stream relocation project if the ROD
Amendment is issued.
Response: Noted. EPA may add requirements specifically for the estuary restoration
to design and enforcement documents.
Comment: WDNR supports the fill, provided it is on state lands managed by WSDOT
and provided the WSDOT negotiates a backup plan should the land transfer involving
WDNR fall through.
Response: WSDOT is complying with WDNR's request and has negotiated a backup
plan in its agreement with the Suquamish Tribe.
Comment: Costs in planning and developing the estuary restoration have increased to
such a point that WSDOTs participation is now essential.
Response: Noted.
Comment: EPA should demonstrate how the nearshore CDF complies with the State of
Washington Shorelines Management Act and the local Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Response: Although the SMP in effect as of December 1995 is the City of Winslow
SMP, the City of Bainbridge Island submitted a draft SMP to the State of Washington
for public comment and review in August 1995. This draft is expected to become
effective prior to mid-1996, after errors and inconsistencies have been corrected and
public comments addressed. Although nearshore CDFs have been constructed in
cities with SMPs similar to the City of Winslow SMP, the nearshore CDF will have to
demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements the City of Bainbridge
Island SMP, as approved by the State. This SMP follows State guidelines and
contains more substantive and less ambiguous evaluation criteria. Applicable
portions of the draft SMP are discussed in the memorandum attached to this
responsiveness summary.
RS-7
-------
Comment: Provisions should be made to protect the wetland, as well as water quality
and hydrology in the watershed above the estuary, from long-term development
pressures.
Response: EPA is not in a position to directly control long-term Bainbridge Island
development and its impact on the estuary. However, EPA encourages the City and
citizens of Bainbridge Island to consider the estuary in planning the future use of this
part of the island.
Comment: EPA should clarify the process to be followed in approving the estuary
restoration project and the WSF expansion relative to the City of Bainbridge Island's
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit review (SSDP).
Response: The estuary restoration project is permitted under Department of the
Army Nationwide Permit No. 27 and is subject to conditions imposed by the City of
Bainbridge Island. EPA is accepting WSDOT's provision of the estuary restoration
component of the project as partial mitigation for the nearshore CDF. Further
discussion of the acceptability of the mitigation package is contained in the 404(b)(l)
evaluation and ROD Amendment. Only construction of the nearshore fill is
authorized through this remedial decision. Other aspects of WSDOT expansion and
development of the property must follow normal permitting procedures, including
SSDP review processes.
Comment: WSDOT is required by 1974 Orders 114 and 114a of the State of Washington
Shorelines Hearing Board to allow private water-dependent uses of the property, such as
boat haulout and repair and/or marinas. Therefore, decisions on the nearshore CDF
should be independent of the boatyard preservation issue.
Response: As WSDOT stated at the public meeting, the State's Office of the
Attorney General holds that WSDOT's condemnation of the property voids or
overrides these orders. Resolution of this legal issue could be a lengthy process.
Rather than waiting for the outcome, EPA has moved forward with the ROD
Amendment due to the time-critical aspects of the boatyard operation and cleanup,
since WSDOT is willing to reserve land for these uses voluntarily through agreements
with the City.
Comment: WSDOT should provide more detailed development plans for the long-term
growth before deciding to expand their Eagle Harbor facility. By sinking costs in the
nearshore CDF, WSDOT will be effectively required for economic reasons to limit any
future WSF expansions to Eagle Harbor.
Response: Copies of all written comments have been forwarded to WSDOT for
consideration.
RS-8
-------
Han Crowser
December, 1995
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATORY EVALUATION
WEST HARBOR OPERABLE UNIT
WYCKOFF/EAGLE HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE
KTTSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor National Priorities List (NPL) site includes
areas of a former wood-treating plant and an adjacent embayment located
in central Puget Sound on the eastern border of Bainbridge Island,
Washington. In 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
completed its Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the
harbor, including a baseline risk assessment and the development and
evaluation of remedial alternatives. In 1992, the EPA issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) for remedial action to address sediment contamination
within the West Harbor Operable Unit (West Harbor OU) of the
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. PACCAR Inc. in cooperation with
the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), proceeded with design of the
West Harbor OU remedy in 1993.
Concurrent with the remedial design effort, WSDOT independently
developed and evaluated a nearshore confined disposal alternative to
remediate mercury "hotspot" sediments within the West Harbor OU.
Additional remedial design and Clean Water Act permit application
documentation supporting WSDOT's proposal was provided to EPA in July
1995. Subsequently, EPA issued a Proposed Plan for public comment
regarding two separate modifications of the 1992 ROD and cleanup plan:
1) use of the nearshore confined disposal facility for hotspot remediation,
including both on-site and off-site habitat mitigation; and 2) selection of an
upland soil cleanup remedy to accomplish source controls and protect
human health and the environment. In consideration of public comments
received on these proposals, EPA prepared a formal ROD Amendment to
incorporate these changes into the West Harbor OU cleanup plan and
design.
This memorandum provides a supplemental evaluation of substantive
regulatory requirements which apply to the revised West Harbor OU
cleanup plan. Specifically, this memorandum addresses substantive
compliance of the proposed cleanup plan with the Shoreline Management
Act (Chapter 173-14 WAC) and State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA;
Chapter 173-340; including reference to other applicable state and federal
water quality standards). Additional regulatory evaluations of the proposed
Pagel
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
project are provided in the Section 404(b)(l) - Clean Water Act
Application and Design Analysis documents prepared by Hart Crowser.
2.0 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS
The applicable master program in effect as of December 199S is the former
City of Winslow Shoreline Master Program (SMP; Bainbridge Island
Municipal Code 16.12). However, a draft City of Bainbridge Island SMP
has recently been developed with community input, adopted by the City
Council, and is under review by the Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Public comments have been received on this plan, which is expected to be
revised.and approved by Ecology prior to mid-1996.
In a meeting held on November 3, 1995 between representatives of the
City of Bainbridge Island (City), EPA, and WSDOT, ambiguities in the
existing City of Winslow SMP were noted with respect to modification of
the shoreline by a nearshore confined disposal facility. However,
nearshore confined disposal facilities have been approved within the
intertidal zone under similar SMPs in Seattle and Tacoma.
The draft City of Bainbridge SMP recently adopted by the City Council
specifically addresses dredging, dredged material disposal, and landfilling
activities which are applicable to a nearshore confined disposal facility
constructed as a remedial action. The policies and regulations set forth in
the draft City of Bainbridge SMP for such actions are also consistent with
recent Ecology guidelines. Because the draft City of Bainbridge Island
SMP includes specific policies, regulations, and evaluation criteria relevant
to the proposed nearshore confined disposal facility, it was decided at the
November 3 meeting that the draft City of Bainbridge Island SMP would
be used to evaluate substantive compliance of the proposed nearshore
' confined disposal facility with Shoreline Management Act requirements.
Specific shoreline use and shoreline modification activity policies and
regulations which are relevant to the nearshore confined disposal project
are discussed below. Section and sub-section notations of the most recent
draft SMP (August 24, 1995) are referenced.
2.1 Sections IV and V - Shoreline Environment Designation and Site Use
The City of Bainbridge Island draft SMP was intended to and is expected
to designate the upland area of the project site as Urban Environment. The
aquatic area seaward of the ordinary high water mark is designated as
Aquatic Environment. Water-dependent industrial use is permitted within
both the Urban Environment and Aquatic Environment.
Page 2
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
As discussed in the Section 404(b)(l) - Clean Water Act Application for
this project, the project site is an existing, legally established industrial
area, which is being redeveloped by WSDOT to address necessary regional
transportation needs. The proposed conceptual use of the site includes a
combination of preferred industrial uses established by the draft SMP:
small private boat haul-out and repair facilities; and WSDQT's water-
dependent ferry repair industry serving local transportation needs.
Both the existing and proposed future use of the site by WSDOT
constitutes a boat (ferry) repair yard subject to the policies and regulations
of water-dependent industrial shoreline uses under the SMP. These uses
do not constitute a transportation facility as defined by the SMP. Detailed
site redevelopment plans and best management practices (BMPs) will be
subject to conditions of a separate shoreline substantial development permit
(SSDP) to be submitted by WSDOT to the City of Bainbridge Island.
Landfllling is permitted within the Urban Environment. Dredging, dredged
material disposal, and/or landfilling is also conditionally permitted within
the Aquatic Environment (for water-dependent industrial use and public use
sites only) under certain circumstances, such as when the activity is being
performed as a part of an environmental enhancement or remediation
project approved by the federal, state, and/or local regulatory agencies
with jurisdiction over the activity (see below; also see Table 4-1 of the
draft SMP). As a part of the upcoming SMP revision and adoption
process, both Ecology and the City of Bainbridge Island intend to correct
some inconsistencies in the existing draft SMP. Additional text will likely
be added to the draft SMP to clarify that dredging and disposal of
contaminated sediments is allowed as part of an approved environmental
remediation, mitigation, or enhancement project, consistent with the intent
of the SMP. Specific changes are expected in Section Vl.D - Prohibited
Dredging(l)(e) and Section VI.E - Design and Construction Regulations(4).
2.2 Section VI.A General Shoreline Modification Provisions; Regulations
1. Shoreline modification activities in support of an allowable shoreline
use. Boat repair facilities are an allowed shoreline use within this area.
2. Applicable permits. As a Superfund remedial action, specific
permitting of on-site activities is not required. EPA assures that all
substantive requirements of applicable federal and state environmental laws
will be met EPA will coordinate its compliance review with the various
federal, state, and local agencies which normally have permitting authority.
The substantive requirements applicable to the construction, operation, and
monitoring of the nearshore confined disposal facility, including on-site
Page3
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
habitat mitigation (e.g., eelgrass planting and monitoring), will be
addressed as a part of the Superfund remedial design.
The off-site mitigation estuary is already authorized by nationwide U.S.
Army Corps permits and Ecology verifications of consistency with the
Coastal Zone Management Act, Endangered Species Act, and Section 401
Water Quality Certification (File Number 95-4-00367; see Attachment A).
Following the hydraulic project approval review performed by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and an engineering
review performed by the City's contractor, the City published a Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for the project in September,
1995. The MDNS sets forth SEPA requirements which must be met
before the final grading permit will be issued (the list of mitigation
requirements is included in Attachment A). Finally, the off-site estuary is
exempt from substantial development permit requirements under the
Shoreline Management Act, as amended (the revised text of Chapter 90.58
RCW is provided in Attachment A).
3. New development activities should prevent or minimize the need for
shoreline stabilization. The nearshore confined disposal facility design
provides the necessary shoreline stabilization to ensure environmental
protection, while simultaneously providing a highly productive aquatic
habitat.
4. Documentation requirements. The information required as part of a
. SMP project proposal has been provided to EPA as a part of the Section
404(b)(l) - Clean Water Act Application.
5. City review criteria. The City's SMP review criteria outlined in
Section VI.A(R)(5) of the draft plan, are consistent with criteria set forth
in EPA's 404(b)(l) Evaluation of this project. The outer berms of the
nearshore confined disposal facility have been designed to prevent scouring
or erosion, even considering worst-case current velocities possible within
the vicinity of the WSDOT ferries. The berm will be covered with a
habitat material such as gravel and small cobbles to enhance biological
productivity of the final stahi1?w< shoreline.
2.3 Section VI.D - Dredge Material Disposal; General Regulations
1. Dredging is a conditional use. The proposed area of dredging and
dredge material disposal is located in the Aquatic environment, and is
outside of any Aquatic Conservancy environments. Dredging and dredge
material disposal associated with the nearshore confined disposal project is
being conducted in pan for the restoration and enhancement of natural
resources, as described in the 404(b)(l) Evaluation.
Page 4
-------
Han Crowser
December, 1995
2. Documentation requirements. The information required as part of a
SMP project proposal has been provided to EPA as a pan of the 404(b)(l)
Annliearinn
3. City evaluation criteria. The City's SMP evaluation criteria are
consistent with criteria set forth in EPA's 404(b)(l) Evaluation. The
adverse effects of dredging and dredge material disposal were considered in
the 404(b)(l) Application. The nearshore confined disposal facility with its
associated habitat mitigation projects will result in substantial
improvements to local water quality, and will also enhance overall fish and
shellfish resources on Bainbridge Island.
4. Timing of dredging. The City's SMP evaluation criteria are consistent
with criteria set forth in EPA's 404(b)(l) Evaluation. Dredging and dredge
material disposal operations will be timed to avoid periods of biological
sensitivity. The proposed dredging and dredge material disposal areas are
not currently used for commercial fishing.
5. Release by the State Archaeologist. Under CERCLA, EPA assumes
the lead agency role for Section 106 compliance under the National
Historic Preservation Act. EPA will coordinate its compliance review with
the State Historic Preservation Officer.
2.4 Section VI.D - Dredge Material Disposal; Specific Regulations
1. Unconfined disposal is only allowed at approved sites. The
nearshore confined disposal facility will not constitute unconfined disposal.
Contaminated sediments will be effectively contained and confined inside
the constructed facility.
2. Monitoring and status reports. The long-term operations and
maintenance plan for the nearshore confined disposal facility includes
periodic sampling, monitoring, and repair to ensure continued
protectiveness.
3. In-water disposal should minimize dispersal of sediments. Confined
disposal will minimize sediment dispersal. Restoration of the original
slope in the dredged area using clean sediment would result in minor but
acceptable dispersion or dispersal of clean sediments. Contaminated
sediments will be effectively contained and confined inside the constructed
facility.
4. Use of dredged materials for beach enhancement shall not be
located upon, adversely effect, or diminish environmentally sensitive
areas, recognized wildlife habitat, public access, water quality, or
Page 5
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
drainage. The area of the nearshore confined disposal facility has been
used for nearly a century as an industrial boat repair facility, and is not
. generally recognized as a productive habitat area. The nearshore confined
disposal facility with its associated habitat mitigation projects will result in
substantial improvements to local water quality, and will also enhance
overall fish and shellfish resources on Bainbridge Island.
2.5 Section VI.E Landfill; General Regulations
1. Landfill may be permitted as a conditional use for water-dependent
or public uses, or as part of a permitted environmental enhancement or
remediation project. As discussed in EPA's 404(b)(l) Evaluation, the
nearshore confined disposal facility will be constructed as a Superfund
remedial action, subject to approval by EPA.
2. Documentation requirements. The information required as part of a
SMP project proposal has been provided to EPA as a pan of the 404(b)(l)
Application.
3. Where feasible, pile or pier supports shall be utilized in preference
to landfills. Pile or pier supports are not a feasible technology for
achieving remediation objectives at this site.
4. City evaluation criteria. The City's SMP evaluation criteria are
consistent with criteria set forth in EPA's 404(b)(l) Evaluation. The
adverse effects of constructing the nearshore confined disposal facility
berm were considered in the 404(b)(l) Application. The nearshore
confined disposal facility with its associated habitat mitigation projects will
result in substantial improvements to local water quality, and will also
enhance overall fish and shellfish resources on Bainbridge Island.
2.6 Section VI.E - Landfill; Design and Construction
1. Landfill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the
proposed use. As discussed in the 404(b)(l) Application, the 0.9-acre
nearshore confined disposal facility is the minimum necessary to provide
sufficient capacity for sediment hotspot confinement, and is also the
minimum necessary for WSDOT to accommodate continued operation of
private boatyard facility at the site.
2. Where landfills reduce public access, compensatory public access
shall be provided. The proposed project will not reduce public access.
3. City evaluation criteria. The City's SMP evaluation criteria are
consistent with criteria set forth in EPA's 404(b)(l) Evaluation.
Page 6
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
4. Landfill materials cannot include contaminated dredge material. As
currently defined by the draft City of Bainbridge Island SMP, only the
containment berm of the nearshore confined disposal facility represents a
"Landfill" activity. As set forth in the 404(b)(l) Application, these
materials will be clean fill obtained from a local borrow source or an
equivalent site. Additional text will likely be added to the draft SMP to
clarify that landfUling of contaminated materials may be allowed as pan of
an approved environmental remediation, mitigation, or enhancement
project, consistent with the intent of the SMP.
5. Timing of construction. The City's timing criteria are consistent with
criteria set forth in EPA's 404(b)(l) Evaluation.
3.0 MODEL TOXICS CONTROL ACT REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Upland Soil Cleanup Levels - General Development
The determination of upland remediation necessary to achieve MTCA
cleanup requirements, while simultaneously providing surface water and
sediment protection, is presented in the Interim Technical Memorandum on
Source Evaluation, finalized by Hart Crowser in April 1995. The MTCA
cleanup levels were derived based on the following:
> Industrial Site. As described in the West Harbor OU Remedial
Design Work Plan, the former Bainbridge Marine Services (BMS) site
meets all the zoning and land use requirements for an industrial
classification under MTCA, as amended. No zoning changes are
anticipated in the foreseeable future, and both the local Shoreline
Management Plan and state Shorelines Hearing Board decisions for this
property have established a strong preference to maintain a boat facility
at the site indefinitely. Additional institutional controls such as deed
restrictions to perpetuate industrial site use and physical restrictions to
limit public access will be developed for the site prior to remedial
action. Users of the adjacent park and footpath will be prevented from
entering the property through fencing and other controls. Cleanup
levels for site soils were derived using exposure and risk values
specified in MTCA (WAC 173-340-745), and are at least as stringent
as those developed using current Superfund guidance including
industrial site Soil Screening Levels and risk goals.
» No Groundwater Use for Water Supply. Groundwater underlying the
former BMS site does not currently serve as a source of drinking
water. The site was formed by historical (1902-1903) filling of a tidal
estuary. Based on the relatively high salinity of shallow groundwater at
Page 7
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
the site observed by Hart Crowser during pre-design soil boring
activities, and the potable water supplies readily available at the site
from the City of Bainbridge Island, future use of groundwater beneath
or near the site for domestic water supply is highly unlikely.
Groundwater Transport to Surface Water. Although potentially
exploitable groundwater resources exist at greater depth beneath the
site, groundwater at depth is unlikely to be affected by releases at the
site. Upward groundwater gradients are present in water-bearing zones
present at depth beneath the site, and are also separated from shallow
groundwater by intervening aquitard units (e.g., shallow glacial till and
deep lacustrine deposits; Kitsap County Groundwater Management
Plan, 1991). Historical wells located on the former BMS property
which are not used for water supply will be abandoned by WSDOT in
accordance with Chapter 173-160 WAC.
Eagle Harbor is the ultimate receptor of groundwater migrating beneath
the former BMS site, observable as seeps discharging at various points
along the beach. It is highly unlikely that hazardous substances present
at the former BMS site will be transported to a current or potential
future source of drinking water.
Aquatic Life Protection Goals. The predominant seeps which
discharge to Eagle Harbor immediately adjacent to the former BMS
uplands were sampled as a pan of remedial pre-design (see Interim
Technical Memorandum on Source Evaluation for a discussion of
sampling results). Several of the intertidal seeps contained
concentrations of copper and lead which exceeded both state Surface
Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) and federal Clean
Water Act criteria for aquatic life protection (chronic and/or acute
toxicity criteria). Site-specific soil cleanup levels were developed to
achieve compliance with the more stringent of state and federal surface
water quality criteria at the point of seep discharge (see Section 3.2
below). Because of its high salinity, Eagle Harbor is not classified as a
suitable domestic water supply source under either the state Surface
Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) or federal Clean
Water Act (40 CFR 131.36[d][14]).
Point of Compliance. As defined under MTCA, the point of
compliance with surface water quality criteria for seep discharges is at
the point of discharge to surface water, corresponding to locations
sampled during remedial pre-design. Following WAC 173-340-720(6),
compliance with groundwater cleanup levels is also based on
evaluations at the point of surface water discharge (i.e., seeps), since:
Page 8
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
The compliance evaluation and cleanup remedy for the seeps does
not incorporate a surface water dilution zone such as that defined
under the state Surface Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A-
100);
Groundwater discharges will be provided with all practicable and
reasonable methods of treatment prior to release into surface waters,
through stabilization of surface and near-surface soils containing the
highest concentrations of leachable metals, and through additional
hydraulic controls including infiltration barriers, run-on and storm
water controls, and nearshore flow barriers;
Groundwater discharges will not result in recontamination of
sediment quality standards (SQS) established in the Sediment
Management Standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC) and in the 1992
West Harbor OU ROD (see the Interim Technical Memorandum on
Source Evaluation for a detailed discussion of sediment protection
requirements); and
Contaminant flux rates from the intertidal seeps were characterized
during remedial pre-design (see Interim Technical Memorandum on
Source Evaluation). Potential bioaccumulation of contaminants such
as mercury, which may have been present at concentrations below
the method detection limit, was addressed through direct sampling
during the RI/FS of fish and shellfish in the immediate vicinity of
seepage discharges, consistent with the intent of 40 CFR
131.36(b)(l)(footnote i). The soil and sediment cleanup action plan
specified in the West Harbor OU remedial design was developed to
be protective of potential contaminant bioaccumulation.
Site-Specific Soil Leachability. Using procedures as allowed under
WAC 173-340r745(4)(a)(ii)(A), soil concentrations which are protective
of groundwater and surface water quality at die former BMS site were
developed using a combination of site-specific soil teachability
determinations and field-scale comparisons of soil and seep water
quality data. The derivation of soil cleanup levels for each contaminant
of concern at the site is summarized in Section 3.2 below.
Long-Term Water Quality Monitoring. The preliminary remedial
design for the West Harbor OU includes a requirement for long-term
monitoring of: 1) groundwater within the nearshore confined disposal
facility berm; 2) groundwater within the french drain located
immediately downgradient of upland soil stabilization areas; and 3)
surface water seeps adjacent to all upland remediation areas. Water
quality data collected from these locations will be compared with
Page 9
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
established surface water quality standards including dissolved copper
(2.5 /ig/L) and dissolved lead (5.8 Mg/L) to document and evaluate
progress of the remedial action in achieving compliance with the more
stringent of state and federal surface water quality criteria.
3.2 Upland Soil Cleanup Levels - Specific Criteria
Based on evaluations of soil cleanup requirements, as summarized above
and more fully documented in the West Harbor OU remedial design Work
Plan and Interim Technical Memorandum on Source Evaluation,
remediation of soils in specific upland areas of the former BMS site was
determined to be necessary for antimony, arsenic, copper, lead, mercury,
zinc, arid total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Cleanup levels and
remediation plans to address each of these chemicals are summarized
below:
» Antimony. The MTCA Method C industrial soil cleanup level for
antimony is 1,400 mg/kg (Ecology, 1994). Antimony was found to be
relatively non-leachable in site soils, obviating the need for downward
adjustments to the Method C cleanup level to address groundwater and
surface water protection at the site.
Surface soils (0- to 3-foot depth) containing antimony concentrations
above the cleanup level will be stabilized Using a mix design as
specified in the remedial design document. Stabilization will greatly
reduce the risk associated with potential direct soil contact exposures to
antimony.
Compliance with the MTCA Method C soil cleanup level for antimony
and other chemicals (see below) will be determined during remedial
action, based on compliance monitoring statistical criteria set forth in
WAC 173-340-740(7). These statistical criteria include: 1) no single
sample collected in untreated areas of the former BMS site shall be
greater than 2 times the soil cleanup level; 2) less than ten percent of
the sample concentrations collected in untreated areas of the former
BMS site shall exceed the soil cleanup level; and 3) the upper 95
percent confidence interval on the true soil concentration in untreated
areas of the former BMS site shall be less than the soil cleanup level.
» Arsenic. The MTCA Method C industrial soil cleanup level for
arsenic is 188 mg/kg (Ecology, 1994). Again, arsenic was found to be
relatively non-leachable in site soils, obviating the need for downward
adjustments to address groundwater and surface water protection.
Page 10
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
Similar to antimony remediation, surface soils (0- to 3-foot depth)
containing arsenic concentrations above the cleanup level will be
stabilized using an approved mix design. Stabilization in this case will
greatly reduce the risk associated both with potential direct soil contact
and dust inhalation exposures to arsenic. Compliance with the MTCA
Method C soil cleanup level for arsenic will be determined during
remedial action, based on compliance monitoring statistical criteria
described above.
Copper. The MTCA Method C industrial soil cleanup level for copper
is 130,000 mg/kg (Ecology, 1994). However, because copper was
found to be relatively teachable at this site, was detected above surface
water quality standards in site seeps, and could represent a sediment
source under theoretical worst-case soil erosion conditions, downward
adjustment of the soil cleanup level for copper was evaluated.
The soil cleanup level for copper which is protective of sediment
quality under worst-case soil erosion conditions is approximately
10,000 mg/kg. If minimal erosion controls were to be implemented,
sediment copper concentrations are predicted to be maintained at
approximately the Sediment Quality Standard (SQS), as set forth in
Chapter 173-204 WAC and in the ROD, without any further soil
remediation.
Soil samples containing the highest leachable copper concentrations
were detected within several feet of ground surface. The soil cleanup
level for copper which is protective of groundwater and surface water
at this site was calculated using a two-step process. First, average soil
quality and seep quality data within identified copper release areas of
the site were compared, and the quotient between these values was used
to derive a "field-scale" estimate of the soil: seep transport coefficient.
Second, the field-scale transport coefficient (including statistical
uncertainties) was multiplied by the surface water quality criterion for
dissolved copper (2.5 Mg/L) to derive the soil cleanup level.
Within upland remediation zones at the site, the soil cleanup level
derived from this analysis is approximately 800 mg/kg. The cleanup
level calculated using the mean minus one standard deviation of the
field-scale partition coefficient is approximately 250 mg/kg.
A two-part practicable remediation plan will be implemented for soils
containing elevated copper concentrations. Surface soils (0- to 3-foot
depth) within upland remediation areas which contain total copper
concentrations above 10,000 mg/kg (the worst-case sediment protection
criterion), and also contain the highest leachable copper concentrations,
Page 11
-------
Hart Crowser
December, 1995
will be stabilized using an approved mix design. Stabilization of these
soils will greatly reduce copper mobility. Compliance with the
stabilization action level for copper will be determined during remedial
action, based on compliance monitoring statistical criteria described
above.
The remaining site area, including all site soils which exceed 250
mg/kg copper, will be covered with an impermeable cap to restrict
infiltration. Additional run-on and groundwater cutoff controls will
also be implemented to further minimize copper transport to the West
Harbor OU.
Lead. Currently, there is no MTCA Method C industrial soil cleanup
level for lead (Ecology, 1994). However, the Method A cleanup level
of 1,000 mg/kg is recognized as an appropriate criterion to protect
human health from direct contact exposures (WAC 173-340-745[2]),
and will be applied to this site. Like copper, lead was found to be
relatively teachable within upland remediation areas, and exceeded state
characteristic Dangerous Waste criteria in some samples. Dissolved
lead was also detected above state surface water quality standards in
one seep location. Accordingly, downward adjustment of the soil
cleanup level for lead was evaluated.
Within upland soil remediation areas of the site, the soil cleanup level
for lead derived from the field-scale analysis is approximately 8,000
mg/kg. Since this value is less protective than the direct contact
criterion, the appropriate soil cleanup level for lead at this site is 1,000
mg/kg.
Stabilization of surface soils (0- to 3-foot depth) which contain lead
concentrations above the cleanup level will be stabilized using an
approved mix design. Stabilization of these soils will greatly reduce
the risk associated with potential direct soil contact and dust inhalation
exposures to lead, and will also greatly reduce lead mobility.
Compliance with the soil cleanup level for lead will be determined
during remedial action, based on compliance monitoring statistical
criteria described above.
Mercury. The MTCA Method C industrial soil cleanup level for
mercury is 350 mg/kg (incorporating a recent downward revision of the
oral RfD for mercury in EPA-IRIS to 1 x 10** mg/kg-day). Based both
on soil TCLP testing and seep monitoring, mercury was found to be
relatively non-leachable and non-mobile at the site, obviating the need
for downward adjustments to address groundwater protection.
However, based on soil erosion and sediment transport modeling,
Page 12
-------
Han Crowser
December, 1995
surface soil mercury concentrations could potentially result in nearshore
sediment ^contamination under a reasonable worst-case site
construction scenario.
The soil cleanup level for mercury which is protective of sediment
quality under worst-case soil erosion conditions is approximately 2
mg/kg (no erosion controls). If minimal erosion controls are
implemented, the corresponding soil cleanup level is approximately 10
mg/kg.
The practicable upland soils cleanup plan for the site includes
stabilization of surface soils (0- to 3-foot depth) containing mercury
concentrations above 10 mg/kg. Stabilization in this case will greatly
reduce the soil erosion potential. Compliance with the stabilization
action level for mercury will be determined during remedial action,
based on compliance monitoring statistical criteria described above.
The remaining site area, including all site soils which exceed 2 mg/kg
total mercury, will be covered with an impermeable cap to further
restrict potential soil erosion.
Zinc. The MTCA Method C industrial soil cleanup level for zinc is
175,000 mg/kg (Ecology, 1994). However, because zinc could
represent a sediment source under theoretical worst-case soil erosion
conditions, downward adjustment of the soil cleanup level for zinc was
evaluated.
The soil cleanup level for. zinc which is protective of sediment quality
under worst-case soil erosion conditions is approximately 6,000 mg/kg
(no erosion controls). If minimal erosion controls are implemented,
sediment zinc concentrations are predicted to be maintained at
approximately the SQS level without any further soil remediation.
Consistent with the remediation plan for other metal contaminants as
outlined above, all soil areas at the site which exceed 6,000 mg/kg zinc
will be covered with an impermeable cap to restrict potential soil
erosion.
TPH. Currently, there is no MTCA Method C industrial soil cleanup
level for TPH, and no verified toxicity criteria exist for TPH mixtures.
However, use of Ecology's Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Matrix is currently recognized under MTCA as an appropriate
basis to derive site-specific soil TPH cleanup levels and also addresses
groundwater protection concerns under MTCA. Application of the
LUST Matrix to the former BMS site, incorporating the lack of a
Page 13
-------
Han Crowser
December, 1995
significant TPH release in area seeps, results in a TPH cleanup
criterion for diesel of 800 mg/kg.
Of 27 soil samples collected and analyzed for TPH at the former BMS
site, 11 exceeded the 800 mg/kg criterion. However, these TPH
exceedences occur within areas of the site already identified for
remediation based on metal contaminant concentrations, as described
above. Because of the overlapping contaminants, and considering the
minimal mobility of soil TPH as determined by site-specific teachability
testing, a cleanup level for soil TPH remediation at this site is
unnecessary. However, WSDOT will remove two remaining
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) from the site in 1996. Compliance
with the soil cleanup level for TPH will be determined during the
independent UST removal action.
As outlined above, a combination of upland soil treatment, containment,
and institutional controls will be implemented to accomplish the necessary
upland soil cleanup, consistent with CERCLA and MTCA. Within areas
of the upland site which exceed the stabilization action levels as
summarized above, the surface 3 feet of soils, which generally contain the
highest total and leachable contaminant concentrations and are most
available to potential human contact exposure, will be excavated and
stabilized using an approved mix design. These stabilization systems will
result in large reductions in leachable metals and have acceptable physical
performance characteristics.
The ytahiiiwd soils will 'be returned to the original excavations, effectively
creating an impervious cap which is resistant to future degradation.
Groundwater inputs to the upland areas will be controlled through
groundwater cutoff systems at or near the northern (upgradient) site
boundary and construction of an asphalt cap in groundwater recharge areas
throughout the entire site. Groundwater barriers will also be installed
around the former landfill area (Upland Soil Stabilization Area No. 1) to
reduce tidal-induced groundwater releases.
Because the soil cleanup levels discussed above are based on a MTCA
industrial use scenario, institutional controls will be necessary during and
following the remedial action to restrict access to the site. Specifically,
deed restrictions will be placed on the property, consistent with MTCA as
amended, precluding its future use as a day care facility or residential site.
In addition, users of the adjacent park and footpath will be prevented from
entering the property through fencing and other controls.
Page 14
-------
Han Crowser
December, 1995
4.0 LIMITATIONS
Work for this project was performed, and this Technical Memorandum
prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for
the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar
localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for specific
application to the referenced property. This report is not meant to
represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or. implied, is made.
TECHMEMO.TM
Attachment A:
Application for Department of Army Permit;
Department of Army Letter dated May 3, 1995;
Department of Ecology Letter dated May 30, 1995;
Department of Ecology Letter dated June 26, 1995;
City of Bainbridge Is. FAX dated Sep 15, 1995; and
Revised Text of Chapter 90.58 RCW.
Page 15
-------
Han Crowser
December, 1995
5.0 REFERENCES
Ecology, 1991. Sediment Management Standards Chapter 173-204 WAC.
April 1993.
Ecology, 1994. Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Levels and Risk
Calculation (CLARC II) Update. Publication # 94-145, Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, August 31, 1994.
EPA, 1991. Feasibility Study for Public Comment. Eagle Harbor
Operable,Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Site, Kitsap County, Washington.
Report prepared by CH2M Hill for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Seattle, WA, May 1991.
EPA, 1992. West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site Record of Decision. September 29, 1992.
EPA, 1993a. Statement of Work for Remedial Design for the West
Harbor Operable Unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Kitsap
County, Washington. October 1, 1993.
EPA, 1993b. Administrative Order on Consent for the Remedial Design
for the West Harbor Operable Unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site, Kitsap County, Washington. November 10, 1993.
Hart Crowser, 1994. Final Remedial Design Work Plan Section 1.0
through 6.0, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, West Harbor Operable
Unit, May 6, 1994.
Hart Crowser, 1995. Interim Memorandum on Source Evaluation, West
Eagle Harbor Operable Unit Remedial Design, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site, Kitsap County, Washington, April 14, 1995.
Kitsap County Groundwater Management Plan. 1991. Report prepared by
Economic and Engineering Services, Hart Crowser, and others for the
Kitsap County Groundwater Management Program.
Page 16
-------
ATTACHMENT A
-------
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
C33 CFfl 32S)
OMB APPROVAL NO. 0701-0036-
Ezpirt* 30 June J992
PwOtc reporting burden lor trus collection ol information 11 estimated 10 average J hours per response tor in* majority ol cues, including me lime lor reviewing
istrucuons. searching eusung Ml* source*, garnering and mainiamng the data needed, and completing ana reviewing me caflecuon ol ntormauoa
Applications lor larger or more complei prejecta. or mose in eeofegcaliy sensrtrve areas. «" lake longer. Ser4 convnenu regarding this burden uumaie or any
oinor aspect of Dos collection ol ttlormation. enduing tuggestiona tar reducing mu burden, M Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate lor Information
Operauons and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suoe 1204, Aife^ion. VA 22202-4302: and BtwOAtt* ol Wormahon and Regulatory Affairs, Office
ol Management ana Budget, Washington. DC 20M3.
The Department ol (he Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 el me Rivers and Harbors Act ot 1889. Section 404 ol M Clean Water Act and
Secton 103 ol me Marine, Protection. Research and Sanctuaries Act These law* requre permits authorizing activiMa m or aliening, navigable waters el In*
Untied States. me discharge ot dredged or U material Mo waters ol me United States, and He transportation ol .dredged maienal lor the purpose ol dumpng rt
ito ocean waters, tntormaiion provided on this term w* be used in evaluating me app^i"*' lor a permit Inlonnation n Ms applcauon is ma0e a miner ol
public record through issuance ol * pubic notice. Disclosure ol me inlormabon no>iesied a voluntary: however, the data requested are necessary in oroar to
communicate with me aapbcant end to evaluate me perm appkcaton. II neceaatry Mormaaon a not prov«ed. me permit appicamn cannot be processed nor
can a permn be issued. - ,.
One set ol original drawings or good nprodueiBle i
Men she
r me bcaton end character ol me proposed activity must be attached K mis rtr*"*"]"
(tee sample drawingi ano° intuuuioni) and be, submitted to me Oistnct Engineer navng Junsovcun over me location ol me proposed activity.
mat is not completed in lug win be returned.
APPUCATON NUMBER (To 0* tuignta Or Carpt/
a mate. ADOfUss. AND im£ of AuTMOnaeo AQENT
2 NAME ANO ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
Gale Cool
4411 Point White Drive
Bainbridge Island, WA 98109
Tueenon* no. during busineu noun
A/C (206 1 842-0070 (AMdmei
ACI 1 , (Oflicai
*C( ',,..,
' ACI 1
[Pwtidoncel
Sunement ol AutMritauan: I hereov deaonaio and autnorit*
ueatomr
PBtiM a* my agent «i we procatcno; ol tnit permit apptealion end la
lurnon. upon reaueu. mppmmniH mleimation « tuapon el ih» aoolieamv
SONATUHE OF APPLICANT
DATE
OETALEO OeSCRtPTION OF PROPOSED ACnvTTV
4a. ACTMTY £his project involves the restoration of an estuarine wetland and associated stream.
Estuarine wetland, will be restored by excavating 2.0 acres and installing new culvert under
Point White Drive to restore final influence to site. Stream restoration will involve re-;
locating stream from ditch along Lynwood Center Road to newly created channel through project
site which will empty into restored estuarine wetland. Project will involve removal of
approximately 16,400 cubic yards of fill to a licensed quarry site. Project is scheduled for
construction June-October 1995. See attached "South Bainbridge Estuarine Wetland and Stream
Restoration Project Report" for additional project details.
PIWOSE Tjje purpose of this project is to restore intertidal and .estuarine habitat; restore
a degraded stream channel; and create estuarine, instream, and rtparian conditions conducive
to fish and wildlife use. The project's goals are to reestablish plant and animal conaunitic
associated with healthy, functioning intertidal and estuarine habitats and foster the return
to the restored stream of salnonid and other native fish species. See Project Report for
additional details.
ascxAAGE OF OMOGED o« FIX MATERIAL No or edged or ii±i material wo_u. oe uscnargea. However,
approximately 16,400 cubic yards of on-site material will be removed. In addition, new
culverts will be installed under Point White Drive and Baker Hill Road. See Project
Report for details.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
*.O. BOX 3733
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124-2295
Regulatory Branch
Gale Cool
4411 Point White Drive
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
Reference: 95-4-00367
Cool, Gale
Dear Mr. Cool:
Two nationwide permits authorize the wetland excavation and culvert
replacement associated with the South Bainbridge Estuarine and Wetland and
Stream Restoration Project. The restoration work will occur in wetlands
associated with an unnamed stream that empties into Rich Passage near Lynwood
Center, on Bainbridge Island, Washington. We have assigned the file number
95-4-00367 to the project, which you should use in any further correspondence
with us on the subject.
Regulations governing our permit program contain a series of nationwide
permits (NWPs). Each one authorises a specific category of work, provided
certain conditions are met. NWP 27 (33 CFR Part 330, Appendix A, Paragraph
B{27)) allows certain wetland enhancement activities in degraded, non-tidal
wctlondf: performed in accordance with a formal restoration agreement worked
out with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Another one, IMP 3, authorizes the repair, replacement, or rehabilitation
of previously authorized, currently serviceable structures like the culvert
draining a portion of your wetlands into Rich Passage.
Enclosed .are the full texts of NWPs 27 and 3, and the conditions and
certification limitations that apply to each. Read them carefully. You must
comply with all of the conditions. Please note that since your project will
at feet more than one acre of wetlands, the State of Washington has denied
Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency for this
particular application of the NWP. Before the work can proceed under
nationwide Permit 27, you must obtain an individual Water Quality
Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency for the project from the
Washington .State Department of Ecology. To obtain those documents, you may
call them at (360) 407-6912, or write:
Washington State Department of Ecology
Permits and Coordination Unit
Post Office Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504
Technically, the work is not yet authorized. Once you have received the
Certification and the Consistency Statement, send us a copy. The work will
then be automatically authorized. Any conditions the State imposes on either
document may also become conditions of your Corps nationwide permit.
NWP 27 also has a regional condition restricting work in documented
habitat for animal species that the State of Washington lists as threatened or
endangered. To find out if the project site contains such habitat, you must
contact the Washington State Department of Ecology at the above address or
phone number.
-------
Once the project meets all of the criteria for authorization by NWPs 27
and 3, then it needs no further permission from us. You must still comply
with other state and local requirements which pertain to the work. This
verification that NWPs authorize the work is valid for 2 years from the date
of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jack Kennedy by telephone at
(206) 764-3495.
Sincerely,
Ann R. Uhrich
Chief, Environmental and
Enclosures Processing Section
-------
27. WETLAND AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND CREATION ACTIVITIES.
Activities in waters of the United States associated with the restoration of
altered and degraded non-tidal wetlands and creation of wetlands on private
lands in accordance with the terms and conditions of a binding wetland
restoration or creation agreement between the landowner and the U.S. Pish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the Soil Conservation Service (SCS); or activities
associated with the restoration of altered and degraded non-tidal wetlands,
riparian areas and creation of wetlands and riparian areas on U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. Federal surplus lands (e.g.,
military lands proposed for disposal), Farmers Home Administration inventory
properties, and Resolution Trust Corporation inventory properties that are
under Federal control prior to being transferred to the private sector. Such
activities include, but are not limited to: Installation and maintenance of
small water control structures, dikes, and berms; backfilling of existing
drainage ditches; removal of existing drainage structures; construction of
snail nesting islands; and other related activities. This nationwide permit
applies to restoration projects that serve the purpose of restoring "natural*
wetland hydrology, vegetation, and function to altered and degraded non-tidal
wetlands and 'natural* functions of riparian areas. For agreement restoration
and creation projects only, this nationwide permit also authorizes any future
discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the reversion of the
area to its prior condition and use (i.e., prior to restoration under the
agreement') within five years after expiration of the limited term wetland
restoration or creation agreement, even if the discharge occurs after this
nationwide permit expires. The prior condition will be documented in the
original agreement, and the determination of return to prior conditions will
be made by .the Federal agency executing the agreement. Once an area is
reverted back to its prior physical condition, it will be subject to whatever
the Corps regulatory requirements will be at that future date. This
nationwide permit does not authorize the conversion of natural wetlands to
another aquatic use, such as creation of waterfowl impoundments where a
forested wetland .previously existed. (Sections 10 and 404)
Regional Conditions 1. Wetland restoration is not authorized in
areas falling under the designation of a Federal superfund site
(Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability
Act), hazardous waste cleanup site (Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act), or state clean-up site (Model Toxics Control Act).
2. The discharge is not authorized in documented habitat for state listed
endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species.
401 Certification NWP partially denied without prejudice. An
individual 401 Certification or demonstration of State waiver of such
certification to the District Engineer is required from the State for
the following:
Enclosure 1
-------
a. Discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the reversion of a
restored wetland to its prior condition and use.
p. Fills in waters of the U.S. affecting more than 1 (one) acre.
CZM Consistency Determination - NWP partially denied without
prejudice for the same limitations as 401 Certification. For projects not
meeting 401 limits, an individual CZM Consistency Determination is required
from the State for projects located in counties within the coastal zone.
-------
3. MAINTENANCE. The repair, rehabilitation, or replacement 'of any
previously authorized, currently serviceable, structure or fill, or of any
currently serviceable structure or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3, provided
that the structure or fill is not to be put to uses differing from those uses
specified or contemplated for it in the original permit or the most recently
authorized modification. Minor deviations in the structure's configuration or
filled area including those due to changes in materials, construction
techniques, or current construction codes or safety standards which are
necessary to make repair, rehabilitation, or replacement are permitted,
provided the environmental impacts resulting from such repair, rehabilitation,
or replacement are minimal. Currently serviceable means useable as is or with
some maintenance, but not so degraded as to essentially require
reconstruction. This nationwide permit authorizes the repair, rehabilitation,
or replacement of those structures destroyed by storms, floods, fire or other
discrete events, provided the repair, rehabilitation, or replacement is
ccsraenced or under contract to conwence within two years of the date of their
destruction or damage. In cases of. catastrophic events, such as hurricanes or
tornadoes, this two-year limit may be waived by the District Engineer,
provided the permittee can demonstrate funding, contract, or other similar
delays. Maintenance dredging and beach restoration are not authorized by this
nationwide permit. (Sections 10 and 404)
Regional Conditions None.
401 Certification - Approved.
CZM Consistency Determination - Concur.
-------
NATIONWIDE PERMIT CONDITIONS
REGIONAL CONDITION: The following regional condition applies Co all nation-
wide permitted activities in the State of Washington:
Any activity or work authorized under these nationwide permits shall not
adversely impact on-site mitigation or restoration efforts.
GENERAL CONDITIONS: The following general conditions must be followed in
order for any authorization by a nationwide permit to be valid:
1. Navigation. Not applicable in this case.
2. Proper maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be
properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.
3. Erosion and siltation controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation
controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during
construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently
stabilized at the earliest practicable date.
4. Aquatic life movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the
movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody,
including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the
activity's primary purpose is to impound water.
5. Equipment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on
mats or ether measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.
6. Regional and case-by-case conditions. Dredging is not authorized in
documented habitat for State listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive ,
animal species.
7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. Not applicable in this case.
3. Tribal rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved
tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty
fishing and hunting rights.
9.. Water quality certification. In certain states, an individual state
water quality certification must be obtained or waived.
10. Coastal zone management. In certain states, an individual state
coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived.
(see 33 CFR 330.4(d)).
Enclosure 2
-------
11. Endangered Species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered
species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the
Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely
modify the critical habitat of such species. Non-federal permittees shall
notify the district engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might
be affected or is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work on
the activity until notified by the district engineer that the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is
authorized. Information on the. location of threatened and endangered species
and their critical habitat can be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, (see 33 CFR 330.4(f))
12. Historic properties. No activity which may affect Historic
properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of
Historic Places is authorized, until the DE has complied with the provisions
of 33 CFR 325, Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the district
engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed,
determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to
believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District
Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have
been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the
location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State
Historic Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic Places (see
33 CFR 330.4(g)) .
13. Notification. Not applicable in this case.
-------
SECTION 404 ONLY CONDITIONS: In addition to the General Conditions, the
following conditions apply only to activities that involve the discharge of
dredged or fill material and must be followed in order for authorization by
the nationwide permits to be valid:
1. Water supply intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may
occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the
discharge is for repair of the public water supply intake structures or
adjacent bank stabilization.
2. Shellfish production. No discharge of dredged or fill material may
occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is
directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by nationwide
permit 4.
3. Suitable material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may
consist of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and
material discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in.toxic amounts (see
section 307 of the Clean Water Act).
4. Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States must . be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent
practicable at the project site (i.e. on-site), unless the DE has approved a
compensation mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity.
5. Spawning areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons
must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
6. Obstruction of high flows. To 'the maximum extent practicable,
discharges must not permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or
expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary
purpose of the fill is to impound waters).
7. Adverse impacts from impoundments. If the discharge creates an
impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the
accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
8. Waterfowl breeding areas. Discharges into breeding areas for
migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
9. Removal of temporary fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in
their entirety and the affected areas returned to their preexisting elevation.
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
F.O. Bo» 47600 Olympiii, WtMngton 98504-7600 .206) 407-6000 TOO Only (h if (206) 407-6006
May 30, 1995
Mr. Gale Cool
Point White Drive N.E. .
Bainbridgc Island, WA
by fax (360) 842-7319
RE: Corps Public Notice No. 95-4-00367
South Bainbridge Island Estuary Project, .donwide Permit #27
Coastal Zone Approval, Letter of Verification
Dear Mr. Cool:
Thank you for contacting me by phone for approval of your project for a Water Quality
Certification and Coastal Zone Consistency. You have been working with Ecology and
other State and Federal Agencies on your project, and have received approval from
these agencies. The project complies with State requirements for nationwide permit
#27, Wetland Restoration, and will not require an individual Water Quality Certification
from Ecology. The project may proceed as indicated in the Corps' approval letter.
Pursuant to Section 307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended,
we concur with your determination that this activity or work is consistent with the
approved Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program.
Please note this verification does not exempt, and is provisional upon compliance with
other statutes and codes administered by federal, state and local agencies.
Sincerely.
Sandra L. Maiming, Permit Reviewer
Environmental Review and Sediment Management Section
cc: Evan Lewis, COE
Mark Bentley, Ecology
Rob Garwood, City of Bainbridge Island (by fax)
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Bo* 47000 Olvmpi.i, Wjthingtun 9fl.W-.~600
-iUr-bOOO TDD Only (Hearing Impaired! (360) 407-6006
June 26, 1995
Ms. Gale Cool
4411 Point White Drive
Bainbridge Island WA 98110
RE: NATIONWIDE PERMIT VERIFICATION #27
. 95-4-00367
Dear Ms. Cool:
This letter is written regarding the Corps of Engineers' notice
for your work under Nationwide Permit #27 (Wetland Restoration
Activities). The work entails wetland excavation and culvert
replacement associated with the South Bainbridge Estuarine and
Wetland and Stream Restoration Project, on Bainbridge Island,
Kitsap County.
This agency verifies that the project complies with State
requirements for Nationwide Permit #27, by meeting the State
Nationwide permit conditions. Our office has verified that the
location of your project, Section 4, Township 24N, Range 2E, is
not habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive animal
species.
The project may proceed as described in the Corps' letter dated
May 3, 1995, and an individual 401 Water Quality Certification
will not be required for this project.
If the project is within shoreline jurisdiction, you oust contact
the local authority and comply with all Shoreline Management Act,
Air Quality Act, and SEPA requirements in order to be in
compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Please note this Letter of Verification does not exempt, and is
provisional upon compliance with other statutes and codes
administered by federal, state and local agencies.
Sincerely,
- -
Bonnie Shorin
Permit Coordination Unit
Environmental Review
BS:vs
cc: Jack Kennedy, COE
- o
-------
11/SB/19SS :-a:56 8ATE:
TO:
TIME:
NAME:
COMPANY:
' FAX NO: ._
CITY:
1|FROM:
! SENDER NAME:.
CONTACT: 5l
Mc-f^^u^
SUBJECT OF FAX:
NOTE: Vt art trananittinr feftt inelu&ae Ait tovtr the*, TJjomio
fel^.
; ttmdtrat(20QI43-2SS2.
COMMENTS. T* '
Plant ZOV44Z-2SS2
IMUngMdmi'
*M0tM«^«4 «««. ^M»««BV^ vtMW^t 4*»*«^«MVM« «MW >< I HI MVM V* MVM «M*«*««« «*MM%«
: Baker Road will not adveriety affect th« hydrology of the existing wetland on the w«t side
of Baker Road or thr wvttand north of B»k»r Hill Rend « thown on the slM plan dated
Aurust 8. 1995. ConHnnntion shaH include . at minimum, Invert derations, and
discussion of water
-------
OF BAIUSRIKS '.z-^t ~~- «-r*~iy e.c:
for :*e South BainbrUJge hla*d Estuary and Stream Restoration Project
1. Site Monitoring Program.
A. Hydrology will be monitored by U.S.Fish and Wildlife at four sites at the project
site (swown on the site plan dated August 8, 1995). The estuarine wetland and the
i emergent wetland to the north will be monitored monthly to assess erosion.
channelization, and stranding of fish.
B. Two stream sampling stations identified by the City will be monitored monthly.
The monitoring program, equivalent to the watershed nonpoint source pollution
baseline assessment shall be Implemented prior to and during all site work.
Monitoring shall continue for at least 10 years after the project is completed. Water
Quality refractometer readings will be taken from samples from the estuary twice
each winter and summer.
2. A project biologist, approved by the City, will be available during all construction to
insure compliance with permit conditions and to monitor environmental impacts.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City shall receive a copy of the executed
conservation easement which shows it to be perpetual.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the City Engineer will confirm that the
diversion at station 04-00 will not adversely affect the conditions downstream including the
existing drainage on Lynwood Center Road.
S. A building permit and grading plan, including plans for the stream and wetland buffers
shall be approved by the Building Official and the City Engineer prior to any grading or
'construction. A planting plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a
grading permit. Areas disturbed during construction will be revegetatcd after completion
of construction within the first growing season. Planting will be appropriate to project
vegetation/planting plan.
6. A Temporary Erosion Control Plan will be approved by the City Engineer prior to the
'issuance of a grading permit.
7. Excavated materials containing silt, clay, or other fine grained soil shall be disposed of
at a non-wetland site approved by the City and DOE.
'8. Prior to grading permit issuance the applicant will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, that the surface water diversions and installation of new culvert
Baker Road ^11 not adversely affect the hydrology of the existing wetland on the
of Baker Roart or the wrtland north of Baker Hill Road as shown on the ri
August 8 1W5. Confirmation shall incmde . at a minimum, invert
discussion nf water sourer*
-------
-*3E 34
11 :/ ~C|~" CITY OF BftlNBPIME ISLPM& TO ' S41~:3 P.CT
9. When operating machinery on the south site impacts will be minimized by accessing the
Site directly from Point White Drive: the north site will be accessed directly from Baker Hill
Road or an icxfetin« accets road.
10. Prior to the issuance of a trading permit a base line for plant communities at the
project site will be delineated by establishing line transects distributed according to a
random sampling scheme utilizing «Uher the quadrate or point Intercept methodology set
forth in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating JurisdictSonal Wetlands (1989)
11. Vegetative communities will be photomonitored from photomonitoring stations touted
at transect ends and At predetermined photomoniloring points. The monitoring wUl occur
on an annual basis in accordance with a detailed monitoring plan approved by the City
prior to the Usuam-e of a grading permit.
12. In accordance with a detailed monitoring plan approved by the City, utilization of the
site by bird species will be monitored by recording bird species visually and aurally during
a thirty mimitp period at three observation points: th« estuarihe wetland, the stream
Channel on the south site and the stream channel on the north site. Recordings will be
taken on a quarterly basis each year
13. In accordance with a detailed monitoring plan approved by the City, etilizailon of the
project site by fish species will be monitored each year at three sites; the estuarine wetland,
the stream channel on the north site, and the stream channel on the south'site. In the fall
and winter these sites will be visually monitored for returning adult coboand chum salmon
and spawning activity. The same sites will be monitored for outmigrating javenile coho and
chum.
14. A complete set of records will be kept by U.S. Fish and Wildlife. A long term
monitoring of the project is planned for ten years following project completion. A complete
set of all monitoring records will be maintained at the offices of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The monitoring plan shall have provisions for restoration to problems arise. The
applicant shall bond for any required restoration in an amount determined by the City
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
15. Removal of the existing vegetation in the are* to be excavated will b« mitigated by
leaving as many standing trees as possible. The area will be revegetated with native salt
marsh specie* of plants In a low salt marsh tone and a high salt marsh zone based oh
reference site at Harper's Landing, South worth, Kitsap County in accordance with an
approved planting plan submitted to the City prior to grading permit issuance
16. Revegetation shall be done using the following plant materials(Attachment C page'11
and Attachment S):
Low salt marsh
». picklrwecd (Saltcorniu vtrgfnica)
b. fleshy jaumea(J»umeu carnosa)
c. safcgrass (Distkhlis spicata)
-------
19*5 ^:5i 84i7319 . S~_E COX ^-1:1i -'-
.j =-!«= j-. ! i-r-y.- /:;-, np BPINBPrPTiE IsLftllC TO ' 6427319 P.C-
d. seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum)
e. Lyngby's sedge (Carex lyngbye!)
f. American tlireesqure (Scirpus ameriomus)
High silt marsh
a. hairgrass (Deschampai caespitosa)
b. Pacific silverweed {PotentHIa paciflea)
c. saltmanh bulrush (Scirpus mnrituunus)
Steam channel along the riparian corridor
interpla'nfing of:
a. western red cedar (Thuja pllcifa)
b. western hemlock (Tsuga heterophytla) :
c. Srtka spruce (Plcen sitehenste)
17. Applicant shall he required to adhere to Chapter 16.16, Noise Regulation.
18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the proponent shall show proposed road
restoration for the City Engineer's approval which will, at a minimum Identify the
pavement section i>««r the bridge and details for connecting the existing asphalt paveiueol.
Connection to evicting pavement shall be accomplished with a saw cut and a thickened
edge.
19. The closure of the road shall be coordinated with the City and emergency services, and
may require advance notice of all property owners affected. Required notice will be
determined by the City. A detour plan and/or construction phasing plan shall be submitted
to the City for approval by the City Engineer prior to construction.
20. The applicant will obtain a street use permit and other required permits for the portion
of Baker Road to be included In the estuary from the City prior to construction.
21. Because of concerns about toe possible presence of archaeological resources at some of
the sites, the applicant will have excavations monitored by a professional archaeologist
approved by the City. If any historic or archaeological remains are discovered the
applicant will immediately notify, the City, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Washington
State Office of An-haeology and Historic Preservation and the Suquamfeh Tribe.
22. All condition- of the Army Corps of Engineers Permit shall be met.
23. AH conditions of the Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of
Fbh and Wildlife shall be met.
24. A 10 foot public access .to the site shall be maintained by an easement recorded prior
to a vacation if Baker Rond U vacated.
25. A 50 foot bufTrr will be maintained from Ordinary High Water along the estuary and
-------
11/38/1995 26:55 8427319 SA.? err,
- i ^^ "-tA- PAGE as
e.1?c*= i; ..; FRCM CITY & BftlNBPIDGE ISUflNP TO ' 64V.--319 P.05
* 25 foot buffer will be maintained along the top of the bank of the new stream channel
No clearing'grading or buildings are allowed in the required buffers. The buffers shall be
revegetated according to the replanting plan submitted to the City prior to the issuanct of
the grading prrm U.
26. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, final dcllnatlon of the existing wetland north
of Baker Hill Road as well as the classification of the existing wetland on the south site and
the on site shall be completed io order to establish u bawline for'monitoring.
27. The final contours of the new channel and the esta urine wetland interface and their new
classifications under BIMC 16.20 shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to
Issuance of a grading permit.
28. Responsibility for and committment to, each of the above shall be defined and agreed
to in writing b> each responsible party, prior to issuance of a grading permit.
i
TOTflL P.05
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
3.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM
Current patterns within the West Harbor OU are unlikely to be
significantly altered because: 1) the proposed size of the Nearshore Fill is
relatively small with respect to the West Harbor OU; and 2) an existing
"finger" fill already exists in the proposed Nearshore Fill area (see Figure
2-1). The small fill will be located adjacent to the "finger" fill creating a
more uniform shoreline. Potential short-term and long-term impacts on
physical and chemical characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem as a result of
this Project are discussed in detail in the Preliminary Design Analysis
Report (Han Crowser, 1995d); Sequential Batch Leaching Test Report
(Hart Crowser, 1995c); and Modified Elutriate Testing Report (Hart
Crowser, 1995e).
Page 3-1
-------
Han Crowser
M251-03
4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM
The Nearshore Fill will result in the loss of approximately 0.9 acre of
intertidal habitat. Based on the Remedial Pre-Design studies (Han
Crowser, 1995a), the area to be filled is composed of silty sand to sandy
gravel sediments containing metal, concrete, wood, and other debris. The
sediments also have elevated levels of metals. Cobble and larger rock are
present but not common, except in the mid to upper intertidal zone.
Much of the low intertidal zone to be filled contains a relatively heavy
cover of'the bladed green alga Viva spp., which grows attached to small
cobble and gravel. An underwater video tape taken in August 1994 of the
nearshore area shows that this taxon gets very lush in this area and beyond
in the adjacent subtidal zone.
Benthic communities in the fill zone, like other areas of the West Harbor
OU, are dominated by a variety of polychaetes, molluscs, and crustaceans.
The sediments to be filled appear to harbor burrowing macroinvertebrates
including ghost shrimp (Callianassa califomiensis), lugworms (Abarenicola
pacified), sand clams (Macoma spp.), and horse clams (Tapes capax).
Dungeness (Cancer magister) and/or red rock (Cancer productus) crab
were present but not common along many of the video transects.
Fish observed in the general area of the fill site include pile perch, shiner
perch, English sole, ratfish, surf smelt, rock sole, rockfish, spotted
greenling, sand dabs, starry flounder, and juvenile Pacific herring.
Juvenile chum salmon have been observed in some areas of Eagle Harbor,
though spawning habitat is limited in the creek (locally called the Ravine)
which discharges to the site vicinity.
Page 4-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES
No special aquatic sites have been identified in the Project area over and
above the habitat areas discussed above. A video survey of the area taken
in August 1994 did not reveal any evidence of eelgrass.
Page 5-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON HUMAN USE CHARACTERISTICS
Clams are not typically harvested from the West Harbor OU, including at
the adjacent City park (Figure 1-1), because of persistent fecal coliform
contamination in this urban embayment. Fecal contamination observed
throughout Eagle Harbor, along with PAH contamination of shellfish in the
East Harbor, prompted the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department to
issue and maintain a shellfish consumption advisory in Eagle Harbor since
1984. Accordingly, the project will have little or no effect on human
consumption of clams. However, as discussed in Section 11.4, as a part of
mitigation, WSDOT will provide materials for a 1.5-acre Manila clam
enhancement project to be conducted by the Suquamish Tribe in tidelands
adjacent to the Suquamish Tribal Center.
Because of the active industrial use of this site which has occurred since
1902, recreational and commercial fishing and general recreational
activities are very uncommon in the proposed Nearshore Fill area.
Therefore, these uses are unlikely to be affected by the project. Available
information suggests that crab and fish harvested from the West Harbor
OU currently do not contain elevated chemical concentrations above EPA's
current fish advisory guidelines (Hart Crowser, 1994c).
Similarly, because the proposed Nearshore Fill is located within a
relatively congested berthing'and industrial waterfront area (see Figure
2-1), potential aesthetic impacts resulting from the Project are likely to be
minimal.
Page 6-1
-------
Hart Cfowser
J-4251-03
7.0 EVALUATION AND TESTING OF DISCHARGE MATERIAL
Extensive testing of sediments has been conducted at the Project site as a
part of Superfund activities. These data are presented in the RI/FS and in
Hart Crowser (1994a, 1994c, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, and 1995e). A
discussion of these data is presented in the Preliminary Design Analysis
Report (Hart Crowser, 1995d); Sequential Batch Leaching Test Report
(SBLT) (Hart Crowser, 1995c); and Modified Elutriate Testing Report
(Hart Crowser, 1995e). Results from the SBLT testing are briefly
summarized below.
A SBLT was conducted using salinity-adjusted and deoxygenated seawater.
The test was performed according to specifications presented in the EPA-
approved SBLT Work Plan. The test procedure employed is based on the
SBLT as described by Myers et al. (1992) and Brannon et al. (1994).
Chemical analysis results from the SBLT were provided to EPA in July,
1995 as a pan of the draft Section 404(b)(l) Evaluation Permit
Application. Zinc and cadmium were not detected in any of the leachate
water samples. Arsenic was detected in all the leachate samples, but at
concentrations well below the screening criterion for arsenic set forth in the
Work Plan.
The SBLT leachate samples contained detectable concentrations of
dissolved copper, lead, and mercury which were above their respective
screening criteria. The maximum detected dissolved lead concentration in
the leachate was approximately 4 times the screening criterion; the
maximum dissolved copper concentration was 12 times the screening
criterion; and the maximum dissolved mercury concentration was IS times
the screening criterion.
The potential transport of nearshore fill leachate to Eagle Harbor was
assessed by utilizing the computerized dispersion model 1DTRANS. The
model simulated tidal-induced dispersion of leachate during transport
through the proposed berm material. Sensitivity analyses were performed
as a pan of a determination of model uncertainty. As a conservative
evaluation, the model did not consider chemical attenuation processes (e.g.,
sorption), which have been observed to substantially retard the transport of
metal contaminants in other similar regional nearshore fills (Hotchkiss and
Boatman, 1994). The 1DTRANS results, including uncertainty analyses,
are considered reasonable worst-case predictions of leachate transport
through the berm material to Eagle Harbor.
The 1DTRANS model results reveal that there would be at least a SO to
100 fold decrease in metal concentrations during transport through the
Page 7-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
berrn, based on application of reasonable worst-case model parameters to
represent the berm and fill materials. Dispersion effects alone (i.e.,
without considering chemical attenuation) will reduce the maximum
measured SBLT leachate concentrations to well below the screening
criterion at the berm face discharge point. Consequently, no additional
controls or treatment, beyond the existing design specifications of the
Nearshore Fill, are necessary to mitigate long-term impacts to water
quality.
Page 7-2
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
8.0 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS
The Preliminary Design Analysis Report (Hart Crowser, 1995d) includes
considerable .discussion and development of proposed actions to minimize
adverse effects resulting from the Project. These include: 1) designing the
capacity and size of the Nearshore Fill to only accommodate containment
of Hotspot sediments to be addressed by Remedial Action; 2) use of
treatment methods (e.g., solids settling) to reduce short-term discharges of
contaminants to Eagle Harbor during construction; and 3) use of effluent
discharge methods (i.e., submerged outfall discharge at SO to 100 gpm)
which maximize practicable dispersion of the effluent into the receiving
water. As stated above, no additional controls or treatment, beyond the
existing design specifications of the Nearshore Fill, are necessary to
mitigate long-term impacts to water quality.
Page 8-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
9.0 ANALYSIS OF PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES
The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(l) guidelines state that: "An
alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after
taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of
overall project purposes." This section identifies and evaluates potential
practicable alternatives for meeting the purpose, concluding with the
selection of the preferred project, which is the only practicable alternative.
9.1 Identification and Evaluation of Practicable Alternatives
9.1.1 Relocation of the Facility to Other Sites
Relocation of the existing Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility to a new site
is an alternative that could potentially meet the project objective. Potential
relocation sites are evaluated below and compared with the proposed
expansion of the Eagle Harbor site.
The 1988 Merit Systems Report identified siting criteria that reflect the
unique needs and requirements for a WSF maintenance and emergency
repair facility, including vessel access and dockside needs. Criteria were
slightly revised and updated in the 1994 update prepared by Art Anderson,
Inc. The revised criteria are pertinent to this analysis of practicable
alternatives and are presented below.
9.1.2 Facility Siting Criteria for WSF Maintenance Facility
» Location in a protected harbor central to the major number of cross-
sound ferry routes and within a convenient distance from Colman Dock
and the Colman Building in Seattle where vessel engineering support
services are located.
» Pier space and berthing capability to accommodate fourteen vessels of
various class (size) categories during emergency repair, winter lay-up
and maintenance lay-up status. Berth and/or pier space must
accommodate the following number and class of vessels at any one
time:
2 Jumbo Mark n. Jumbo or Super class vessels
(382 to 460 feet long, 87 feet beam, and 18 feet draft);
2 Issaquah or Evergreen State class vessels
(310 and 328 feet long, 78-foot 8-inch beam, up to 16 feet draft);
2 Steel Electric class vessels
(256 feet long, 73-foot 10-inch beam, 12-foot 9-inch draft);
Page 9-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
2 Rhododendron or Olympic vessels
(62 to 63 feet long, 12.5-foot beam, up to 10 feet draft)
In addition, berth space is needed to accommodate overnight berthing
of 6 Passenger Only Ferries (25 to 32 feet long, 7 to 8 feet beam, up to
8 feet draft). Configuration of dockside facilities must assure that
berthed vessels do not intrude into designated navigation channels.
> Two or three maintenance berths (included in the above fourteen berth
requirement described above) accessible by trucks and vehicles and
serviced by transfer spans with full electrical service, compressed air,
water etc. to support maintenance or repair activities. In addition,
wing walled docking structures need to be constructed adjacent to the
transfer spans to stabilize berthed vessels. Configuration of pier
space/vessel berths must accommodate transfer span structures to
provide for access to berthed vessels.
> 20,800 square feet of operating shop space, 1800 square feet of office
space, and 2,000 square feet of worker habitability space all within a
building or buildings designed and equipped for typical lay-up
maintenance, with a minimum of ten tons of crane capacity to certain
shops.
> 20,000 square feet of warehouse space contiguous to or within the
Maintenance Complex.
» A minimum of 24 truck and 110 auto parking spaces available within
easy walking distance of the facility, located outside the shop and pier
area.
» 7,000 square feet of open waterfront work space.
» Overall facility layout compatible with surroundings, zoned for
waterfront light industrial activities, with industrial activity producing
daytime noise and occasional low level dirt and dust. Proximity of
property zoned for other uses must be considered and accommodated.
> Ferry or boat service available to dispatch maintenance crews to vessels
or to terminals to conduct emergency on-board repairs and routine
maintenance.
For sites meeting the above physical criteria, costs of land and construction
improvement would need to be reasonable relative to the cost of expanding
the existing Maintenance Facility and acquiring the adjoining BMS
Property. Costs are an important consideration, in part because the WSF
Page 9-2
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
system is partially tax funded with budgets subject to state budget
constraints. Because the site must be in a marine waterfront industrial
area, the potential for environmental constraints such as historical
contamination and the need for and feasibility of dredging and dredge
material disposal are also a consideration. In general, ownership of
facilities is preferred over long-term leasing.
Because of the requirement for a central Puget Sound facility, evaluation of
alternative sites was limited to sites located within the Seattle Harbor,
within the vicinity of Harbor Island, and within the Duwamish Waterway.
The following four sites were evaluated in the Merit Systems Report
against the above siting criteria to determine if the facility should be
relocated or if expansion should occur at the existing maintenance site at
Eagle Harbor.
9.1.3 Alternative Sites Considered
Lockheed Yard I Site, Seattle. This ten-acre site is a former shipyard
located on Harbor Island and is available and currently for sale. The site
is in close proximity to the majority of ferry routes and to downtown
Colman Dock and the Colman Building. Major demolition, renovation,
and building construction would be required to provide adequate shop"
space. Future marine sediment cleanup requirements are an unknown. Of
major concern is that the Lockheed Yard 1 site lacks adequate pier and
berthing space to accommodate lay-up of vessels. This site is not
practicable and has been eliminated from further consideration.
Lockheed Yard II Site, Seattle. The Lockheed Yard U site is a former
shipyard with waterfront bordering the West Duwamish Waterway and
Elliott Bay. The site is in close proximity to the majority of ferry routes*
and to downtowtTColman Dock and Colman Building. At the time of the
1988 Merit Systems study, this site was available and appeared to provide
adequate berth and shop space. A detailed cost comparison of relocating
the maintenance facility to the Lockheed Yard n site was completed. This-
study showed that total costs of relocation to the Lockheed Yard n Site
were five times higher than expansion at the existing Eagle Harbor site
(with acquisition of the BMS property). Moreover, the Lockheed Yard n
has since been acquired by the Port of Seattle for expansion of its Terminal
5 operation and is not available. This site is not practicable and has been
eliminated from further consideration.
Alaska Ferry Site (Pier 48), Seattle. This site is a waterfront site in
downtown Seattle currently owned and leased by the Port of Seattle. The
site is leased in the summer by the B.C. Ferries. Because of limited pier
space and the potential for incompatibility of industrial operations
Page 9-3
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
associated with a maintenance facility with Seattle waterfront use, this site
was determined not to be suitable. This site is not practicable and has been
eliminated from further consideration.
Marine Power and Equipment, Seattle. The Marine Power and
Equipment site on the Duwamish River is currently available. However,
pier space at the site is limited and pier side water depth at low tides is
unacceptable along much of the available pier space. Most critical is that
navigability of the Duwamish River south of Spokane Street is very limited
and not well-suited for the relatively frequent movements associated with
WSF maintenance. Therefore, this site is not considered practicable and
has been eliminated from further consideration.
Relocation of the maintenance facility to another site precludes the potential
for cost-effective construction of a nearshore facility and disposal of
contaminated sediments at the West Harbor OU Superfund site.
9.1.4 Use Structural Fill or Clean Borrow to Construct the Nearshore
Fill
A viable structural alternative that would achieve objectives of the Eagle
Harbor Maintenance Facility Expansion Project is to use clean structural
fill or borrow in construction of the nearshore fill in lieu of use of
contaminated sediments. Use of clean fill would result in less overall
environmental benefit and be less cost-effective than placement of
contaminated sediments within the nearshore fill.
Because this alternative would not affect the need to dredge contaminated
sediments, this alternative would result in greater net disruption because
dredging and removal and off-site disposal of the contaminated sediments
would still be required. Fill or borrow resources would be unnecessarily
used and overall cost of the cleanup and redevelopment would be higher.
In addition, other disposal site capacity may be unnecessarily used if
disposal is accomplished at either a hazardous waste landfill or at a
municipal landfill.
9.1.5 Comparison of the ROD Preferred Alternative with the Nearshore
Fill Alternative for Disposal of Contaminated Sediments
The 1992 EPA Record of Decision (ROD) for the West Harbor Operable
Unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site summarized a range of
cleanup alternatives and recommended a combination of cleanup strategies
to address marine and upland contamination. The recommended ROD
alternative for containment of contaminated sediments was to dredge and
Page 9-4
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
remove sediments to either a hazardous waste or municipal landfill or to
cap the dredge material on site.
Compared with the Off-Site Hotspot Disposal Remedy selected in the
existing ROD, the Nearshore Fill alternative has the following benefits (in
a preliminary comparison, the Nearshore Fill ranked equal to or better than
the Off-Site Hotspot Disposal Remedy for all CERCLA criteria):
» The Nearshore Fill provides for the statutory preference for on-site
remediation and long-term management of wastes at one location;
» The Nearshore Fill provides for additional reduction of the toxicity and
mobility of metal contaminants, over and above that achieved in many
landfills, by providing a saturated, anoxic environment which
sequesters and precipitates metal contaminants as immobile and non-
toxic sulfide complexes (see Ankley et al., 1994; Hotchkiss and
Boatman, 1994);
» Construction costs are lower and may also be coordinated with habitat
mitigation (e.g., excavated material from the South Bainbridge
mitigation project may be used for construction of the Nearshore Fill,
with associated cost savings); and
> Community concerns appear to be more fully addressed, particularly
when future site development (i.e., long-term accommodation of a
private boatyard) is considered along with cleanup. The local
community and the Suquamish Tribe also appear to benefit from habitat
mitigation proposals which enhance several ecological functions above1
those at the West Harbor OU Nearshore Fill site.
A more detailed comparison of the Nearshore Fill and Off-site Disposal
Alternatives is presented in the CERCLA Technical Evaluation (Hart
Crowser, 1995f).
9.1.6 Alternative Site Layouts
Potential on-site development alternatives for the existing WSDOT-owned
property are limited to termination of the private boatyard operation to
allow for expansion of the maintenance facility. This alternative conflicts
with community-identified needs for continued operation of a private boat
yard at tnis site. Based on extensive input and concerns from citizens and
local government regarding the potential for closure of this private boat
yard, WSDOT has committed to trying to maintain the existing lease
arrangement and to constructing a new marine boat haul-out facility so a
boat yard can continue to operate at this site. An alternative site layout
Page 9-5
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
alternative would also preclude environmental benefits associated with
disposal of contaminated sediments within a nearshore fill structure, but
would also avoid the impacts of the fill to the aquatic ecosystem.
A practical on-site alternative is predicated on the need for contiguous
property to assure efficiency of the maintenance facility. No other layouts
are possible because no other contiguous property is available for
expansion.
9.1.7 No Action Alternative
A No- Action Alternative regarding construction of the Nearshore Fill site
would reduce the amount of land available for expansion by approximately
0.9 acre. This alternative would greatly constrain upgrade and expansion
of operational capacity, particularly if the private boat yard were
accommodated. Opportunities for increasing shop and work area and
workload capacity would be limited. Facility improvements to address fire
prevention, worker safety, substandard environmental conditions must be
given first priority. Needed site improvements, including new buildings to
accommodate existing and future shop and equipment needs, access
improvements to address severe vehicle congestion and to improve access
to dockside facilities (transfer spans), and expansion of necessary outside
work yard would be impacted. Improvement to inefficient operational
flows may not be realized as efficient operations are tied directly to
minimum space requirements and facility layout. Options for future
replacement of the main maintenance building would be severely
constrained, as would future operational flexibility.
Dockside facilities could be constructed as proposed with or without the
Nearshore Fill. However, these dockside facilities themselves (e.g.,
transfer spans) may be associated with some habitat degradation because of
shading and pile placement. Further, without adequate upland area to
provide supporting maintenance and repair services, the Eagle Harbor
Maintenance Facility would have considerable difficulty meeting increased
and diversified service demands associated with upcoming expansion of the
WSF vessel fleet. These needs likely could not be met while
simultaneously accommodating a private boat yard.
Potential impacts also include possible disruption or reduction of WSF
system service if maintenance and repair cannot be accomplished in
reasonable time frames or if appropriate maintenance and emergency
facilities are not available in the private sector. Because of the decline of
private shipyards, a major concern driving the proposed expansion is the
need to assure available, timely maintenance and repair services.
Page 9-6
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
A No Action Alternative would also preclude the option of disposal and
containment of West Harbor OU contaminated sediments within an on-site
disposal site.
9.2 Determination of the Preferred Alternative
The above analysis of alternatives identifies relocation alternatives and
discusses expansion alternatives for achieving the project purpose which is
to expand the facility to provide for needed upgrade and expansion and to
provide for on-site disposal of contaminated sediments. Construction of a
Nearshore Fill to allow for expansion at the Eagle Harbor site has been
determined to be the only practicable alternative and has been identified as
WSDOT's preferred alternative.
9.3 Evaluation of Alternatives to Discharge in Special Aquatic Sites
There are no practicable alternatives that avoid discharge of fill material to
special aquatic sites. The primary impact of the practicable alternative is
the loss of marine aquatic habitat as the result of construction of the
Nearshore Fill. Construction of the Nearshore Fill would eliminate
approximately 0.9 acre of intertidal and shallow subtidal aquatic habitat,
but could be adequately mitigated with implementation of the proposed
mitigation plan.
Page 9-7
-------
il/20-'1335 ;0:?b 8427ilS GALE ;COL = -:ic 01
5155-S_sl_051595 (2k) 84*
Read first tine 02/06/95.
AN ACT Relating to hydraulic permit exemptions froa the shoreline
management act; and adding a new section to chapter 90.58 RCW.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter
90.SB RCW to read as follows:
A public or private project that is designed to iaprove fish or
wildlife habitat or fish passage shall be exempt from the substantial
development permit requirements of this chapter when all of the
following apply:
(1) The project has been approved by the department of fish and
wildlife;
(2) The project has received hydraulic project approval by the
department of fish and wildlife pursuant to chapter 75.20 RCW; and
+.»<--»»»~».._____..___..__~~_____________.._..________
[Help: ?] [Exit: u] [PageDown: Space] [PageUp: b]
ALT-F10 HELP VT-100 FDX ° 2400 N81 LOG CLOSED PRT OFF CR CR
5155-S_sl_051595 (2Jt) 100%
(3) The local government has determined that the project is
substantially consistent with the local shoreline master program. The
local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and
provide it by letter to the project proponent.
Passed the Senate March 14, 1995.
Passed the House April 21, 1995.
Approved by the Governor May 11, 1995.
Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 11, 1995.
[Help: ?] [Exit: u] [PageUp: b]
ALT-FJLO HELP " VT-100 FDX 2400 N81 LOG CLOSED PRT OFF CR CR
5155-S_Sl_051595 (2k) 57%
Approved May 11, 1995 FILED
May 11, 1995 - 1:25 p.n.
-------
Appendix A
Clean Water Act 404(b)(l) Evaluation
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Reply to
ATTN of: WD-128
SECTION 404(b)(l) EVALUATION
for
COMBINED CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTION AND CWA APPROVAL:
Amended Record of Decision for the West Harbor Operable Unit
of the WyckofT/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site
Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington
1.0 Introduction. This evaluation was prepared in accordance with guidelines promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency at 40 CFR 230 for evaluating discharges of dredged or fill material in the
waters of the United States. Its purpose is to support decisions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, (EPA) to remediate contaminated sediments located in the West Harbor Operable Unit (OU) of the
Wyckoff/Eaglc Superfund Site at Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. In 1992, EPA issued a Record
of Decision (ROD) for remedial action to address sediment contamination within the West Harbor OU site. In
1993, PACCAR Inc, signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA and, in cooperation with the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
proceeded with pre-design sampling and design of the West Harbor OU remedy.
The cleanup remedy described in the 1992 ROD consists of two major actions: source control and sediment
remediation. Source control will be initiated first and completed prior to sediment remediation. As described in
the Preliminary Design Analysis Report submitted to EPA in June 1995 (PDAR-1), source control will include
stabilization of two upland areas containing the highest concentrations of potentially leachable and/or credible
contaminants. Sediment remediation will include removal and upland disposal/confinement of mercury "hotspot"
sediments containing more than 5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) total mercury, 1-meter in-situ capping of
"high concern* sediments containing more than 2.1 mg/kg total mercury, and 15-centimeter (6-inch) in-situ
capping of 'moderate concern" sediments which exceed cleanup standards as specified in the ROD.
Concurrent with the remedial design effort, WSDOT independently developed a nearshore confined disposal
facility (CDF)1 alternative to contain mercury "hotspot" sediments within the West Harbor OU. A preliminary
design and Clean Water Act permit application documentation supporting the nearshore proposal was submitted
to EPA in July 1995 (PDAR-2). WSDOT's proposal to use a nearshore.CDF was intended to resolve a conflict
between the need to expand the existing ferry maintenance facility onto adjacent property and the desire to
maintain current uses of the property which are of value to the community. As the nearshore confined disposal
alternative proposed by WSDOT was not selected in the 1992 ROD, EPA determined that amendment of that
document would be required.
For the duration of this document, *nearshore confined disposal facility* or "COP is used in order to be consistent with
the terminology in Superfund's ROD Amendment. In the context of the Gean Water Act and this evaluation, the purpose of the
activity and its ultimate use is as a Till* (see section 2.1 Need for Discharge below). Within the parameter* of constructing the Till*,
confined disposal of contaminated sediments from the West Harbor OU remediation can be accommodated, and can be considered a
secondary purpose as well as a primary design consideration. Additionally, the Tilling constitutes a one-time discharge, whereas the
term "CDF" is typically used in the context of a site that (1) regularly receives material over a long period of time (i.e., several months
to years), and/or (2) receives material from a multitude of sources.
o
Prtntta en ft«cycMtf fttpw
-------
Compliance of the proposed alternative with the requirements of the Clean Water Act section 404(b)(l)
Guidelines was a crucial factor in whether a ROD amendment should be pursued. All documents provided to
EPA are part of the Administrative Record and provide the basis for EPA's analysis. To facilitate EPA review,
WSDOT consolidated much of the information contained in other submitted documents as a Section 404(b)(l)
Evaluation Permit Application (404EPA; attached). Rather than repeat passages contained in the 404EPA, this
404(b)(l) evaluation provides analytic findings and conclusions and references the pertinent sections of that
document, or other documents, as support when necessary.
Scope. The scope of this evaluation focusses on discharges associated with dredging of contaminated
sediments in the West Harbor OU and with construction of the nearshore CDF consistent with amending the
ROD. Discharges associated with the thick or thin caps are not proposed to be changed and continue to be
considered in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
Traditionally, releases from dredging operations, while technically "discharges" under the Clean Water Act, have
been considered de minima and are not specifically evaluated. Sediments suspended or released during the
dredging process tend to resettle in the immediate vicinity of the dredge, tend to be similar in nature to the
sediments where they resettle, and in most cases are not a significant risk for adverse environmental effect.
Release of contaminated sediments, however, may pose more than a minimal risk to the aquatic environment.
While management controls can be imposed.that could reduce or eliminate such risks, consideration of those
releases and their risks in this evaluation is appropriate in order to identify the need for such controls and to
specify their use. Discharges associated with dredging of clean sediments will continue to be regarded as de
minima and require no further evaluation.
Off-site as well as on-site mitigation is included as part of the WSDOT proposal. Authorization for the off-site
work already exists under Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit No. 27 (Corps PN 95-4-00367, Cool, Gale).
Accordingly, discharges of dredged or fill material associated with the off-site mitigation are not evaluated in this
document.
2.0 Description of the Proposed Discharge. The WSDOT proposes to construct a 0.9-acre nearshore CDF
within the West Harbor OU of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site located in the City of Bainbridge
Island, Kitsap County, Washington (see Figure 1-1 in 404EPA). A complete and detailed description of the
methods, sequencing, and other logistical considerations is contained in the PDAR-1 (June 1995) and PDAR-2
(July 1995) submitted to EPA which provide a 30 percent design and are part of the Administrative Record. The
100 percent design documents, which will control the proposed construction, will continue to be developed
through the remedial design phase pursuant to the AOC. Accordingly, minor changes to design and construction
logistics are anticipated. These documents will be reviewed by and must be approved by EPA before
construction can commence. If necessary, due to substantive changes in the design, this 404(b)(l) evaluation will
be supplemented or amended.
Description of WSDOTs proposed sediment hotspot remediation is provided in section 23 of the attached
404EPA and section 2.2 of the PDAR-2. To summarize the pertinent dredging/disposal actions, after limited
dredging and construction of a structural base, a berm will be constructed of clean borrow material in the 0.9
acre intertidal area, extending to approximately -4 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). About 2,720 cubic yards
(cy) of intertidal hotspot sediment will remain in place, either covered by the berm or within the berm. Hotspot
sediments from beyond the berm, estimated at 1,970 cy, will be excavated from shore or hydraulically dredged
and placed in the enclosure. After dewatering, the dredged material will be capped with clean fill and paved with
low-permeability material such as asphalt to minimize surface water infiltration. As a part of the Nearshore CDF
Project, WSDOT is also proposing to mitigate for the 0.9 acre of aquatic habitat lost with construction of the fill
by performing a variety of habitat enhancement, restoration, and compensation actions as follows:
-------
Berrn Face Enhancement. The habitat value and ecological functions of the seaward face of the
nearshore CDF berm will be enhanced by covering the slope with a layer of gravel .and/or small cobble.
This habitat will provide substrata for sessile invertebrates such as barnacles and mussels as well as
macroalgae, and will resemble the quality of habitat lost within the proposed CDF site.
Delta Eelgrass Restoration. Approximately 0.6 acres of a probable former eelgrass community located
on a delta immediately west of the Nearshore CDF will be restored. Sediment capping and
transplantation of eelgrass at the delta site would potentially result in the establishment of eelgrass
communities with superior detritus production, feeding, rearing habitat and reproductive habitat function,
and greater potential biodiversity as compared to the Nearshore CDF site.
Off-Site Mitigation/Restoration Estuary. Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
the Suquamish Tribe, Washington State resource agencies, Trout Unlimited, and private landowners,
WSDOT will construct a new 2.0-acre estuary at the South Bainbridge Estuarine Wetland and Stream
Restoration Site. The estuary will create 2.0 acres of intertidal mudflat and salt marsh habitat, and will
receive stream flow from a separate USFW creek and wetland restoration/enhancement project. Tidal
flushing and connection of the stream through the wetland represents an enhancement of several
ecological functions above those at the West Harbor OU Nearshore CDF site.
Tideland Ownership Transfer. Working with private landowners and the Washington Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), WSDOT will attempt to arrange for the transfer to Suquamish Tribe
ownership of approximately 6 to 8 acres of tidelands adjoining the Suquamish Tribal Center northwest of
Bainbridge Island. The tideland transfer would be performed by first purchasing private tidelands
adjacent to the mitigation estuary described above; transferring these tidelands into DNR ownership
(concurrent with an increase in public access to the tidelands); and then performing a land swap with
DNR to convey the Tribal Center tidelands (under current DNR ownership) to the Suquamish Tribe. In
the event that DNR elects not to participate in the tideland transfer, ownership of both the completed
estuary and adjacent tidelands will be turned over to the Suquamish Tribe.
Shellfish Enhancement. WSDOT will provide materials for an approximate 1.5-acre Manila clam
enhancement project to be conducted by the Suquamish Tribe in tidelands adjacent to the Suquamish
Tribal Center and/or at another appropriate regional location.
The proposed CDF is located on tidelands of the former Bainbridge Marine Services (BMS) property, recently
acquired by WSDOT as part of planned expansion of the Washington State Ferries (WSF) Eagle Harbor
Maintenance Facility. Placement of sediments within the Nearshore CDF is being proposed as an alternative to
upland disposal of these sediments which was originally selected in the 1992 ROD. Placement of contaminated
sediments within the nearshore CDF would be completed pursuant to CERCLA and under EPA oversight.
2.1 Need for Discharge. Construction of the Nearshore CDF structure will accommodate expansion
needs for the WSF, accommodate community desires for a boatyard or other water-dependant, private industrial
or commercial marine operation (boatyard), and provide environmentally safe disposal of contaminated
sediments in a cost-effective manner. This solution combines and integrates necessary cleanup with
redevelopment of the site. Ongoing management of the nearshore CDF disposal site will be facilitated because
WSF, a public entity, will continue to occupy the site. Two separate, but linked, aspects of Need for Discharge
are considered pursuant to compliance with the Guidelines: (1) creation of the CDF which expands the Eagle
Harbor Maintenance Facility and which allows for a boatyard at the site, and (2) safe disposal of contaminated
sediments as the result of a necessary remedial action. The attached 404EPA, prepared by WSDOT, specifically
discusses these needs in section 2.1 Project Purpose and Need, although it addresses the expansion of the Eagle
Harbor Maintenance Facility and the continued operation of a boat yard separately (i.e., section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2);
disposal of contaminated sediments is addressed in section 2.13.
-------
Expansion of the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility will require additional dockside structures, such as transfer
spans to access the new larger class ferries. Future development must also address existing deficiencies at the
Maintenance Facility and provide for increased emergency repair and maintenance services as additional vessels
are brought on line. Desires of the local community, initially represented' by officials of the City of Bainbridge
Island and subsequently verified during the recent public comment period for this project, include the continued
operation of a boatyard within the boundaries of the former BMS property recently acquired by WSDOT. In
order to accommodate those needs, fill to create additional land is necessary. The project, as proposed by
WSDOT, would result in a consolidated, efficient, cost-effective facility that can provide essential repair and
maintenance services for the WSF and the local community. These development aspects are considered the
primary purpose and need.
The construction of a Nearshore CDF would accommodate cost-effective, environmentally-protective disposal of
contaminated sediments from remediation of the mercury "hotspot." Actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances in the West Harbor, if oat addressed by implementing the selected remedy may present an imminent
and substantial threat to human health, welfare, or the environment. The 1992 ROD identified removal to an
off-site, upland location as the selected remedy. Even if approval of the Nearshore CDF option were denied,
removal and confinement of the contaminated sediments could still occur. Accordingly, disposal of contaminated
sediments is judged to be a secondary, albeit important, purpose and need.
22 Location. The proposed Nearshore CDF is located on the north shore of Eagle Harbor on
Bainbridge Island, Washington adjacent to the existing Maintenance Facility and the recently purchased BMS
property. The CDF location contains upland, tideland, and submerged tideland, all on WSDOT property,
extending to -4 feet MLLW. A vicinity map and a conceptual facility development plan are shown on Figures 1-
1,2-1, and 2-2 b the attached 404EPA.
23 Description of the Discharge Site. Eagle Harbor is a shallow embayment on the east side of.
Bainbridge Island, Puget Sound Washington. Land uses on Bainbridge Island are primarily residential,
commercial, and light industrial. Uses of Eagle Harbor include extensive recreational boat moorage, repair of
Washington State Ferries, and ferry transport of cars and passengers to and from Seattle, some six miles east of
the island. The former Wyckoff Company wood treating facility is located on the south shore at the mouth of
the harbor. Additional description is contained in the 404EPA, PDAR-2, PDAR-2, and other reports contained
in the Administrative Record.
The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Site, added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1987, currently consists of the
following operable units (OUs):
OU-1: Wyckoff Facility (unsaturated soils, buildings)
OU-2: East Harbor (adjacent to the Wyckoff Facility)
OU-3: West Harbor
OU-4: Wyckoff Groundwater (groundwater and saturated soils)
The West Harbor OU includes contaminated intertidal and subtidal sediments in the western portions of Eagle
Harbor, as well as upland sources of contamination to the West Harbor.
Additional information on site location, land use, and environmental setting is provided in Section 2 of the West
Harbor ROD (1992). A comprehensive site history, including background, listing, CERCLA enforcement, and
the completion of the remedial investigation and feasibility study are discussed in Section 3 of the 1992 ROD.
Sections 6 and 7 of the West Harbor ROD provide summary information on Site characteristics, the nature and
extent of contamination, and human health and ecological risks. The cleanup objectives are described in Section
10.1 of the 1992 ROD.
-------
2.4 Method of Discharge. The proposed discharge is the placement of both dredged and fill
material into the West Harbor OU of Eagle Harbor (also see section 23.1 Dredging, Nearshore CDF, and Benn
Construction in the attached 404EPA). A complete and detailed description of the methods, sequencing, and
other logistical considerations is contained in the PDAR-1 (June 1995) and PDAR-2 (July 1995) submitted to
EPA which provide a 30 percent design and are part of the Administrative Record. The 100 percent design
documents, which will control the proposed construction, will continue to be developed through the remedial
design phase. Accordingly, minor changes to design and construction logistics are possible. These documents
will be reviewed by and must be approved by EPA before construction can commence. This 404(b)(l) evaluation
will be amended if necessary.
2J5 Timing of Discharge. See PDAR-1 and PDAR-2. Timings will be specified in the 100 percent
design document(s).
2.6 General Characteristics of Material. See PDAR-1 and PDAR-2.
2.7 Quantity of Material. See PDAR-1 and PDAR-2. Quantities of materials will be specified in
the 100 percent design document(s).
2.8 Source of Material. See PDAR-1 and PDAR-2. Sources of materials will be specified in the
100 percent design document(s).
2.9 Projected Life of Disposal Site. The discharge is a one-time event.
3.0 Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem.
3.1 Substrate. Existing substrate within the CDF area and area to be dredged will be permanently
altered by the discharge. The area to be filled is composed of silty sand to sandy gravel sediments containing
metal, concrete, wood, and other debris and will cover a portion of the existing marine railway structure. The
new slopes of the CDF area will be constructed to improve habitat quality as a mitigation measure (see section
2.0 above). Contaminated sediments will be confined within the Nearshore CDF which will be removed from the
aquatic environment. Backfilling of dredged areas with clean material will change the physical composition
(likely to a more coarse substrate) and reduce chemical contamination.
3.2 Suspended Particulates/Turbiditv. During dredging of contaminated sediments and discharge of
berm and backfill materials, levels of suspended participates and turbidities are expected to be increased above
ambient conditions elsewhere in the embayment. The effect is expected to be localized to the immediate area of
construction and is considered unavoidable and minor.
33 Water Qualify. Temporary perturbations of water quality in the immediate area of construction
are expected and are unavoidable. No long-term adverse impacts on water quality are anticipated. Remediation
of existing contaminated sediments within the project area are expected to result in improved water quality
conditions. More specific descriptions of short- and long-term effects are contained in the PDAR-1, Modified
Elutriate Testing Report, and Sequential Batch Leaching Test Report, which are part of the Administrative
Record.
3.4 Current Patterns and Water Circulation. Current patterns, including Taylor Creek outflows, are
not expected to be significantly altered as the proposed CDF is small (0.9 acre).
3.5 Normal Water Fluctuations. No change is predicted for this parameter.
3.6 Salinity Gradients. No change is predicted for this parameter.
-------
4.0 Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem.
4.1 Threatened and Endangered Species. No threatened or endangered species will be adversely
affected by the proposed action.
4.2 Aquatic Food Web. Significant adverse impacts to the aquatic food web are already occurring at
the Superfund site. Remediation of the contaminated portions of the West Harbor OU is expected to reduce or
eliminate exposure to contaminated sediments and possible uptake of contaminant; from these sediments into the
aquatic environment. Due to the persistence of chemical contaminants in many aquatic species, improvements to
the aquatic food web are unlikely to be immediately measurable. Filling of the 0.9 acre of aquatic habitat is a
real, although probably immeasurable, adverse impact to the aquatic food web. The site is already severely
impacted by existing chemical contamination and ongoing industrial uses. Mitigation elements (described in the
section 2.0 above and section 1.1 Summary of Proposal (page 3) of the 404EPA) have been included as part of
the project design and are expected to offset functions and values lost due to the CDF.
43 Wildlife. A variety of species of birds are known to occur in Eagle Harbor. Marine mammals
(e.g., harbor seals) and river otter are known to occur as well. As with the previous paragraph, the remediation
is expected to reduce or eliminate exposure of chemical contaminants to aquatic biota. While long-term benefits
are anticipated, it is unlikely that any could be measured in the short-term. Discharges for this action (i.e., the
nearshore CDF or backfilling of dredged areas) are unlikely to adversely affect any wildlife species. Increased
turbidities during construction could make foraging difficult, but this would be a temporary effect Long-term,
significant adverse effects are not expected. As the project accomplishes remediation of contaminated sediments,
some improvement of local wildlife habitats and populations are anticipated. However, the area will continue to
be used for industrial purposes so significant increases in wildlife species and populations are unlikely. The on-
and off-site mitigation sites are expected to enhance wildlife populations.
Benthic communities in the CDF zone, like other areas of the West Harbor OU, are dominated by a variety of
polychaetes, molluscs, and crustaceans. The sediments to be filled appear to harbor burrowing
macroinvertebrates including ghost shrimp (Callianassa califomiensis), lugworms (Abarenicola pacifica), sand
clams (Macoma spp.), and horse clams (Tapes capax). Dungeness (Cancer magister) and/or red rock (Cancer
productus) crab have been noted at the site but are not common.
Fish observed in the general area of the CDF site include pile perch, shiner perch, English sole, ratfish, surf
smelt, rock sole, rockfish, spotted greenling, sand dabs, starry flounder, and juvenile Pacific herring. Juvenile
chum salmon have been observed in some areas of Eagle Harbor, though spawning habitat is limited in the creek
(locally called the Ravine) which discharges to the site vicinity.
5.0 Potential Imnacts on Special Aquatic Sites. No special aquatic sites have been identified in the area over
and above the habitat areas discussed above.
5.1 Sanctuaries and Refuges. Not applicable.
5.2 Wetlands. No wetlands exist at the CDF site. Mitigation efforts at the off-site location wQI
enhance wetlands habitat quantity and quality.
53 Mudflats. See 43 above. Most of the 0.9 acre CDF area is considered a "sand" flat. The off-
site mitigation will result in increased quantity of mudflats.
-------
5.4 Vegetated Shallows. Much of the low intertidal zone to be filled contain; a relatively heavy
cover of the hladed green alga Ulva spp., which grows attached to small cobble and gravel. An underwater video
tape taken in August 1994 of the nearshore area shows that this taxon gets very lush in this area and beyond in
the adjacent subtidal zone. A video survey of the area taken in August 1994 did not reveal any evidence of
eelgrass.
5.5 Riffle and Pool Complexes. Not applicable.
6.0 Potential Effects of Human Use Characteristics.
6.1 Municipal and Private Water Supplies. Not applicable. Although shallow and deep groundwater
resources exist, the shallow aquifers are not potable (i.e., are saline) and the deep aquifers are not presently
used. ' "
6.2 Recreational and Commercial Fisheries. No commercial fishery exists within Eagle Harbor.
While recreational fishing or shellfishing may occur, human health advisories are in effect. Any recreational
fishing, as with any water related recreation, would be temporarily affected during remedial operations.
Clams are not typically harvested from the West Harbor OU because of persistent fecal colifonn contamination
in this urban embayment. Fecal and chemical contamination of seafood in Eagle Harbor, prompted the
Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District to issue and maintain a shellfish consumption advisory in Eagle Harbor
since 1984. Accordingly, the Nearshore CDF will have little or no effect on human consumption of clams.
However, as discussed in Section 11.4 of the 404EPA, WSDOT will provide materials for a 1.5-acre Manila clam
enhancement project by the Suquamish Tribe in tidelands adjacent to the Suquamish Tribal Center.
63 Water Related Recreation. See 6.2 above. Other water related recreation (e.g., boating and
water skiing) occur farther out from shore and should be unaffected by the construction.
6.4 Aesthetics. The proposed Nearshore CDF is located within a relatively congested berthing and
industrial waterfront area. Aesthetic impacts (most likely to occur during construction only) are likely to be
minimal.
6.5 Parks. National and Historic Monuments. National Seashores. Wilderness Areas. Research Sites.
and Similar Preserves. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) is required.
During the WSDOT condemnation of the Former Shipyard property, wooden structural supports for the marine
railway built at the turn of the century were surveyed. WSDOT is completing a report which brings together this
information, historical documentation, and notes from recent sediment cores and soil borings. The report will
support EPA's determination of whether the former marine railway and any other potential cultural resources are
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. If eligible, EPA will assess potential effects
on these resources and appropriate actions implemented during remedial design and remedial action.
7.0 Evaluation and Testing of Discharge Material..
7.1 General Evaluation of Dredged or Fill Material. Extensive testing of sediments has been
conducted as a part of Superfund activities in Eagle Harbor. These data are presented in the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study for the site and in various reports prepared by Hart Crowser (1994a, 1994c, 1995a,
1995b, 1995c, and 1995e). A discussion of these data is presented in the Preliminary Design Analysis Report
(Hart Crowser, 1995d); Sequential Batch Leaching Test Report (SBLT) (Han Crowser, 1995c); and Modified
Elutriate Testing Report (Hart Crowser, 1995e). Results from the SBLT testing are briefly summarized b
-------
8
section 7.0 of the 404EPA. Although sediment contamination varies quite widely for individual chemicals, the
location is unacceptably contaminated above State of Washington Sediment Management Standards and has been
determined to require remediation under Superfund.
72 Evaluation of Chemical-Biological Interactive Effects.
7.2.1 Exclusion of the Material from Testing. Not applicable.
7.22 Water Column Fff»fft Significant, long-term adverse effects to water quality arc not
predicted. During actual construction, turbidities and suspended sediment levels in the water are expected to be
above ambient in the immediate area of the dredges. Partitioning of chemical constituents from sediments to
water will occur during dredging, but as hydraulic dredging will be used (except for construction of the benn
key), this phenomena will be contained within the CDF although minor releases although effluent return could
occur. A mixing zone allowance wjll be specified by EPA as part of the 100 percent design and appropriate
monitoring required.
7.23 Effects on Benthos. No adverse chemical-biological interactive effects are predicted.
Filling of the 0.9 acre site is a physical effect. As the action will remediate already contaminated sediments,
benthic habitat in the remediated aquatic environment should be unproved, with fewer or less severe chemical-
biological interactions. However, such improvements may be masked by ongoing industrial use of the area into
the future.
73 Comparison of Excavation and Discharge Sites. Dredging and disposal site are immediately
adjacent to the other. Both locations are subject to the same chemical contamination and ongoing industrial
uses.
73.1 Total Sediment Chemical Analysis. See 7.1 above; also refer to section 7.0 Evaluation and
Testing of Discharged Materials in the 404EPA. Extensive testing has occurred on sediments in the West
Harbor as part of past Superfund investigations. Though other administrative documents make greatest
reference to mercury contamination, the sediments contain elevated levels of other metals and organic (especially
PAHs) compounds. These data are part of the Administrative Record.
73.2 Biological Community Structure Analysis. Biological community information was collected as
part of previous Superfund investigations and is part of the Administrative Record. Within the footprint of the
proposed CDF, the existing biological community will be smothered. This loss is unavoidable and judged to be
minor and acceptable. The backfilled dredged areas are expected to rapidly recolonize with a similar benthic
community as presently exists. Elimination of chemical contamination will provide improved habitat; however,
since the area will continue to be used for commercial/industrial purposes, the community structure is unlikely to
be dramatically changed. With implementation of the mitigation components of the project, biological
communities within and outside of Eagle Harbor are expected to benefit in the long-term.
7.4 Physical Tests and Evaluations. See 7.1 above; also refer to section 7.0 Evaluation and Testing
of Discharged Materials in the 404EPA, PDAR-1, and PDAR-2. Extensive testing has occurred on sediments in
the West Harbor as part of past Superfund investigations.
8.0 Proposed and Alternative Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects. The PDAR-1 and PDAR-2 include
considerable discussion of actions to minimize adverse effects resulting from the CDF. These include:
1) designing a minimum size CDF to address expansion needs first, then accommodating sediment remediation
volumes; 2) use of treatment methods (e.g., solids settling) to reduce short-term discharges of contaminants to
Eagle Harbor during construction; and 3) use of effluent discharge methods (e.g., submerged outfall discharge at
SO to 100 gpm) which maximize practicable dispersion of the effluent into the receiving water. The opportunity
exists for EPA to specify additional controls, if warranted, during future design reviews.
-------
No practicable alternatives that result in less environmental damage are judged to exist. All appropriate
management actions (e.g., actions concerning material to be discharged or controlling the material after
discharge) have been included in the proposed action. Monitoring included as part of West Harbor OU
remediation by Superfund will document any environmental effects.
8.1 Actions Considering the Location of the Discharge. The site is so small that no alternative
locations within the disposal site exist that would provide better retention or otherwise minimize potential effects.
Use of other disposal locations is dealt with in section 9.0.
8.2 Actions f pneerning the Material to be Discharged. Material to be discharged consists of (1)
clean borrow or dredged material that will be used to construct the containment berm, cap the CDF, and backfill
contaminated dredged areas and (2) contaminated sediments determined to require remediation. (Note:
Remediation of the West Harbor OU will also include thick and thin-layer capping. These discharges 'are not
pan of this evaluation.] Use of hydraulic dredge to remove the contaminated sediments and place them within
the nearshore CDF will minimize potential loss of sediment particles and dissolved chemical constituents to the
harbor water column. The nearshore CDF was designed and discharge of effluent will be controlled to maximize
settling and retention of paniculate matter and minimize transport of contaminants back into the harbor. All
actions have been taken and appropriate measures included in design to eliminate or minimize significant adverse
effects.
83 Actions Controlling the Material After Discharge. Contaminated sediments placed into the
disposal site will be allowed to settle, and treated as necessary, to maximize solids retention. Following
consolidation, the site will be capped with clean sediments or fill material and ultimately paved or asphalted.
Paving will further isolate the contaminated sediments and surface water controls will prevent infiltration which
could generate leachate. The site has been designed to retain the contaminated sediments in an anaerobic,
saturated condition which will itself tend to minimize contaminant mobility. Model studies performed indicate
that leachate migration into Eagle Harbor waters will be insignificant.
8.4 Actions Affecting the Method of Dispersion. Only the incidental "discharge" of contaminated
sediments that could occur during the dredging process are considered to be of any consequence. Use of a small
hydraulic dredge for this work will minimize such releases. For other discharges such as backfilling dredged
areas, some broad dispersion of the dean sediments is considered to be a beneficial effect.
8.5 Actions Related to Technology. All appropriate actions involving technology that could
minimize adverse effects have been included in the 30 percent design. WSDOT will need to submit, and EPA
approve, 95- and 100-percent design documents before actual construction. EPA retains the ability to constrain
or require specific technology if it is judged to provide significant environmental improvement.
8.6 Actions Affecting Plant and Animal Populations. None are considered necessary beyond those
specified as part of mitigation.
8.7 Actions Affecting Human Use. Once constructed, future human use of the site will have some
restrictions, e.g., digging or drilling that could penetrate into the contaminated sediments. It is expected that
future use of the site would be limited to "industrial" rather than "residential." During construction, normal safety
precautions similar for any marine construction/dredging project will be observed. Site and deed restrictions are
likely. Mitigation sites are dedicated to their function in perpetuity, accordingly, some future human uses will be
restricted (c.g., commercial development of a mitigation site).
8.8 Other Actions. None are considered necessary.
-------
. 10
9.0 Analysis of Practicable Alternatives. As stated in the Introduction, under the existing ROD (1992),
hotspot sediments in the West Harbor OU were to be dredged, dewatered, and disposed of at an appropriate
upland disposal facility. WSDOT independently developed and proposed to EPA a nearsbore CDF alternative to
contain mercury 'hotspot" sediments within the West Harbor OU. Use of a CDF was intended to resolve a
conflict between the need to expand the existing ferry maintenance facility onto adjacent property and the desire
to maintain current uses of the property which are of value to the community while accomplishing adequate
remediation of contaminated sediments in the West Harbor OU.
The purpose of the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines 'is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of waters of the United States through the control of discharges of dredged or fill material (40 CFR
§230.1(a))." The Guidelines were developed to discourage the unpermitted placement of dredged or fill materials
as "...the degradation or destruction of special aquatic sites, such as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to
be among the most severe environmental impacts covered by these Guidelines (40 CFR §230.1(c)).' The general
policy of EPA, Region 10's Sediment Management program discourages nearshore disposal as a solution to
contaminated sediments disposal unless it occurs in conjunction with projects that would otherwise be permitted.
In such cases, prudent management and the public interest should encourage incorporation of sediments not
suitable for unconfined disposal into such fills rather than clean materials whenever possible. While this policy
does not prohibit use of nearshore fills based solely on the need for disposal of contaminated sediments, it is
intended to convey to permit applicants, potentially responsible parties, and the public-at-large that the remedial
process is not a way to circumvent the intent of the Guidelines.
In order to assess compliance with the Clean Water Act, EPA considered the need for facility expansion and
upgrade to be the primary purpose of the proposal, caveated by the community's desire to maintain boatyard
uses at its current location. While there would appear to be disposal cost savings to WSDOT by on-site disposal,
the original selected remedy for off-site disposal of contaminated sediments remains a viable option. Hence,
disposal capacity is only a secondary consideration; although environmental protectiveness of contaminated
sediment disposal is a critical factor in determining suitability under both Clean Water Act and Superfund
authorities. Based on experience gained in Commencement Bay with the Sitcum Remediation Project,
environmental protectiveness of confined disposal into any environment is usually highly site-specific. Based on
the information submitted by WSDOT (PDAR-1 and PDAR-2), we conclude that the CDF design would provide
adequate environmental protectiveness equivalent with the intent of the original selected remedy. Additionally,
Superfund provides a "preference* for on-site remedies. Accordingly, the need for the future
development/expansion had to be demonstrated, and the size of the CDF driven by that need, rather than by the
need for disposal capacity from the remedial project.
9.1 Identification and Evaluation of Practicable Alternatives. The 404EPA, in section 2.0
Description of the Proposed Project, provides detailed description and justification of the Eagle Harbor
Maintenance Facility expansion needs (section 2.1.1) and describes the preference for continued operation of a
private boatyard (section 2.1.2) and in section 9.1 Identification and Evaluation of Practicable Alternatives,
identifies and evaluates practical alternative locations for siting and alternative site layouts for expanding the
Maintenance Facility. Although the 404EPA clearly reflects the perspective of WSDOT, EPA has closely
reviewed the information and can identify no 'fatal flaw" with the fundamental analysis or conclusion.
The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines state that: "An alternative is practicable if it is available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes." While EPA disagrees with the WSDOT statement that the nearshore CDF is the "only
practicable alternative" (i.e., the 1992 ROD remedy is practicable), EPA concurs that the nearshore CDF
alternative provides additional benefits to the public interest over the original selected remedy. Once
compensatory mitigation is included, as proposed by WSDOT, the nearshore CDF alternative is judged to be a
"less environmentally damaging" option.
-------
11
In section 11.4 Steps to Minimize Potential Impacts on the Aquatic Environment of the 404EPA, WSDOT
describes proposed mitigation elements and provides analysis of alternative mitigation plans. EPA has reviewed
this information as well and finds no "fatal flaws." A number of comments have been provided to EPA-
Superfund during review of the ROD Amendment indicating preference for more "on-site" mitigation (i.e., within
Eagle Harbor, specifically restoration of a former marsh at the extreme west end of Eagle Harbor (alternative 9,
section 11.4.1 Habitat Mitigation Possibilities, 404EPA). WSDOT rejected that alternative due to its high cost
and relatively small acreage. The mix of mitigation efforts offered by WSDOT in their proposal, which includes
the off-site mitigation at the Gale Cool property, is judged to adequately compensate for the adverse
environmental effect of the nearshore CDF. A different mix of mitigation elements, which might or might not
include alternative 9, could be offered by WSDOT that also could be judged to provide adequate compensation.
This evaluation, however, is intended to determine whether or not the proposed nearshore project, which
included the specific set of mitigation, complies with the requirements of the §404(b)(l) Guidelines, not whether
a different project might comply "more."
92 Evaluation of Alternatives to Discharge in Special Aquatic Sites. Not applicable at the CDF
site. However, the proposal, by its inclusion of compensatory mitigation, will increase net quantity and quality of
special aquatic sites (i.e., restoration of eelgrass bed, salt marsh wetlands restoration off-site).
10.0 Factual Determinations.
10.1 Physical Substrate Determinations. Creation of the nearshore CDF, remediation of West
Harbor OU sediments, and completion of the mitigation elements of the project will result in alteration of
physical substrates. Approximately 0.9 acres of intertidal habitat will be convened to upland which is judged to
be a negative effect. All other alterations of physical conditions are judged to be environmentally beneficial.
10.2 Water Circulation. Fluctuation, and Salinity Determinations. Because 0.9 acre of presently
intertidal lands will be permanently converted to upland, circulation patterns will be affected. This perturbation
is considered to be insignificant. Water fluctuations and salinities in the long-term will not be affected.
10.3 Suspended Particulates/Turbidity Determinations. The proposed dredging and discharge
activities likely will result in some short-term increases in turbidity. These would be most likely to occur at the
specific points of dredging and near the discharge outlet for the return water from the nearshore site during fill
operations. Levels of turbidity and suspended participates for contaminated sediments are anticipated to be low
due to the methods of dredging and discharge to be employed (i.e., hydraulic dredging). Erosion of the
containment berm, after construction, is not expected to occur as the slopes will be protected and wave exposure
is minimal.
10.4 Contaminants Determinations. The material to be dredged, from the West Harbor OU has
been appropriately characterized and the sediments categorized in terms of their contamination. The quality of
sediments, the quantities of different sediments, and the sequence of removal and appropriate disposal was
carefully considered in development of remedial project plans for the entire OU and reviewed by EPA.
Contaminated sediments will be placed into the nearshore CDF such that they remain saturated to reduce
contaminant mobility and are effectively isolated from the aquatic ecosystem. Clean dredged material (essentially
sediments that would be suitable for disposal at the PSDDA open water disposal sites) or upland borrow will cap
the fill above +12 feet MLLW. Ultimately the site will be paved and equipped with a surface water collection
system.
10 J Aquatic Ecosystem and Organism Determinations. The proposed dredging will have minor
adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and organisms (e.g., temporary loss of benthic community). Filling of
the nearshore disposal site will eliminate the aquatic ecosystem and organisms at that location. Existing
-------
12
biological communities in the West Harbor OU are considered to be degraded due to physical and chemical
perturbations. The benthic communities are expected to be enhanced over the long term due to the removal of
contaminated sediments by dredging and confining the contaminated sediments and backfilling the dredged areas
with dean sediment. The new substrate can be expected to be colonized by a variety of benthic and epibenthic
organisms, the latter being the preferred food organisms of juvenile salmonids. Completion of the mitigation will
increase the amount of high quality intertidal, shallow subtidal and tidally influenced habitat over existing
conditions. The intertidal portions of the benn face will provide a substrate suitable for benthic organisms, also
an improvement over existing conditions.
10.6 Proposed Disposal Site Mixing Zone Determinations. A mixing zone allowance will be specified
by EPA during remedial design and appropriate monitoring required.
10.7 Determination of Cumulative Effects on the Aouatic Ecosystem. Cumulative impacts are
defined as the changes in the aquatic ecosystem that are attributable to the collective effect of a number of
individual discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Although the impact of a
particular discharge may constitute a minor change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous discharges in an
area can result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the productivity and water
quality of the existing ecosystem. Unacceptable adverse effects are not expected from this action because of the
size of the area impacted, compensatory mitigation required, and the general improvements to the aquatic
environment that will result from remediation of the West Harbor OU.
10.8 Determination of Secondary Effects on the Aquatic Ecosystem. Only minor secondary effects
are expected to occur as a result of the use of the proposed nearshore CDF site. The filled area will be used by
WSDOT as a part of their maintenance facility and will accommodate continued operation of a private boatyard
at the site. The area is already in industrial use so no land use change is contemplated. Expansion and
upgrading of the WSF facility will improve runoff and source control at the site. The potential leaching of
contaminants from the confined disposal area has been tested and is addressed in the PDAR-1 and PDAR-2.
The project is designed to minimize leachate release. Accordingly, secondary impacts from this project are not
likely to be significant.
11.0 Review of Conditions for Compliance.
11.1 Compliance with Pertinent Legislation.
11.1.1 State Water Quality Standards and Federal Toxic Effluent Standards. The discharge
activities are not expected to significantly impact water quality. All appropriate and reasonable measures to
minimize water quality effects have been incorporated into the construction design. A water quality certification
will be prepared by EPA following review and approval of the 100-percent design documents.
11.1.2 Endangered Species Act of 1973. The activities associated with this action are in
compliance with this legislation. The proposal has been determined to not impact threatened or endangered
species.
Potential for Significant Degradation of Waters of the United States as a Result of the
Discharge of Polluted Material. The remediation project being undertaken, under the oversight of EPA, will
improve already degraded waters of the United States. Accordingly, this action is intended to reduce human
health and environmental risks due to existing sediment contamination. In order to reduce these risks, some
short-term environmental effects and trade-offs are unavoidable. Although by policy EPA regards any filling of
waters of the United States to be not a "preferred" action, we recognize that it may be prudent or necessary. In
this instance, the area of impact of the CDF is small (less than 1 acre) and no obviously less environmentally
damaging alternative exists. Although future permitted fills within Eagle Harbor are not impossible, they are
-------
13
unlikely given current public concents and regulatory requirements; hence, significant cumulative loss of waters of
the United States in the future at this location are not anticipated. These considerations, along with design
requirements, the inclusion of adequate compensatory mitigation, and other measures to minimize adverse
effects, render the potential for long-term degradation of the waters of the United States as a result of the
discharges evaluated here is unlikely. Short-term water quality effects during dredging and disposal are
anticipated and are expected to be only minor and localized.
113 Steps to Minimize Potential Adverse Impacts on the Aquatic Ecosystem. EPA concludes that
all practicable and necessary steps to minimize effect have been included in the 30-percent design. This includes
minimization of the CDF size and inclusion of adequate compensatory mitigation.
12.0 Findings. The proposed discharges associated with the proposed nearshore CDF, including the
mitigation components, are found to comply with the requirements of the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines by the
inclusion of mitigation specified in the project description. All existing conditions which have been imposed on
various components of this action-via Corps regulatory process (e.g., the nationwide permit for the off-site
mitigation) or other appropriate state or local permits or authorizations (e.g., local zonings)--to minimize adverse
effects are considered to be incorporated into the WSDOT proposed CDF plan..
PREPARED BY:
John Malek Date
Dredging & Contaminated Sediments Specialist
APPROVED BY:
Gary Voerman, Manager 7 'Date
Aquatic Resources Unit
Attachment
-------
Sect/on 404(b)(1) Evaluation
Permit Application
Nearshore Fill Project
West Harbor Operable Unit
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site
Kitsap County, Washington
Prepared for
Washington State
Department of Transportation
December 1, 1995
J-4251-03
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Summary of Proposal 1-1
1.2 Site Background 1-4
1.3 General Description of the Existing Cleanup Remedy 1-5
1.4 Agency, Tribe, and Community Review Forums 1-6
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2-1
2.1 Project Purpose and Need 2-1
2.2 Project Location ' 2-7
2.3 Project Description 2-9
2.4 Method and Characteristics of Construction 2-11
3.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM 3-1
4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM 4-1
5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SPECIAL AQUATIC SITES 5-1
6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON HUMAN USE CHARACTERISTICS 6-1
7.0 EVALUATION AND TESTING OF DISCHARGE MATERIAL 7-1
8.0 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE
EFFECTS 8-1
9.0 ANALYSIS OF PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES 9-1
9.1 Identification and Evaluation of Practicable Alternatives 9-1
9.2 Determination of the Preferred Alternative 9-7
9.3 Evaluation of Alternatives to Discharge in Special Aquatic Sites 9-7
10.0 FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS 10-1
Pagei
-------
Han Crowser
J-4251-03
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
11.0 REVIEW OF CONDITIONS FOR COMPLIANCE 11-1
11.1 Availability of Practicable Alternatives 11-1
11.2 Compliance with Pertinent Legislation 11-1
11.3 Potential for Significant Degradation of Waters of the United States as a
Result of the Proposed Project 11-1
11.4 Steps to Minimize Potential Adverse Impacts on the Aquatic Ecosystem 11-1
12.0 REFERENCES 12-1
TABLES
11-1 Summary of Preliminary Screening of Potential Mitigation Sites;
West Eagle Harbor Nearshore Fill
11-2 Estuarine Assessment Habitat Protocol Summary
FIGURES
1-1 Vicinity Map
2-1 Aerial Photograph (Existing Facilities) - September 9, 1993
2-2 Conceptual Site Development Plan
11-1 Potential Habitat Mitigation Site Plan
11-2 Estuarine Assemblage Species
11-3 Delta Eelgrass Restoration Site
11-4 Wyckoff/Milwaukee Dock Eelgrass Restoration Site
11-5 South Bainbridge Estuarine Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan
11-6 Generalized Subsurface Cross-Section Through Mitigation Site
Page ii
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AOC
ARARs
BMPs
BMS
CFR
CQAP
CWA
CY
DNR
DU
DW
Ecology
EPA
HPAH
HRM
HSP
MHHW
MLLW
MTCA
NPDES
NPL
OMMP
OSHA
PAH
QAPjP
QA/QC
RCRA
RCW
RI/FS
ROD
SAP
SMS
SOW
SQS
SSA
TC
TCLP
TPH
UV
UW
WAC
WDFW
West Harbor OU
Administrative Order on Consent
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Best Management Practices
Bainbridge Marine Service
Code of Federal Regulations
Construction Quality Assurance Plan
Clean Water Act
Cubic Yards
Department of Natural Resources
Dredge Unit
Dangerous Waste
Washington State Department of Ecology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
High Molecular Weight PAH
Highway Runoff Manual
Health and Safety Plan
Mean higher high water (ordinary high water)
Mean Lower Low Water
Model Toxics Control Act
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Revised Code of Washington
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Sediment Management Standard
Statement of Work
Sediment Quality Standard
Soil Stabilization Area
Thick Cap
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Ultraviolet
University of Washington
Washington Administrative Code
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
West Harbor Operable Unit
Page iii
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
WSF Washington State Ferries
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
/xg/L micrograms per liter
Page iv
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
SECTION 404(b)(l) EVALUATION PERMIT APPLICATION
NEARSHORE FILL PROJECT
WEST HARBOR OPERABLE UNIT
WYCKOFF/EAGLE HARBOR SUPERFUND SITE
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document presents an evaluation of a proposed Nearshore Fill
construction project (discharge of fill material) located in the City of
Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. The evaluation has been
performed to address Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(l)
requirements. The project purpose(s) and need(s) are described. Factual
findings are presented which demonstrate that the proposed project will not
cause significant adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Mitigation,
including habitat mitigation proposals, to offset adverse impacts associated
with the proposed Nearshore Fill Project are also described.
1.1 Summary of Proposal
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to
construct a 0.9-acre nearshore fill within the West Harbor Operable Unit
(West Harbor OU) of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site located in
the City of Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington (Figure 1-1).
The project boundaries are located on tidelands of the former Bainbridge
Marine Services (BMS) property, recently acquired by WSDOT as part of
planned expansion of the Washington State Ferries (WSF) Eagle Harbor
Maintenance Facility.
Tidelands proposed for nearshore filling have been used for shipyard and
marine construction operations nearly continuously since 1902. A
Superfund Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) performed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1991) determined that
hazardous substances had been released to the tidelands area, likely as a
result of historical operations. Tidelands within the proposed nearshore fill
area were identified by EPA as sediment "hotspots" requiring remediation
under Superfund. Cleanup goals and requirements are set forth in the
Record of Decision (ROD) for the West Harbor OU (EPA, 1992).
This Section 404(b)(l) Evaluation Permit Application for the Nearshore
Fill Project is being proposed to simultaneously address three
requirements:
Page 1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
1. Future Site Development of an expanded Eagle Harbor Maintenance
Facility will require additional dockside structures such as transfer
spans to access the new larger class ferries. Future development must
also address existing deficiencies at the Maintenance Facility and
provide for increased emergency repair and maintenance services as
additional vessels are brought on line. The proposed 0.9-acre
Nearshore Fill would provide usable upland area critical to the overall
facility upgrade and expansion.
2. Local Community Needs, initially represented by officials of the City
of Bainbridge Island and subsequently verified during the recent public
comment period for this project, include the continued operation of a
private boatyard within the boundaries of the former BMS property
recently acquired by WSDOT. As a pan of the Nearshore Fill Project,
and to accommodate these needs, WSDOT would commit 1 to 1.5 acres
of the recently acquired uplands to provide for long-term operation of a
private boatyard, possibly including the shared use of dock facilities.
Again, the proposed 0.9-acre Nearshore Fill would provide usable
upland area critical to accommodating these local needs.
3. Efficient and Effective Cleanup within the West Harbor OU can be
best achieved by using the proposed Nearshore Fill structure to provide
environmentally safe, on-site containment of contaminated marine
"hotspot" sediments. Construction costs associated with the Nearshore
Fill are lower than the off-site landfill disposal alternative set forth in
the existing ROD. Leaching tests conducted for this project have
demonstrated that water, sediment, and biological quality will be
protected by the Nearshore Fill Project.
In summary, construction of the proposed Nearshore Fill will allow for full
upgrade and expansion of the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility while
simultaneously accommodating a private boatyard at the site. The
combined project would result in a consolidated, efficient, cost-effective
facility that can provide essential repair and maintenance services for both
WSF and the local community. Also, and importantly, the Nearshore Fill
will provide cost-effective, environmentally protective disposal of
contaminated sediments, and will be fully compatible with planned site
development.
As a part of the Nearshore Fill Project, WSDOT is also proposing to
mitigate for the 0.9 acre of aquatic habitat lost with construction of the fill
by performing a variety of habitat enhancement, restoration, and
compensation actions as follows:
Page 2
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
1. Berm Face Enhancement. The habitat value and ecological
functions of the seaward face of the nearshore fill berm will be
enhanced by covering the slope with a layer of gravel and/or small
cobble. This habitat will provide substrata for sessile invertebrates
such as barnacles and mussels as well as macroalgae, and will
resemble the quality of habitat lost within the proposed fill site.
II. Delta Eelgrass Restoration. Approximately 0.6 acres of a
probable former eelgrass community located on a delta immediately
west of the Nearshore Fill will be restored. Sediment capping and
transplantation of eelgrass at the delta site would potentially result
in the establishment of eelgrass communities with superior detritus
' production, feeding, rearing habitat and reproductive habitat
function, and greater potential biodiversity as compared to the
Nearshore Fill site.
m. Off-Site Mitigation/Restoration Estuary. Working with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), the Suquamish Tribe,
Washington State resource agencies, Trout Unlimited, and private
landowners, WSDOT will construct a new 2.0-acre estuary at the
South Bainbridge Estuarine Wetland and Stream Restoration Site.
The estuary will create 2.0 acres of intertidal mudflat and salt
marsh habitat, and will receive stream flow from a separate USFW
creek and wetland restoration/enhancement project. Tidal flushing
and connection of the stream through the wetland represents an
enhancement of several ecological functions above those at the West
Harbor OU Nearshore Fill site.
IV. Tideland Ownership Transfer. Working with private landowners
and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
WSDOT will attempt to arrange for the transfer to Suquamish Tribe
ownership of approximately 6 to 8 acres of tidelands adjoining the
Suquamish Tribal Center northwest of Bainbridge Island. The
tideland transfer would be performed by first purchasing private
tidelands adjacent to the mitigation estuary described above;
transferring these tidelands into DNR ownership (concurrent with an
increase in public access to the tidelands); and then performing a
land swap with DNR to convey the Tribal Center tidelands (under
current DNR ownership) to the Suquamish Tribe. In the event that
DNR elects not to participate in the tideland transfer, ownership of
both the completed estuary and adjacent tidelands will be turned
over to the Suquamish Tribe.
V. Shellfish Enhancement. WSDOT will provide materials for an
approximate 1.5-acre Manila clam enhancement project to be
Page 3
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
conducted by the Suquamish Tribe in tidelands adjacent to the
Suquamish Tribal Center and/or at another appropriate regional
location.
1,2 Site Background
The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site includes areas of a former
wood-treating plant and an adjacent embayment located in central Puget
Sound on the eastern border of Bainbridge Island, Washington (Figure
1-1). A variety of state and federal investigations conducted in the early
and mid-1980s resulted in evidence of sediment, fish, and shellfish
contamination by creosote and related wood-treating chemicals. In
addition, metals contamination was reported in harbor sediments, especially
in the vicinity of the former Hall Brothers Marine Railway and
Shipbuilding Company yard, constructed in 1902-1903 on the northern
shore of the harbor.
The Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor site was proposed for the National Priorities
List (NPL) in 1985, following identification of concerns about hydrocarbon
accumulation and potential human health and environmental hazards. In
1987, the EPA began its Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
of the harbor. The RI/FS, including a baseline risk assessment and the
development and evaluation of remedial alternatives, was completed in
November 1991.
In September 1992, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for
remedial action at the West Harbor OU of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site. The ROD calls for remedial action to address sediment
contamination. As set forth in the ROD, necessary sediment cleanup areas
can be identified based primarily on mercury and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations, which are relatively widespread in the
West Harbor OU. Elements of the ROD include source control,
excavation and upland disposal of mercury "hotspot" sediments, capping of
"high concern" and "moderate concern" sediments, natural recovery where
appropriate, institutional controls, and further environmental monitoring.
In November 1993, EPA and PACCAR Inc entered into an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC), which set forth the requirements for remedial
design of those actions described in the West Harbor OU ROD.
Subsequent to signing the AOC, PACCAR Inc entered into a Site
Participation Agreement with WSDOT and DNR to cooperate with
PACCAR and to share a portion of the effort associated with complying
with the AOC. Hart Crowser, Inc., was retained by both PACCAR Inc
and WSDOT to perform those remedial pre-design and design tasks
described in the AOC.
Page 4
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
The Preliminary (30 percent) Design package for the cleanup of the West
Harbor OU, following the existing ROD and AOC, was submitted to EPA
on June 8, 1995. Concurrent with this effort, a parallel design effort has
been underway for the Nearshore Fill, resulting in a comparable 30 percent
design submittal to EPA on July 7, 1995. A summary of cleanup elements
of the Remedial Design is presented below.
1.3 General Description of the Existing Cleanup Remedy
The cleanup remedy described in the ROD, the AOC, and the Preliminary
Design Analysis Report consists of two major actions: source control and
sediment remediation. Source control will be initiated first and completed
prior to sediment remediation. Source control will include stabilization of
two upland areas containing the highest concentrations of potentially
leachable and/or credible contaminants. Stabilization will be accomplished
by soil solidification with a pozzolan-Portland cement system. Other
source control measures include constructing an asphalt concrete cap across
the former Bainbridge Marine Services (BMS) upland property, installing
hydraulic control measures, and implementing Best Management Practices
(BMPs) as appropriate.
Sediment remediation will include removal and disposal/confinement, as
practicable, of Hotspot sediments containing more than 5 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) total mercury, 1-meter capping of "high concern"
sediments containing more than 2.1 mg/kg total mercury, and 15-
centimeter (6-inch) capping of "moderate concern" sediments which exceed
chemical and/or biological cleanup standards as specified in the ROD.
Under the existing ROD and AOC, Hotspot sediments were to be dredged,
dewatered, and disposed of off site at a permitted landfill facility. In
contrast, this Section 404(b)(l) Evaluation is predicated upon a ROD
amendment being developed by EPA to allow for confinement of Hotspot
sediments within a nearshore fill facility.
Those intertidal sediments adjacent to the Washington State Ferries (WSF)
Bainbridge Ferry Terminal which contain high molecular weight PAH
(HPAH) concentrations above the ROD cleanup standard will be addressed
through source controls and natural recovery. Following the source control
and sediment remediation actions summarized above, long-term monitoring
of the performance of the cleanup remedy will be conducted.
Cleanup would be coordinated with and generally precede site
development. Upland source control activities would also be coordinated
with state Model Toxics Control Act requirements, and are addressed in a
Page 5
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
separate Supplemental Regulatory Evaluation technical memorandum
prepared by Hart Crowser for this project (December 1, 1995).
Detailed descriptions of the Nearshore Fill construction project, which
addresses all Hotspot sediments present within the West Harbor OU, are
presented in the Preliminary Design Analysis Report, and are briefly
summarized in Section 2.3.
As stated above, this Section 404(b)(l) Evaluation Permit Application for
the Nearshore Fill Project is based on a proposal to include confined
disposal of dredged sediments in a Nearshore Fill as an amendment to the
existing ROD. The Nearshore Fill would be used in lieu of off-site landfill
disposal of Hotspot sediments.
1.4 Agency, Tribe, and Community Review Forums
Approval of the Nearshore Fill by EPA, Washington State natural resource
agencies, and the Suquamish Tribe is subject to the identification of
appropriate mitigation. In developing this Nearshore Fill Project proposal,
WSDOT discussed project plans and mitigation alternatives through a
variety of forums with representatives of EPA, USFW, the Suquamish
Tribe, state resource agencies (Marine Coordination Board), University of
Washington (UW), City of Bainbridge Island, and the local community.
Needs, requirements, and recommendations defined during these forums
have been incorporated into the proposed development concept and in the
upland and marine remediation plans. Requests by the City and
community to retain a private boatyard operation as part of the project
have been addressed in the project proposal. Mitigation requirements
defined by EPA, Washington State natural resource agencies, and the
Suquamish Tribe have also been incorporated.
A preliminary analysis of technical and policy issues associated with
mitigation of the proposed Nearshore Fill was prepared by Hershman et al.
(1995). Using this preliminary analysis as a guideline, the Battelle Marine
Science Laboratory (Sequim, WA) performed an initial review of
approximately 12 possible mitigation options. The findings of this analysis
are presented in Section 11.4.
Page 6
-------
cv^/6/95 1 = 1000 HC.pcp
4251042.3
Vicinity Map
Ferry
Terminal
Former Shipyard
WEST HARBOR OU
N
WYCKOFF
FACILITY
OU
0 1000
f-^J-^f-.
Scale in Feet
2000
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 Project Purpose and Need
This section describes the purpose and need for three elements of the
proposed project: 1) expansion of the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility;
2) continued operation of a private boat yard at the site, and 3) use of the
nearshore fill for disposal of contaminated sediments dredged in
conjunction with Superfund remediation of the West Harbor OU.
2.1.1 Expansion of Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility
The Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility needs to be expanded to ensure
that capability and capacity exist to complete maintenance activities and
emergency repairs essential to the safe and dependable operation of the
WSF ferry system. Expansion and upgrade are needed to address existing
deficiencies and to provide for increased demand for emergency repair and
maintenance services that will occur as new vessels are brought on line.
The Washington State Ferry (WSF) system is the largest ferry system in
the United States. Use has increased dramatically since 1986. Over 23
million passengers and vehicles used the WSF system in 1994. The WSF
system primarily serves commuters and is the second largest mass transit
system within Washington State. The WSF system provides a critical role
in assuring the efficient transport of goods and services across Washington
State and among Puget Sound communities and is the number one tourist
attraction in Washington State.
To maintain the existing vessel fleet, vessel improvement programs are
underway including a vessel refurbishing program and a system wide
vessel preservation program involving paint and structural preservation,.
structural steel replacement, mechanical repair, and asbestos abatement.
To meet demand for additional ferry service, three additional new Jumbo
Mark II ferries are under construction, each with the capacity to carry
2,500 passengers and 218 vehicles. Plans to add ten to twelve additional
passenger ferries are also underway. The addition of new vessels further
necessitate upgrade and expansion of maintenance capabilities.
Background. The existing Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility serves the
entire existing 25 WSF vessel fleet and the 20 WSF terminals located
around Puget Sound. The Eagle Harbor yard is the only WSF-operated
maintenance facility within Washington State. The existing maintenance
facility has not been expanded since its acquisition in 1963.
Page 2-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
The existing Maintenance Facility is located along the north shore of Eagle
Harbor central to the greatest number and most heavily traveled Puget
Sound vessel routes. The site has excellent vessel access and berthing
capabilities, and is located within a protected harbor characterized by
relatively steep offshore bathymetry and natural berthing depths ranging
between 15 and 40 feet below MLLW. Road access to the site is from
State Highway 305 (Olympic Way) which terminates at the nearby
Bainbridge ferry terminal.
The majority of maintenance activities are currently completed within a
large three-story building constructed during World War n.
Administrative offices and a lunchroom are also located within this
building. This building has approximately 17,205 square feet of floor
space and is mostly constructed on an over-water, wood piling-supported
pier structure. Other maintenance buildings include three small metal
buildings that house the shore gang or that are used for storage.
Existing operations at the Maintenance Facility include a sheet metal shop,
a carpenter shop, a machine shop, a pipe shop, an electrical shop, and a
paint shop. Other operations include asbestos abatement, engraving,
welding, a shore gang shop which services vessels and terminals, and
warehousing of spare parts for WSF vessels. A variety of maintenance
functions are conducted at the Facility including engine overhaul,
switchboard cleaning, piping system maintenance, interior painting, boat
repair, transfer span cable maintenance, asbestos removal, pump repair and
overhaul, valve repair and replacement, plate labeling, sheet metal joinery,
ventilation ducting, tile and underlayment repair, light system repair and
maintenance, plastic laminate work, control systems, instrumentation, and
maintenance and repair of alarm systems.
Buildings are surrounded by a very congested paved general workyard
area. Truck and vehicle access to buildings and to the single existing
transfer span is through this same workyard area. The workyard is also
used for lay down of parts and equipment, for storage of equipment such
as compressors and fork lifts, and for parking of state and employee
vehicles.
The existing WSF dockside facilities are heavily used and include the
following: 1) an approximate 430-foot-long concrete piling supported pier
used for vessel lay-up that can accommodate up to five vessels 328 feet in
length (Issaquah Class); 2) a transfer span approximately 95 feet long, used
for loading and unloading repair equipment and vessel components, along
with two wood-piling, 25-foot-long wing wall structures that serve to
stabilize vessels berthed at the transfer span; and 3) a U-shaped floating
dock approximately 60 by 80 by 60 feet used to moor a Passenger Only
Page 2-2
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
Ferry or other small vessels (Figure 2-1). The concrete pier and the
transfer span are equipped with full electrical service, compressed air,
water, etc., to facilitate on-board maintenance and repair.
The Maintenance Facility currently employs 106 full-time permanent staff.
This core staff completes the majority of emergency repair and
maintenance at the Facility, but staff are dispatched as needed to complete
on-board vessel maintenance or terminal maintenance throughout Puget
Sound. Emergency repairs are conducted at the Facility as needed
throughout the year. Routine maintenance is usually scheduled between
Labor Day and Memorial Day (winter lay-up) to take advantage of lower
seasonal ridership. Terminal maintenance is generally scheduled during
summer months when ridership is higher.
WSDOT contracts with commercial shipyards for a range of maintenance
services in situations when capacity or specific capabilities are not available
at the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility (for example, major repairs
requiring dry-docking). In 1988, up to 41 percent of the dollar value of
maintenance services were privately contracted. However, the Eagle
Harbor Facility provides the majority of emergency repair service and the
bulk of maintenance services essential to assuring non-disrupted vessel
service. In general, a significant 'savings in cost and time are realized
when maintenance and emergency repairs can be completed by the
Maintenance Facility workforce.
In 1988, WSF contracted with Merit Systems, Inc. to evaluate the need and
options for expansion of the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility, resulting
in a study titled the Maintenance Facility and Work Allocation Study for the
Washington State Ferries (1988 Merit Systems Report). An update of this
study was completed in December of 1994 by Art Anderson Associates,
Inc. (Update of the Maintenance' Facility and Work Allocation Study).
Findings and recommendations of these two reports are incorporated in this
analysis. As part of these studies, facility siting criteria were developed
and potential alternative sites were evaluated for possible relocation of the
Eagle Harbor Facility. Siting criteria and alternative sites are discussed in
Section 9.0 of this report.
In response to specific expansion needs identified in the Merit Systems
Report, WSDOT began efforts to purchase the adjoining Bainbridge
Marine Services (BMS) property. This property provides approximately
3.5 acres of usable uplands, necessary waterfront access, and usable
dockside facilities. The BMS Property was historically a shipyard, and
until recently, was used for ship repair, barge construction, and for storage
of salvaged marine construction timbers and other materials. Existing
buildings on the BMS property include two metal buildings and two small
Page 2-3
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
shoreside sheds. Existing pier and float structures include an approximate
500-foot-long wood piling-supported pier, an approximate 308-foot-long
wood piling-supported pier (pilings and pier structure have severely
deteriorated), and a 75-foot-long wood piling-supported pier and float
structure. Use of existing piers, repaired or replaced as necessary, is part
of the proposed project.
Over the several year course of land purchase negotiations and subsequent
condemnation proceedings, operations at the BMS property have been
gradually phased out. In 1994, to alleviate severe overcrowding at the
Maintenance Facility, a Possession and Use Agreement allowed WSF to
expand -shop operations into an existing metal shed and to utilize
unimproved yard areas located within the BMS property.
Both the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility and the BMS properties are
zoned light industrial.
Project Justification. Ferry system maintenance is a water dependent use
that requires waterfront property for dockside facilities, adequate adjacent
upland facilities for completing maintenance and repair, and a protected
harbor area for ingress, egress, and berthing of vessels. The proposed
project is based on the need for WSF to assure that capability and capacity
exist to conduct emergency repairs and maintenance activities that may not
be available nor cost-effective if provided by private commercial facilities.
The proposed 0.9-acre nearshore fill would provide usable upland area
critical to overall Maintenance Facility upgrade and expansion. As
identified in the Merit Systems Report, limited dockside facilities,
inadequate shop space, and inadequate outside lay-up area severely
constrain current operations and capabilities. Deficiencies are in part the
result of vessel fleet expansion and diversification that have occurred over
the past ten years.
The proposed project reflects functional space requirements identified in
the Merit Systems Report that are the minimum for an adequate, cost-
effective, efficient maintenance facility. (Functional space requirements
are included as part of the Facility Siting Criteria and are described in
Section 9.1). The proposed conceptual project layout, presented on Figure
2-2, incorporates these space requirements and provides for necessary
interface between the maintenance shops, outside workyard, and dockside
facilities. The proposal fully utilizes the existing Eagle Harbor
Maintenance Facility site, the former BMS site, and the proposed upland
area to be created with the proposed Nearshore Fill.
Page 2-4
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
Facility expansion is required to address overcrowding and substandard
conditions in existing maintenance buildings including tire prevention
concerns, worker safety requirements, and environmental requirements,
including hazardous material and waste handling, ventilation systems, and
capture and containment systems. Additional shop and workyard space are
prerequisite to these improvements.
Existing shop layout and shop areas reflect outdated equipment and
procedures dating back to the 1940s. Certain shop activities can no longer
be conducted within the main maintenance building because of deterioration
of the underlying wood piling-supported pier structure, and resulting
weight restrictions limit the type of repair equipment and the type of
repairs mat can be accomplished. All shops require more space to alleviate
severe overcrowding, to operate shop stores effectively, to support new and
larger shop equipment and new repair technologies, and to provide for
more efficient flow of maintenance operations. Additional warehousing for
spare vessel parts is also needed to improve efficiency. Upcoming
expansion of the vessel fleet will further increase and diversify demand for
maintenance services.
The eventual redevelopment of the nearshore fill area will allow better
environmental controls because most operations will be moved upland,
where discharges can be better controlled. This will lower the potential for
spills into Eagle Harbor.
Existing outside work areas are severely congested, and truck and vehicle
circulation is very poor because of limited land availability. Expansion of
the outside work area is needed to provide work lay down and equipment
handling areas and to provide for safe truck and vehicle movement.
Inadequate outside yard area currently constrains repair operations
involving large vessel components.
Additional dockside facilities are needed to assure maintenance and
emergency repair services can be provided for planned vessel fleet
expansion. Currently three new Jumbo Mark H ferries are under
construction and up to ten new Passenger-Only Ferries may be placed in
service before the year 2000. Fleet expansion and efficiency of current
maintenance operations require construction of one or two new transfer
spans and full use of the three piers and other dockside facilities acquired
as part of the purchase of the adjacent BMS property. Because of vessel
length, the larger class ferries, the Super, Jumbo and Jumbo Mark n class
can only be berthed at the transfer spans. There are currently nine vessels
in these classes and only one transfer span berth.
Page 2-5
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
The proposed Project assures that emergency and maintenance repair
services will be available in a location central to the majority of ferry
routes and ferry traffic, and within easy commuter distance to the Colman
Dock and Colman Building which house support engineering functions.
The cost to expand into the BMS site, including land acquisition costs, is
significantly less than the cost of alternate locations. Expansion of the
existing facility also helps to minimize disruption of critical maintenance
service involved with construction. Development of the project at the
existing site takes advantage of existing infrastructure and the proximity to
the Bainbridge Ferry Terminal for dispatch of employees. The Project will
provide considerable public benefit by meeting known needs for in-house
emergency repair and maintenance of the WSF vessel fleet, thus helping to
avoid critical disruption of ferry service. Public benefit will also accrue
because the majority of maintenance services can be provided in a
significantly more cost-effective and timely fashion by the Eagle Harbor
facility, assuming necessary expansion and upgrade can proceed.
Construction of the nearshore fill is the minimum fill necessary to provide
needed upland area for expansion of the Maintenance Facility and to
accommodate continued operation of the private boat yard (discussed in
Section 2.1.2). Expansion to neighboring property is precluded by
waterfront and land availability and land configuration. Steep slopes and
neighboring land uses prevent expansion to adjoining properties.
Expansion of the existing facility takes advantage of the highly skilled
workforce. Continued operation of the facility is supported by the
community as the Facility is a major employer within the community. The
Project is also consistent with the State Growth Management Act and
implements the associated City of Bainbridge Island land use plans which
calls for continued light industrial activities at this site.
The loss of aquatic habitat that results from construction of the Nearshore
Fill can be adequately mitigated with the enhancement, restoration, and/or
compensation elements discussed within this document.
2.1.2 Continued Operation of Private Boat Hard
Approximately one acre of the BMS property is currently leased and
privately operated by the Eagle Harbor Boat Yard as a separate boat yard
and sailboat repair operation. The City of Bainbridge Island and the
community have expressed a strong need for continued operation of a
private boatyard at this site. WSDOT has been diligently pursuing options
that would allow continued operation of a private boat yard.
Page 2-6
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
To accommodate community demand for private boatyard services,
WSDOT proposes to continue leasing this one-acre portion of the BMS
property to a private boat yard operator (possibly acting through the City
of Bainbridge Island), and to construct a new access road and boat ramp.
Although WSDOT purchased the 3.5-acre BMS property to address
identified WSF expansion needs, continued operation of the private boat
yard at this site would reduce land available to meet Maintenance Facility
needs by at least one acre. The Nearshore Fill is therefore necessary to
assure adequate usable upland area.
2.1.3 Nearshore Fill Disposal of West Harbor OU Sediments
WSDOT is proposing to place contaminated marine sediments within the
proposed Nearshore Fill structure. Sediments are to be dredged as part of
the marine cleanup of the West Harbor OU of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund site.
Placement of sediments within the Nearshore Fill is being proposed as an
alternative to upland disposal of these sediments. Placement of
contaminated sediments within the nearshore fill would be completed
pursuant to CERCLA and as directed by EPA.
Construction of the Nearshore Fill structure will provide for
environmentally safe disposal of contaminated sediments in a cost-effective
manner. This solution provides public benefit by combining and
integrating necessary cleanup with redevelopment of the site. Ongoing
management of the nearshore fill disposal site will be facilitated because
WSF, a public entity, will continue to occupy the site.
In summary, construction of the proposed nearshore fill will allow for full
upgrade and expansion of the existing Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility.
The combined project would result in a consolidated, efficient, cost-
effective facility that can provide essential repair and maintenance services
necessary to the operation of the WSF system, and will allow for cost-
effective, environmentally protective disposal of contaminated sediments.
2.2 Project Location
2.2.1 Project Site Location
The Nearshore Fill project site is located on the north shore of Eagle
Harbor on Bainbridge Island, Washington and encompasses both the
existing Maintenance Facility and the recently purchased adjacent BMS
property. Both properties encompass uplands and submerged tidelands. A
Page .2-7
-------
Aerial Photograph - September 9, 1993
West Harbor Operable Unit
Note: Tioal elevation in photograph is approximately 9 feet MLLW (high tide at 12:50 p.m. is 9.3 feet).
4251-04 7/95
Figure 2-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
vicinity map and a conceptual facility development plan are shown on
Figures 1-1 and 2-2.
Adjacent land uses include residential condominiums constructed in the
. early 1980s, the City of Bainbridge's Waterfront Park located to the west
and across from the maintenance facility, and a marina that provides for
moorage of pleasure craft. An open space, steep slope privately owned
forested area ranging in width from approximately 350 to 450 feet
separates the main roadway from the maintenance facility.
The Bainbridge Ferry Terminal is the other major shoreline use within the
immediate vicinity of the Maintenance Facility. Ferry transport of vehicles
and passengers between Seattle and the City of Bainbridge Island (and
surrounding Kitsap peninsula) constitutes a significant use of the harbor.
The Seattle-Bainbridge route serves approximately 3.6 million people
annually with 20 scheduled vessel trips daily. The harbor area is also used
intensively by pleasure craft.
2.2.2 Private Boatyard
As part of this Project, WSDOT is proposing to retain a private boat yard
operation on one acre located within the northwest corner of newly
purchased BMS property. In addition, an access road to a boat ramp
would be provided along the western upland property boundary for use by
the private boatyard operator.
2.2.3 West Harbor OU Location
The West Harbor OU encompasses subtidal and intertidal sediments
offshore and adjacent to the Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility and to the
recently purchased BMS property and encompasses upland sources of
chemical contamination on both sites. Boundaries of the West Harbor OU
cleanup areas are shown on Figure 2-2.
2.2.4 Mitigation Site Locations
As part of the proposed Eagle Harbor Maintenance Facility Expansion
Project, WSDOT is currently proposing a variety of habitat enhancement,
restoration, and compensation actions. Descriptions of these projects are
included in Section 11.4.
Page 2-8
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
2.3 Project Description
The Washington State Ferries, a division of the WSDOT proposes to
construct a Nearshore Fill over an approximate 0.9 acre intertidal marine
submerged shoreline. WSDOT is proposing to place contaminated marine
sediments within the Nearshore Fill structure following dredging conducted
as part of the marine cleanup of the West Harbor OU of the
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. Remediation of the West Harbor
OU is to be conducted pursuant to CERCLA under direction of the EPA.
Detailed construction plans were developed as part of the attached
Remedial Design.
2.3.1 Dredging. Nearshore Fill, and Berm Construction
* Structural fill would be used to construct an L-shaped berm within
intertidal and shallow subtidal marine waters that would form two sides
of the proposed nearshore fill area. The two ends of the L-shaped
berm would tie into the shoreline at elevation 15 feet MLLW. The top
of the berm would be approximately 8-foot-wide and constructed to an
approximate elevation of 15 feet MLLW. Berm slopes would be
approximately 2:1 horizontal to vertical. The berm bottom would
conform to off-shore bottom contours. The bottom elevation of the
berm would be approximately -4 feet MLLW, and would not extend
onto tidelands leased by DNR to WSDOT. The berms would be
located entirely on lands currently owned by WSDOT. Berm bottom
width would vary depending on bottom contours. The width of the
berm bottom would range from approximately 68 to 84 feet.
* Prior to berm construction, sediments below the berm structure would
be overexcavated about 5 feet to create a key for placement of berm fill
material to assure berm slope stability. Approximately 13,500 cubic
yards (CY) of structural fill would be required to construct the berm
and the key.
+ Up to 4,730 CY of contaminated sediments would be dredged and
placed within the nearshore fill structure above the existing mudline and
behind the berm. Contaminated sediments would be placed behind the
completed berm by hydraulic or clamshell dredge below elevation 9
feet MLLW to assure they remain saturated.
» To complete the fill, approximately 7,310 cy of buffer material (clean
fill) would be placed between elevation 9 and 14.5 feet MLLW. The
majority of the clean fill would be borrow from the off-site estuary
construction site. Some fill may also be obtained from local
commercial sources. The Nearshore Fill area would be capped with 2
Page 2-9
-------
Hart Crowser
M251-03
inches of asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches of crushed rock
resulting in a final finished elevation of IS feet MLLW.
» An interceptor trench would be constructed along the shoreline at the
11.4-foot elevation contour (MLLW) to intercept and route
groundwater seepage from adjoining contaminated upland property.
The trench would be excavated to an elevation of 9 feet MLLW and
backfilled with permeable structural fill.
> Specific design considerations for the dredging and disposal of
contaminated sediments are discussed in the Preliminary Design
Analysis Report (Hart Crowser, 1995d).
2.3.2 Maintenance Facility Expansion - Building and Dockside
Construction
Prior to site design, WSDOT will be evaluating the most efficient use of
existing buildings and confirming the best location for various shop and
warehouse activities among new and existing buildings. This evaluation
may result in changes in upland facility layout, including changes to the
location and size of new building structures and workyard layout depicted
on the conceptual plan. However, the location of dockside facilities are
generally expected to remain as depicted on Figure 2-2.
Facility improvements can be generally categorized as 1) new or
replacement dockside facility construction, including piling and wing walls
for mooring ships in overhaul; 2) building construction, building
refurbishing and building demolition; and 3) paving and other yard
improvements, including parking and internal circulation. Proposed
construction includes:
» One or two new transfer spans identified as Berth E and Berth F would
be constructed together with wing wall structures to stabilize berthed
vessels. The transfer spans would be approximately 90 feet long, and
be used to access vessels during emergency repair and as berths for the
largest vessels during annual winter lay-up.
»> The existing wood piling and float structure (approximately 210 feet
long) on the west side of the former BMS property would be replaced.
Floating moorage structures would be anchored from this new pier to
provide four additional berths for lay-up of Passenger Only Ferries.
» A new 18,100-square-foot warehouse and a ISO-square-foot hazardous
materials storage shed would be constructed on the uplands. The two
small metal sheds adjacent to the southerly pier would be demolished.
Page 2-10
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
* Storm water drainage and utility construction would be coordinated
with upland cleanup activities. The outside work yard would be paved
and drained. To help assure the integrity of the upland cap (pavement),
a cut off trench would be placed along the base of the upgradient steep
slope to intercept and route surface and shallow subsurface flow.
Minor grading and fill would be required to assure equivalent site
elevations between the existing Maintenance Facility and the BMS
property boundary.
» Access to the new transfer spans and a new outside lay-up area would
be established over the Nearshore Fill. New gates would be installed
to-provide site security and to limit access.
» It is recognized that the main over-water, wood piling-supported
maintenance building has a limited useful life because of the
deterioration of wood support pilings. Although no specific plans have
been developed at this time, within the next decade the building and
underlying pier support structures will need to be repaired or replaced.
> ' Marine and upland site cleanup activities would generally precede
construction of buildings and other facility expansion improvements.
» Upland site cleanup is not expected to constrain subsequent site
development, although institutional controls are expected to be
established to assure replacement of the upland cap if breached and to
assure adherence to proper construction practices during ground
intrusive activities.
2.3.3 Eagle Harbor Boat Yard Improvements (1 Acre Leased Facility)
WSDOT proposes to retain approximately one acre of the recently
purchased BMS property in operation as a private boat yard. To
accommodate continued operation of the private boatyard, WSDOT
proposes to construct a new marine boat loading ramp to provide for boat
haul out and to launch boats serviced by the private boat yard. This
marine boat loading ramp would be constructed along the southerly side of
property boundary (See Figure 2-2), and may be used by WSDOT for joint
purposes. The boat yard operation may separately propose to construct a
new 6,000-square-foot building within the leased site area.
2.4 Method and Characteristics of Construction
Details of the Nearshore Fill construction are provided in the Preliminary
Design Analysis Report (Hart Crowser, 1993d).
Page 2-11
-------
Conceptual Site Development Plan
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
10.0 FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS
The Nearshore Fill will result in the loss of approximately 0.9 acre of
intertidal habitat which currently supports or could potentially support a
variety of algal species, polychaetes, molluscs, and crustaceans. To the
extent that these organisms are prey items for fish, some reduction in
fisheries abundance could also potentially result from the Project.
Under the requirements of the ROD and AOC, actions to protect both
short-term and long-term water quality conditions associated with the
Project are already incorporated, and will be refined, as a part of Remedial
Design. Construction of the Nearshore Fill will require the use of a short-
term mixing zone for the discharge of settled dredge discharge water (see
Preliminary Design Analysis Report, Hart Crowser, 1995d). However, a
similar mixing zone would also be required under the No Action
Alternative associated with dredging, dewatering, and off-site landfill
disposal of Hotspot sediments via barge (see June 8, 1995 Design Analysis
Report under the AOC).
Based on the results of the SBLT testing and conservative transport
modeling, no additional controls or treatment, beyond the existing design
drawings and specifications of the Nearshore Fill, are necessary to mitigate
long-term impacts to water quality.
Compared with the Off-Site Hotspot Disposal Remedy selected in the
existing ROD, the Nearshore Fill alternative ranked equal to or better than
the Off-Site Hotspot Disposal Remedy for all CERCLA criteria. The
Nearshore Fill alternative satisfies the statutory preference for on-site
remediation, provides for additional reduction of the toxicity and mobility
of metal contaminants, is less expensive, and appears to more fully address
local community and the Suquamish Tribal interests. The Nearshore Fill
alternative is also more compatible with planned site development.
Page 10-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
11.0 REVIEW OF CONDITIONS FOR COMPLIANCE
11.1 Availability of Practicable Alternatives
Based on the discussions presented above, there are no practicable
alternatives to the Nearshore Fill Project. Given WSDOT's long-term
expansion needs, .a private boat yard could not be accommodated at the site
and still allow for future WSDOT expansion requirements.
11.2 Compliance with Pertinent Legislation
Compliance of the proposed project with pertinent legislation is addressed
in the Permitting and Site Access Plan (Hart Crowser, 1995g).
11.3 Potential for Significant Degradation of Waters of the United States as a
Result of the Proposed Project
The nearshore fill component of the West Harbor OU remediation will
result in the loss of approximately 0.9 acre of intertidal and shallow
subtidal habitat, which constitutes a degradation of waters of the United
States. Mitigation of this degradation is addressed below.
11.4 Steps to Minimize Potential Adverse Impacts on the Aquatic Ecosystem
Approval of the Nearshore Fill under Section 404(b)(l), and also by
Washington State natural resource agencies and the Suquamish Tribe, is
subject to the identification of appropriate mitigation. A preliminary
analysis of technical and policy issues associated with mitigation in this
case was prepared by Hershman et al. (1995). An initial review of a range
of possible mitigation options was then prepared by the Battelle Marine
Science Laboratory (Sequim, WA), with the assistance of Hart Crowser.
A summary of the alternatives evaluation is presented below.
11.4.1 Habitat Mitieation Possibilities
Existing Habitat. The bottom substrate between mean higher high water
(MHHW) and approximately elevation -15 feet MLLW in the area of the
proposed Nearshore Fill consists of silty sand to sandy gravel sediments.
Studies conducted by Hart Crowser and others have shown that the area to
be filled contains metal, concrete, sunken logs and other debris. Cobble
and larger rock are present but not common, except in the mid to upper
intertidal zone.
The slope of the nearshore zone varies from relatively steep (i.e., 3:1) to
very flat (150:1). The steepest areas occur between about MLLW and
Page 11-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
elevation -20 feet MLLW along the shoreline between the ship yard and
the WSDOT ferry terminal. The flattest slopes occur in the delta of the
ravine to the west of the ship yard at elevations of 1 to -5 ft MLLW.
Much of the shallow subtidal zone and low intertidal zone contains a heavy
cover of the bladed green alga Viva spp., which grows attached to small
cobble and gravel. An underwater video tape taken in August 1994 of the
proposed Nearshore Fill area shows that this taxon get very lush in this
area. The vegetation appears so lush as to potentially outcompete other
plants including eelgrass (Zostera marina) for light. Many of the blades
growing attached to rocks had fine sediments on them, indicating relatively
recent deposition of fine material in the area. The video tape revealed
areas where Viva is partially buried in the sediment. Sediments containing
buried ulvoids typically are anoxic at the surface. Quiet embayments with
high standing stocks of ulvoids can often indicate an eutrophic situation in
Puget Sound (Thorn et al., 1988). This situation may be exacerbated by
buried seaweeds.
The sediments appear to harbor burrowing macroinvertebrates; possibly
ghost shrimp (Callianassa californiensis), lugworms (Abarenicola pacifica),
sand clams (Macoma spp.) and.horse clams (Tapes capax). Dungeness
(Cancer magister) and/or red rock (Cancer productus) crab were present
but not common along many of the video transects.
Evaluation of Sites and Projects. Potential mitigation sites and projects
are listed in Table 11-1 and shown on Figure 11-1. This list was
developed through field visits in June 1995 to Eagle Harbor and south
Bainbridge Island, examination of historical maps and records, and review
of Remedial Design information. In addition, a review by the University
of Washington of early mitigation plans (Hershman et al., 1995) provided
direction for assessing potential sites and projects relative to resources lost
because of the fill. Hershman et al. ranked their preferences for general
mitigation alternatives. They encouraged the use of on-site, in-kind
mitigation as much as possible. In addition, they suggested that every
effort be made to take a comprehensive and long-term approach to
management of the ecosystem of Eagle Harbor by WSDOT in view of
WSDOT's long-standing utilization of the system. Hershman et al ranked
the mitigation preferences as follows:
1. Low intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat;
2. New mud or sand flats with eelgrass transplants;
3. Enhancement of inner Eagle Harbor tideflats;
4. Water quality treatment wetlands; and
5. New substrate.
Page 11-2
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
In addition, through discussions with the Suquamish Tribe, additional
direction was provided for assessing potential sites and projects relative to
resources lost because of the fill.
The main criteria used to compare mitigation sites and projects are listed in
Table 11-1. Availability of the site through present ownership or purchase
is key to further consideration of the site. Cost consists of a rough
estimate of the total cost for acquisition of the site and construction of the
project, including a credit for the value of excavated materials used to
construct the Nearshore Fill. Linear distance is used here to illustrate the
proximity of the site to the area being impacted. In conducting the present
review, finding sites that met these preferences and that were on site were
emphasized. For this evaluation, we have defined "on site" as being on or
immediately adjacent to the area proposed for filling. In terms of fisheries
resources, sites which occur within Eagle Harbor or are within the
watershed emptying into Eagle Harbor will generally meet restoration goals
better than those outside this system. For avifauna, however, sites outside
Eagle Harbor may be considered within the same landscape if there is
interaction between Eagle Harbor and this system. For example, if
shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors utilize both Eagle Harbor and south
Bainbridge shorelines, they can be considered part of the same landscape.
The type of new intertidal habitat that will be constructed on each site
was determined primarily based on habitats that were historically present
on the sites. Restoration of historical habitat generally increases the
likelihood of success and is relevant to a system like Eagle Harbor that has
a large amount of relatively undisturbed shoreline. In addition, biological
resources that naturally occur in the system will be benefitted by
restoration of habitats that naturally occur there.
The similarity of the new habitat to that filled indicates the degree of in-
kind replacement achieved by the project. Because the habitat receiving
fill is largely mud, sand, small cobble and metal debris, the new habitats
are not exactly like that being filled. Hence, a relative estimate of the
overall benefit of the new system as compared with the filled system is
summarized. The evaluation included a consideration of ecological and
tribal benefits, and encompassed a number of factors including: type of
habitat, level of major ecological functions (e.g., primary production,
resource production, refuge from predation, spawning habitat, and detritus
production), accessibility of the habitat to resources, size, and export of
materials to adjacent habitats (Shreffler and Thorn, 1993). The amount of
difference in ecological benefit between the present site and the restored
sites depends upon the details of the final habitat structure, trajectory, and
time line for development.
Page 11-3
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
This report does not present exact details of plans for each site or project,
and benefits are only contrasted in a general way. Information provided in
the Estuarine Habitat Assessment Protocol (Simenstad et al., 1991) was,
however, utilized for evaluating some of the biological resources that are
commonly associated with each habitat type (Table 11-2). This Protocol
consists of, in part, a list of 105 "assemblage species" that have well-
documented links (e.g., feeding, reproduction) to eight habitat types in
Pacific Northwest estuaries. Figure 11-2 illustrates the number of
assemblage species within each habitat type, and shows the number of
these species that are unique to each habitat. Unique does not mean that
the species are never observed in another habitat, only that data do not
exist that prove that the species is utilizing other habitats for some
function.
Goals of any restoration should be to achieve success and to create a self-
maintaining system. In general, the probability of success is increased
where historical habitats are restored at a site. This assumes that
construction of the habitat is carried out using the best available methods.
Creating habitats that are large enough and in the proper place enhances
the likelihood of self-maintenance. The degree of success in restoring a
habitat in other areas was also considered here.
Sites and Projects. As summarized on Figure 11-1 and in Table 11-1, a
total of twelve sites and 13 projects were identified as initial candidates for
habitat mitigation. Presented in order of increasing distance from the
proposed Nearshore Fill site, each site and project is briefly described
below.
1. Berm Face Habitat Enhancement. The seaward face of the proposed
Nearshore Fill berm presents an opportunity for enhancement of ecological
functions. For this project, the berm face would be sloped as gently as
possible within the constraints of planned uses for the facility. The face,
between elevations 10 and -8 feet MLLW, would be covered with a layer
of pit run gravel or small cobble. This habitat provides substrata for
sessile invertebrates such as barnacles and mussels as well as macroalgae.
This habitat would have potentially somewhat lower diversity of animals as
compared with the filled site. However, the berm face could harbor
greater standing stocks of sessile plants and animals. Benthic infauna
production would be much less than the filled area, but motile small
Crustacea (e.g., amphipods, isopods) which are important prey for some
fish could be greater than in the filled site. Steeply sloping gravel-cobble
habitats are not covered by the Protocol. Although this project would be
on-site, out-of-kind mitigation, the substrata used will resemble somewhat
that presently existing on the fill site.
Page 11-4
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
2. Delta Eelerass Revepetation. The delta eelgrass revegetation site is
located immediately west of the proposed Nearshore Fill (Figure 11-3). A
portion of the delta will receive a thin layer cap of sand. Based upon
elevations, substrata type, and salinity estimates, the delta potentially could
harbor an eelgrass meadow. Eelgrass is presently not reported from this
delta. Reasons for this may be the high biomass of Ulva in the zone where
eelgrass would normally occur. In addition, past physical disturbances,
including historically elevated watershed sediment delivery, may have
eliminated a former stand of eelgrass.
Following sediment capping, transplantation of eelgrass would potentially
result in establishment of an eelgrass meadow at this site. Approximately
1.2 acres located between elevation 0 and -5 feet MLLW are available for
eelgrass planting on the delta. This meadow would have superior detritus
production, feeding, rearing habitat and reproductive habitat function, and
greater potential biodiversity as compared to the site to be filled. Eelgrass
is recognized as a highly important estuarine habitat. Although it contains
a moderate number of assemblage species (Table 11-2; Figure 11-2),
eelgrass supports six unique fish species. Technically, this project would
be on-site, out-of-kind mitigation. However, there is a possibility that
eelgrass once existed in the vicinity of the fill site, and therefore,
establishing an eelgrass meadow could possibly represent in-kind
restoration.
3. Ravine Excavation. A potential area for habitat mitigation is located
at the north end of the ravine located upstream (north) from the proposed
Nearshore Fill area. This area may have historically been a small wetland
area that has been filled.
Present vegetation in the ravine site includes a mixture of trees and shrubs.
The conceptual plan for this site calls for excavation of fill to create a
brackish marsh and adjacent mudflat. The marsh would serve as habitat as
well as contribute detritus to the estuarine system. In addition, the marsh
would be constructed to receive overland flow from the adjacent upland.
The wetland would be designed to partially remove nutrients elevated from
upstream application of fertilizers. This marsh would have greater detritus
production, water processing, sediment trapping, nutrient processing, and
wildlife functions as compared with the site to be filled.
Emergent marshes have both the largest number of assemblage species and
the greatest number of species which are unique (Table 11-2; Figure 11-2).
Fifteen of the Protocol assemblage bird species are unique to this habitat,
indicating that this site would provide a relatively large incremental gain in
bird habitat over the fill site. The surrounding riparian forest would
enhance the quality of the wetland by providing a high quality buffer and .
Page 11-5
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
increased habitat heterogeneity. The wetland would also form a natural
transition between upland and mudflat habitats. This project would be on-
site, out-of-kind mitigation.
Because of the small habitat area created, the high relative cost, and the
low overall ecological and tribal benefit relative to habitat lost, this site
was not retained for consideration.
4. Eagledale Moorage Excavation. There appears to be fill placed over
former marsh and mudflat sediments in the vicinity of this moorage area.
In addition, a dock now covers intertidal habitat adjacent to the upland
area. Removal of the dock and fill, and planting of a salt marsh could
conceivably be carried out at this site.
The resulting salt marsh, gravel, and mud habitats would have similar
characteristics to the historical conditions at the ship yard site. Enhanced
features include increased detritus production, sediment trapping, nutrient
processing, wildlife habitats, invertebrate diversity, and fish foraging. Salt
marsh and mudflats would provide limited increases in the support for
Protocol assemblage species (Table 11-2; Figure 11-2). Strict
interpretation would make this project off-site, out-of-king mitigation.
However, the project may have similar characteristics to the former
conditions at the ship yard.
Because of the small habitat area created, the high relative cost, and the
unlikely availability of the site, this site was not retained for consideration.
5. Wvckoff Log Dump Excavation. The Wyckoff property at the
southeast corner of Eagle Harbor has numerous restoration opportunities.
Two of the most obvious are removal of fill and construction of a marsh/
sand/mudflat habitat at the former log dump area, and restoration of
eelgrass at the Milwaukee dock area. Eelgrass restoration would involve
placement of fill in the boat channel entering the dock.
Both systems would result in greater fisheries and wildlife functions as
compared to the site to be filled. Again, the salt marsh and mudflats
would provide limited increases in the support for assemblage species
(Table 11-2; Figure 11-2). The projects would be considered off-site and
out-of-kind mitigation with the stipulation that the habitats may represent
those which formerly occurred at the site.
Because of the small habitat area created, the high relative cost, and the
low similarity to the filled area, this site was not retained for consideration.
Page 11-6
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
6. Weaver Road End Excavation. A large wooden building and adjacent
din parking lot sit atop fill at the base of Weaver Road. This fill is at least
partially over a former salt marsh. The project at this site would involve
removal of fill and restoration of the former salt marsh. Salt marshes are
common, although small in Eagle Harbor. Based upon the 1872 navigation
chart for the area, it appears that salt marshes formed a narrow,
discontinuous strip around the perimeter of the bay. The salt marsh would
provide greater primary production, detritus production, nesting area for
birds and small mammals, and nutrient trapping and sediment trapping
functions as compared with the filled area. Emergent marsh habitat
provides the greatest number of unique bird species as well as the largest
number of assemblage species overall (Table 11-2; Figure 11-2). Because
the Protocol considered both sedge (brackish) marshes and salt marshes,
the number of species associated with this project (primarily a salt marsh)
is predictably less than the entire list. This project would result in off-site,
out-of kind mitigation for the filled area. However, it is likely that salt
marshes were present historically in the vicinity of the ship yard.
Because of the small habitat area created, the high relative cost, and the
low similarity to the filled area, this site was not retained for consideration.
7. Wvckoff/Milwaukee Dock Eelgrass Revegetation. This project would
restore up to 3 acres of a former eelgrass community located east of the
Wyckoff OU. Eelgrass restoration in this case would involve placement of
approximately 13,000 CY of clean fill per acre of mitigation in the former
boat channel entering the dock. The project is depicted on Figure 11-4.
The restored area would have superior detritus production, feeding, rearing
habitat and reproductive habitat function, and greater potential biodiversity
as compared to the site to be filled. Eelgrass is recognized as a highly
important estuarine habitat. Although it contains a moderate number of
assemblage species (Table 11-2; Figure 11-2), eelgrass supports six unique
fish species. This project would be off-site, out-of-kind mitigation.
8. Former Mill Pond. Vacant land in the vicinity of a fill area and
former sawmill site has several opportunities for restoration. There is a
small cove enclosed by a narrow berm that was created by fill on the
intertidal mudflat. Removal of this berm, and enhancement of existing salt
marsh could be carried out at this site. In addition, a small creek now
underground could be opened and the banks of the creek planted with
riparian vegetation. Finally, some of the present upland appears to be fill.
This material could be excavated and replaced with mudflat and marsh.
The result of the restoration would be increased detritus production,
mudflat infauna assemblages, biodiversity, riparian habitat, and connect the
Page 11-7
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
uplands and the bay. The mudflat system created would, be similar to the
area to be filled. The small salt marsh area enhanced in this property
would provide limited benefits associated with typical salt marshes
primarily because of its small size. The restoration of the mudflat and
stream would enhance the area of mudflat for at least two unique species
(Table 11-2; Figure 11-2), as well as provide direct connection between the
stream and the marsh/mudflat habitats. The remaining habitats would be
considered out-of-kind to the present conditions at the site to be filled.
Because of the small habitat area created, the high relative cost, and the
low similarity to the filled area, this site was not retained for consideration.
9. Head of the Bay Excavation. At the extreme west end of Eagle
Harbor, fill has been placed on a former marsh to create roadway and
upland areas. The 1.0 acre property between the road and the bay could
be excavated to restore the former marsh, and to daylight a creek that now
runs underground. Riparian habitat could also be established adjacent to
the main (open) creek on the north edge of the property.
Construction of a marsh and open stream habitat would result in increased
detritus production, nutrient processing, sediment trapping, and other
marsh habitat functions in the area. Enhancing the creeks would provide
benefit to migratory fish as well as terrestrial animals commonly associated
with riparian habitats. This project is similar to the Weaver Road Fill
project. Again, because this site would contain primarily a salt marsh, the
number of species associated with this project is predictably less than the
entire list. However, the daylighting of the stream and the construction of
a marsh immediately adjacent to the main stream would provide highly
desirable flow of energy, materials, and animals between the marsh and
stream. This project represents off-site, out-of-kind mitigation.
Because of the small habitat area created, the high relative cost, and the
similarity to the filled area, this site was not retained for consideration.
10. South Bainbridge Estuarine Wetland Excavation and Stream
Restoration Project. This project consists of the creation of 2.0 acres of
new intertidal mudflat and salt marsh habitat as pan of the South
Bainbridge Estuarine Wetland and Stream Restoration Project (Figure 11-
5). The site is presently a forest with limited areas of Class in wetlands.
Part of the site was formerly a tidal beach/marsh system, as depicted on
the cross-section presented on Figure 11-6. Restoration of this system will
include reconnection of the property to Rich Passage through a culvert
under the beach road. In addition, a stream that flows from north of the
property will be rerouted to flow into the restored wetland/beach system
and new Class I wetlands created as part of a separate project funded by
Page 11-8
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Details of the project are described by
Amato (1995).
The restoration of tidal flushing and connection of the stream through the
wetland represents an enhancement of several functions above those at the
West Harbor OU nearshore fill site. The system increases the connection
of energy, materials, and resources between upland and open water. In
addition, detritus production would be great along with nutrient processing,
primary productivity, sediment trapping, wildlife and fisheries
reproductive, rearing, and feeding habitat. The site represents off-site and
out-of-kind mitigation, but would have some similarities to historical
conditions at the site to be filled.
11. Suquamish Tideland Transfer. Working with DNR, WSDOT would
try to arrange for the transfer to Suquamish Tribe ownership of
approximately 6 to 8 acres of tidelands adjoining the Suquamish Tribal
Center northwest of Bainbridge Island. This tideland transfer would be
performed by first purchasing existing private tidelands adjacent to the
South Bainbridge Estuary Site (see Project No. 10 above); transferring
these tidelands into DNR ownership (concurrent with an increase in public
access to the tidelands); and then performing a land swap with DNR to
convey the Tribal Center tidelands (under current DNR ownership) to the
Suquamish Tribe. In the event that DNR elects not to participate in the
tideland transfer, ownership of both the completed estuary and adjacent
tidelands would be turned over to the Suquamish Tribe.
12. Suquamish Shellfish Enhancement. In this project, WSDOT would
provide materials for an approximate 1.5-acre Manila clam enhancement
project to be conducted by the Suquamish Tribe in tidelands adjacent to the
Suquamish Tribal Center and/or at another appropriate regional location.
11.4.2 Proposed Habitat Mitigation
Based on the evaluation of the potential mitigation sites described above
and summarized in Table 11-1, WSDOT identified several implementable
mitigation alternatives which had the greatest benefit relative to cost and
availability. Comment on these practicable mitigation alternatives was then
received from the EPA, state and federal natural resource agencies,
Suquamish Tribe, City of Bainbridge Island (including City Council), and
the local community during EPA's public comment period on the proposed
change to the West Harbor OU cleanup plan.
In consideration of the comments received, WSDOT is proposing to
mitigate for the 0.9 acre of aquatic habitat lost with construction of the fill
Page 11-9
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
by performing a variety of habitat enhancement, restoration, and
compensation actions as follows:
I. Berm Face Enhancement. The habitat value and ecological
functions of the seaward face of the nearshore fill berm will be
enhanced by covering the slope with a layer of gravel and/or small
cobble. This habitat will provide substrata for sessile invertebrates
such as barnacles and mussels as well as macroalgae, and will
resemble the quality of habitat lost within the proposed fill site.
II. Delta Eelgrass Restoration. Approximately 0.6 acres of a
probable former eelgrass community located on a delta immediately
west of the Nearshore Fill will be restored (roughly half of the total
area potentially available for restoration). Sediment capping and
transplantation of eelgrass at the delta site would potentially result
in the establishment of eelgrass communities with superior detritus
production, feeding, rearing habitat and reproductive habitat
function, and greater potential biodiversity as compared to the
Nearshore Fill site. Eelgrass planting and monitoring plans will be
developed in more detail as a part of mitigation planning elements
of the Superfund remedial design.
In the unlikely event that initial eelgrass restoration efforts are not
successful at the delta site, WSDOT will be directed by EPA to
develop an acceptable fallback alternative, likely involving either a
second attempt at the delta site or limited additional eelgrass
restoration at another site in Eagle Harbor, possibly near the former
Wyckoff facility.
in. Off-Site Mitigation/Restoration Estuary. Working with the
USFW, the Suquamish Tribe, Washington State resource agencies,
Trout Unlimited, and private landowners, WSDOT will construct a
new 2.0-acre estuary at the South Bainbridge Estuarine Wetland and
Stream Restoration Site. The estuary will create 2.0 acres of
intertidal mudflat and salt marsh habitat, and will receive stream
flow from a separate USFW creek and wetland restoration/
enhancement project. Tidal flushing and connection of the stream
through the wetland represents an enhancement of several ecological
functions above those at the West Harbor OU Nearshore Fill site.
The off-site mitigation estuary is already authorized by nationwide
U.S. Army Corps permits and Ecology verifications of consistency
with state regulations (File Number 95-4-00367; see Supplemental
Regulatory Evaluation Technical Memorandum for this project).
Following the hydraulic project approval review performed by
Page 11-10
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
WDFW, and an engineering review performed by the City's
contractor, the City published a Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance (MDNS) for the project in September, 1995. The
MDNS sets forth certain SEP A requirements which must be met
before the final grading permit will be issued.
WSDOT's responsibility for this project will include eight (8)
elements, as follows:
1. WSOOT will purchase the intertidal habitat project site from the
existing landowner (along with adjacent tidelands in Rich Passage;
see below);
2. Working through a Memorandum of Understanding with the
USFW, WSDOT will provide design information required by the
City as a pan of the MDNS, and will also participate in developing
a site monitoring program. The site monitoring program will
describe specific evaluation methods, performance criteria, and
regulatory agency oversight roles. EPA's comments on the draft
site monitoring plan will be addressed by WSDOT;
3. WSDOT will clear, excavate, and grade the site to create
approximately 2.0 acres of new intertidal habitat. Construction will
likely be completed prior to December, 1996;
4, The excavated materials will be temporarily stored at a suitable
on-island location and later used for construction of the West
Harbor OU Nearshore Fill;
5. WSDOT will install a new bottomless arch culvert to reestablish
the historic tidal connection between the excavated area and Rich
Passage;
6. Following stabilization of the site, WSDOT will revegetate the
restored estuarine wetland with native salt marsh species as set forth
in the MDNS;
7. WSDOT will place a deed restriction on the estuary property
perpetuating its use as a wildlife habitat. Property uses such as
active mariculture (e.g., net pens) will be precluded by the deed
restriction. Title to the completed estuary will be relinquished
either to the Suquamish Tribe or to WDFW; and
Page 11-11
-------
Hait Crowser
J-4251-03
8. WSDOT will be responsible for monitoring and maintenance of
the restored estuarine wetland until the system is demonstrated to be
viable and self-sustaining (typically within 10 years of construction).
IV. Tideland Ownership Transfer. Working with private landowners
and the DNR, WSDOT will attempt to arrange for the transfer to
Suquamish Tribe ownership of approximately 6 to 8 acres of
tidelands adjoining the Suquamish Tribal Center northwest of
Bainbridge Island. The tideland transfer would be performed by
first purchasing private tidelands adjacent to the mitigation estuary
described above; transferring these tidelands into DNR ownership
(concurrent with an increase in public access to the tidelands); and
then performing a land swap with DNR to convey the Tribal Center
tidelands (under current DNR ownership) to the Suquamish Tribe.
In the event that DNR elects not to participate in the tideland
transfer, ownership of both the completed estuary and adjacent
tidelands will be turned over to the Suquamish Tribe.
V. Shellfish Enhancement. WSDOT will provide materials for an
approximate 1.5-acre Manila clam enhancement project to be
conducted by the Suquamish Tribe in tidelands adjacent to the
Suquamish Tribal Center and/or at another appropriate regional
location.
Page 11-12
-------
Distance*)
Kilometers
Mitigation or Restoration Site to Fill Site
1. Berm Face Habitat Enhancement
2. Delta Eelgnss Revegetation
3. Ratine Excavation
4. Eagledale Moorage Excavation
3. WyckofTLog Dump Excavation
6. Weaver Road End Excavation
7. Milwaukee Dock Eelgrass Revegetation
8. Former West Harbor Mill Pond:
a) Pond Berm Excavation
b) SoifStream Excavation
9. Head-of-lhe-Bay Excavation
10. South Bainbridge Excavation
1 1 . Suquamish Tideland Transfer (0
12. Suquamish Shellfish Enhancement
NOTES:
a) Rough estimate of total site-specific costs fo
0
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.6
2.0
3.4
11.6
11.0
r purchase.
wamas mmfnmm ancv; '
Habitat
Sin in
Hectares Availability
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
1.3
O.I
0.4
0.4
. 0.8
2.8
0.6
constiw
Yea
Yes
Possible
Unlikely
Possible
Possible
(d) Likely-
Possible
Unlikely
Yes
Yes
Possible (0
Yes
lion, and 10 year i
rveai dope
Rough
Cost (a)
$10,000
$140,000
$300,000
$200.000
$500.000
$500,000
$310,000
$50,000
$300.000
$700.000
$250.000
$10,000
$50.000
maintenance'i
»rwor rfcvanorc ria
Restoration
New Intertidal of Historical
Habitat Habitat
Cobble
Eelgrass
Manh/Mudflal
SaltManb/Sandflat
SaltManh'Sandnal
Salt Marsh
(e) Eelgrass
Mudflat/Sah Marsh
Salt MarshiurBmi«h River maintenance dredffin* nmiecl.
0 The Suquamish Tideland Transfer project is contingent upon two events: I) WSDOTs purchase of appropriate privately held lidelands; (the slated cost estimate assumes concurrent purchase by WSDOT
of South Bainbridge Site) and 2) DNR*S concurrence Out the lidcland transfer is in the Stale's interest, per 79.90.455.
425IM/PRESCRN.xls
-------
Table 11-2 Estuerine Aitenment HiblUI Protocol Summary
Sheet I of3
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
GROUP
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Jirds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Birds
Fish
SPECIES
American coot
American goldfinch
American widgeon
black brant
>lack trunstone
budlehead
Canada goose
cassins auklet
common goldeneye
common merganser
common murre
common snipe
dark-eyed junco
double-crested cormorant
dunlin
gadwall
glaucous-winged gull
great blue heron
greater yellowlegs
green-winged teal
homed grebe
killdeer
least sandpiper
mallard
merlin
mew gull
northern oriole
osprey
red-breasted merganser
red-tailed hawk
redwing blackbird
savannah sparrow
short-billed dowitcher
short-eared owl
song sparrow
spotted sandpiper
Virginia rail
western grebe
western sandpiper
bay goby
EMEU MARSH
*
..
\
,
;
^ : r
- "
..-.%.-.' . . .. .." ..
t -.H ^
f"
«
*' ,-. '''
$ * ;-- v v
^ '" -. ''ff
>^-.'f"l< "" f ^ s- "x" vw %
% \ ^ % J- v ..
MVDFLAT
' ' .
'
:
'< ,
,-- ! ^ ^>J
" . .
SANDFLAT
-
"-'^X-" ^V^
GRAV.COB.
"
'
? - , , "< ^
EELGR.
-
V
\ " "
- x / '"' '
' f
* Y ''' £
SUBT.SOFT
"' . "" '\ <".""
SVBT.HARD
WAT. COL
' '
' '" - , " "'
-
' ' :''
-------
Tible 11-2 Eituerlne Anesimeot Habitat Protocol Summary
Sheet 2 of 3
NO.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
SO
SI
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
GROUP
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
ish
rish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
SPECIES
bay pipefish
black rockfish
brown rockfish
buffalo sculpin
uibezon
chinook salmon
chum salmon
coho salmon
copper rockfish
C-Osole
crescent gunnel
cutthroat trout.
dolly varden
Dover sole
English sole
great sculpin
green sturgeon
hybrid sole
kelp greenling
kelp perch
largescale sucker
lingcod
mountain whitefish
northern anchovy
northern squawfish
Pacific cod
Pacific hake
Pacific herring
Pacific sandlance
Pacific sanddab
Pacific staghom sculpin
Pacific tomcod
padded sculpin
penpoint gunnel
pile perch
pink salmon
quillback rockfish
ratfish
river lamprey
rock sole
EMER. MARSH
f- ', - '; \ % ff
f^ x-.**'' ^ vYf f \ f *"
V ,",X f" >/ ' "
MVDFLAT
/. " '
* '
SANDFLAT
'-.',
GRAV.COB.
, '** "''/I
'
- ,
-. ,
~"f
'- ' ^ff ' ^ * ""
- ,
..' ^v
' ' '
EELGR.
- '\ '<> t
'* ^ % %'
', ' , *s. " s
' ; %« '
-
v$ -.- > ;^
SUBT.SOFT
r; -/'<*" ?'"' -"- ",
'.,' , ' * '
'' * > ,% io - '
., V , )
\ ',, ^ ,-,~, -
^' ";"'"'' >s
SVBT.HARD
^ -.-.> ^ ff
* *"
/ 4*-;\-A^"
"-!^vs;
sJ\ /"" ,«
'V r^-t^^ <
i w % " wv
= ,"-^ ^%-%% % ,
^^r%\v.:
**'*, "'"^- V-" **«
-------
Table 11-2 Eituerine Aneismtnl Habitat Protocol Summary
Sheet 3 of 3
NO.
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
too
101
102
103
104
105
GROUP
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Mammal
Mammal
Mammal
Mammal
Mammal
Mammal
Mammal
g:4362Nprolocol.xls
SPECIES
rough sculpin
sand sole
shiner perch
snake prickleback
soft sculpin
speckled sanddab
starry flounder
steelhead trout
striped seapcrch
sturgeon poacher
surf smelt
Ihreespine stickleback
tube-snout
walleye pollock
western brook lamprey
whitespotted greenling
Dungencss crab
red rock crab
Gray whale
EMEU MARSH
MUDFLAT
mtmmmf
muskrat 1*
northern sea lion
Pacific harbor seal
raccoon
river otter
f- ' * "* >
Townsend vole ; ,
SANDFLAT
-
-
-
- ' ,-
GRAV.COB.
-
V-
EELGR.
''
%
SUBT.SOFT
-
SUBT.HARD
WAT. COL
.. *. ,.. ,
,
-
: ' 1\& ' ' "
-------
Potential Mitigation Site Plan
Potential Mitigation Site Q
Location and Number
Scale in Feet
Note: Base map prepared from a U.S. Department of Commerce map of
Seattle to Bremerton. Washington, dated July 4. 1992.
J-42B1-O4 7/95
Figure 11-1
-------
Estuarine Assemblage Species
00
oo
36
34
32
30
28
t4
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
A
2
Xvs ' '
1^
flT;
ll-^'}
K,' 's^
*< "'
>-?-)
>£;- * >
It-;
^" £'
&*?
?f?r '
'
-
\
EM
I
MF
^
I :
i
SF
1
:
i
i
i
\
n
ife!
%$'ty%}
"*'&'/')
w$>.
\
GC
PVo5^
§ j Xv v<
^ ^
W '--*.
3t ,\
\
EG
^*
: > -" " ^
y^'"" %
v//
gv ,
£v,;,
f\> j
~ff ff^f
t^1. "^/ /^
r~;, ':
3- ' xv
1
ss
\, ',4."
|;p
i^ *
\
SH
"'%""'"'?
«. "_,!
M-% ' '" =
; ^.v ^
A ^^
&-}
V-'"'!,''
»s- >'
N- '^ ;;
^,
_
1
we
Habitat
Not Unique to Habitat
} Unique to Habitat
EM = Emergent Marsh
MF= Mudflat
SF = Sand Flat
GC= Gravel-Cobble
EG = Eelgrass
SS= SubtidalSoft
SH= SubtidalHard
WC = Water Column
J-4251-04
Figure 11-2
7/95
-------
CV 11/t/M l-l HC4CV Hit* MM.O>g
Delta Eefgrass Restoration Site
120
^Propose
^Eelgrass
Restorati
-------
c«l IJ/I/W l-l «c.pct>
Eefgrass Restoration Site
Wyckoff/M/lwaukee Dock
to
£
Ol i
Proposed Eel gross
Restoration Site
Eelgrass amd Eelgrass Edge
Sand and Eelgrass
Sand
Not to Scale
-------
Generalized Subsurface Cross Section Through Mitigation Site
Southeast
Note; t;«nl and ivtMncnl out inlntxtlolbn ol
tubttMlnCfl tantfiliuni bOM4 on CiKtcMly o*o*oN« Oslo.
I-
I
liv.l Hit Nuinbci
IRS! Pit location
"U!>e
-<;ov 10
tttminr l.lwit ill lii'iinm til Hiijh tide
itioiis mid
1 MHMirr l»t(Tfil nl I o'lniHt
I (llir.ii'l' on -jir- titi:;i:ivuti
1 IHHI innp-; )
J-42SI-04 12/88
Figur* tl-a
-------
ATTACHMENT A
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
12.0 REFERENCES
Amato, C., 1994. South Bainbridge Estuarine Wetland and Stream
Restoration Project Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia,
Washington. February, 1995. 18 pp. + Appendices.
Ankley, G.T., N.A. Thomas, D.M. DiToro, D.J. Hansen, J.D. Mahoney,
W.J. Berry, R.C. Schwartz, R.A. Hoke, A.W. Garrison, H.E. Allen, and
C.S. Zarba, 1994. Assessing potential bioavailability of metals in
sediments: A proposed approach. Environmental Management 18:331-
337.
Art Anderson Associates, Inc., 1994. Update of the Maintenance Facility
and Work Allocation Study.
Brannon, James M., Tommy E. Myers, and Barbara A. Tardy, 1994.
Leachate Testing and Evaluation for Freshwater Sediments. Miscellaneous
Paper D-94-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station.
Cheney, D., R. Oestman, G. Volkhardt, and J. Getz, 1994. Creation of
rocky intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats to mitigate for the
construction of a large marine in Puget Sound, WA. Bulletin of Marine
Science 55(2&3):772-782.
EPA, 1992. West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site Record of Decision. September 29, 1992.
EPA, 1993a. Statement of Work for Remedial Design for the West
Harbor Operable Unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Kitsap
County, Washington. October 1, 1993.
EPA, 1993b. Administrative Order on Consent for the Remedial Design
for the West Harbor Operable Unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site, Kitsap County, Washington. November 10, 1993.
Hart Crowser, 1994a. Final Remedial Design Work Plan Section 1.0
through 6.0, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, West Harbor Operable
Unit, May 6, 1994.
Page 12-1
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
Hart Crowser, 1994b. Draft Final Remedial Design Work Plan -
Identification and Evaluation of Significant Sources, Sampling and Analysis
Plan (SAP), Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP), and Health and
Safety Plan (HSP) - Appendices A, B, and C, West Eagle Harbor Operable
Unit Remedial Design, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Kitsap
County, Washington. March 4, 1994.
Hart Crowser, 1994c. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP), and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) -
[Appendices D,E, and F], West Eagle Harbor Operable Unit Remedial
Design, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Kitsap County,
Washington, July 25, 1994.
Hart Crowser, 1994d. Scope of Work for Additional Sampling and
Analysis and Initiation of Treatability Testing of Upland Soils; West
Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, August 23,
1994.
Hart Crowser, 1994e. Scope of Work for Additional Sampling and
Analysis, West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund
Site, October 1,1994.
Hart Crowser, 1995a. Pre-Design Field and Data Report, West Harbor
Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Kitsap County,
Washington. Prepared for PACCAR Inc and Washington State
Departments of Transportation and Natural Resources, January 30, 1995.
Hart Crowser, 1995b. Interim Technical Memorandum, Upland Source
Evaluation, West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund
Site, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for PACCAR Inc and
Washington State Department of Transportation, April 14, 1995.
Hart Crowser, 1995c. Field and Data Report, Sequential Batch Leaching
Test, West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site,
Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for Washington State Department of
Transportation.
Hart Crowser, 1995d. Preliminary Design Analysis Report, Nearshore Fill
Option, West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund
Site, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for Washington State
Department of Transportation, July 7, 1995.
Page 12-2
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
Hart Crowser, 1995e. Field and Data Report, Modified Elutriate Test,
West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site, Kitsap
County, Washington. Prepared for PACCAR Inc. and Washington State
Department of Transportation, July 7, 1995.
Hart Crowser, 1995f. Draft, CERCLA Technical Evaluation and Cleanup
Alternatives, Nearshore Fill Project, West Harbor Operable Unit,
Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor, Superfund Site, Kitsap County, Washington.
Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, July 17,
1995.
Hart Crowser, 1995g. Preliminary Permitting and Site Access Plan.
Nearshore Fill Option, West Harbor Operable Unit, Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor
Superfund Site, Kitsap County, Washington. Prepared for Washington
State Department of Transportation, July 14, 1995.
Hershman, M., A Cupping, J. Cordell, C. Ebbesmeyer, S. Fangman, S.
Schauman, R. Thorn, C. Simenstad, S. Willie-Escheveria, 1995.
Structured Review of Mitigation Criteria and Options for Nearshore Fill
Proposed by WSDOT at the Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. School of
Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Hershman, M., S. Willie-Escheveria, and S. Fangman, eds., 1995.
Structured review of mitigation criteria and conceptual design for the
nearshore fill proposed by WSDOT at the Eagle Harbor Superfund Site.
Prepared for Environmental Affairs Office Washington Department of
Transportation, Olympia, Washington. School of Marine Affairs,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Hotchkiss, D.A., and C.D. Boatman, 1994. Nearshore Confined Disposal
in a Tidally-Influenced Environment-Design and Operation Experience in
Puget Sound. Second International Conference on Dredging and Dredged
Material Placement.
Merit Systems, Inc., 1988. Ken Fox and Stanley Stumbo. Maintenance
Facility and Work Allocation Study for the Washington State Ferries.
Myers, Tommy E., James M. Brannon, and Cynthia B. Price, 1992.
Recent developments in leachate testing and evaluation. Miscellaneous
Paper D-92-2. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station.
Page 12-3
-------
Hart Crowser
J-4251-03
Shreffler, D.K. and R.M. Thorn, 1993. Restoration of urban estuaries:
new approaches for site location and design. Prepared for Washington
State Department of Natural Resources by Battelle Pacific Northwest
Laboratories, Richland, Washington.
Simenstad, C.A., C.D. Tanner, R.M. Thorn, and L.L. Conquest, 1991.
Estuarine habitat assessment protocol. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington, by Fisheries Research
Institute, University of Washington. EPA 910/9-91-037.
Thorn, R.M., A.E. Copping and R.G. Albright, 1988. Nearshore primary
productivity in Central Puget Sound: A case for nutrient limitation in the
nearshore systems of Puget Sound. Pages 378-391 in Proceedings. First
Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research. Vol. 2, Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington.
SECT404.fr
Page 12-4
-------
Appendix B
Letter of Concurrence from
The Washington Department of Ecology
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
(360) 407-6000 TDD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 407-6006
November 30, 1995
Ms. Elly Hale
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue, HW-113
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Ms. Hale:
The Department of Ecology has reviewed the proposed amendment to the 1992 West Eagle
Harbor Record of Decision. The proposed changes are: 1) to use near shore disposal rather
than upland disposal, and 2) to add remedial actions at the shipyard facility which will prevent
movement of contamination from the upland area into Eagle Harbor in this ROD. Habitat
mitigation will compensate for the loss of approximately one acre of tideland.
Ecology concurs with these changes.
If you have questions, please contact Curtis Dahlgren at (360) 407-7187 or Lynn Coleman at
(360) 407-7194.
Sincerely,
^}^^A £.
Mary E. Burg, Program Manager
Toxics Cleanup Program
cc: Curtis Dahlgren, Policy and Technical Support Section
Lynn Coleman, Policy and Technical Support Section
-------
Appendix C
Memorandum of Agreement
WSDOT and City of Bainbridge Island
-------
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between the
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and the
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
Regarding
LONG-TERM PRIVATE, WATER-DEPENDENT INDUSTRIAL
OPERATIONS
L PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is to set forth
WSDOTs agreement to enter into a long-term (minimum 20-years) lease on
approximately 1-acre of property recently acquired by the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) immediately adjacent to the existing
Washington State Ferries maintenance facility. The lease will perpetuate
continual use of the property for private water-dependent industrial or
commercial operations. WSDOT's agreement is in consideration of the City's
anticipated approval of WSDOT's future development plans for the
expansion of its maintenance facility. This MOA is being executed as part of a
proposed nearshore fill alternative for the cleanup of the West Harbor
Operable Unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site and is contingent
thereon. .
D. BACKGROUND
WSDOT has recently acquired property in Eagle Harbor formerly owned by
Bainbridge Marine Services, to allow for expansion of the Washington State
Ferries maintenance facility. Concurrent with this acquisition, WSDOT has
participated with PACCAR Inc. In the design of sediment remediation in the
West Harbor Operable Unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. IN
consideration of new information obtained during the design effort, and in
order to facilitate WSDOT's facility expansion and address local community
needs for maintaining a private boatyard facility or other private water-
dependent industrial or commercial operations in this area, WSDOT has
proposed to construct a 0.9-acre nearshore fill on Eagle Harbor tidelands
owned by WSDOT. Project approval by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), under the authority of both Superfund and the Clean Water
Act, is necessary prior to construction.
WSDOT and the City of Bainbridge Island both understand the strong desire
of the local community to set aside approximately 1 acre of WSDOT's
recently acquired site for long-term lease by a private water-dependent
industrial or commercial operation such as a boatyard, consistent with the
-------
City of Bainbridge Island's comprehensive land use plan and direction
provided under the state Shoreline Management Act. Accommodation of
such a private operation at the site was an objective of the WSDOT/EPA
nearshore fill proposal. In order to provide both EPA and the local
community with additional assurances that private water-dependent
industrial or commercial operations will continue at the site, WSDOT and
the City of Bainbridge Island have jointly developed this MOA.
m. PROVISIONS
In consideration of mutual promises herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Approval of Future Site Development Permit Applications. The City
of Bainbridge Island is expected to approve forthcoming development plans
and associated permits for the expansion of the Washington State Ferries
maintenance terminal at Eagle Harbor. Nothing in this MOA is intended to
prevent the City from requiring additional mitigation including, but not
limited to, construction of noise and view buffers as a part of their normal
development review and permit approval process.
2. WSDOT agrees to enter into a long-term lease or leases, for a
minimum of 20 consecutive years from the date of this agreement, of an
approximate 1-acre area to either a private water-dependent industrial or
commercial operation or to the City of Bainbridge Island.
IV. EXECUTION
This agreement becomes effective upon signature of the City of Bainbridge
Island and the Washington State Department of Transportation.
Washington State Department City of Bainbridge Island
of Transportation ^-%
Date: ..l^fM-U
Approved as to Form:
D Q
-------
Appendix D
Memorandum of Agreement
WSDOT and the Suquamish Tribe
-------
*-ut.i~ kW '» W Atm tHv Hrr-Hifto U-» itt
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between the
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and the
SUQUAM1SH TRIBE
Regarding
HABITAT MITIGATION FOR EAGLE HARBOR NEARSHORE FILL
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement is to clarify the specific actions
which will be taken by the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) and the Suquamish Tribe with respect to the nearshore fill project and
associated habitat mitigation. The actions described within this agreement are
contingent upon the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amending die Record
of Decision to allow the nearshore fill. The nearshore fill project and actions .
described within the agreement are also contingent upon the state acquiring fee title
to Tax Parcels 042402-1-037-2007 and 042402-1-062-2005.
II. BACKGROUND
WSDOT has recently acquired property in Eagle Harbor formerly owned by
Bainbridge Marine Services, to allow for expansion of the Washington State Ferries
maintenance facility. Concurrent with this acquisition, WSDOT has participated
with PACCAR Inc. in the design of sediment remediation in the West Harbor
Operable Unit of the Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund Site. In consideration of
new information obtained during the design effort, and in order to facilitate
WSDOTs facility expansion and address local community needs for maintaining a
private boatyard facility in this area, W5DOT has prnnmM to construct 10.9 ooro
nearshore fill on Eagle Harbor tidelands owned by WSDOT. Project approval by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the authority of both
Superfund and the Clean Water Act, is necessary prior to construction. WSDOT
also seeks approval from the Suquamish Tribe because the project lies within the
Suquamish Tribe's usual and accustomed fishing area, secured to the Tribe under
the Point Elliott Treaty of 1855 and adjudicated by the federal courts.
Habitat mitigation is necessary to compensate for die loss of existing Eagle Harbor
tidelands beneath the 0.9-acre nearshore fill. Possible habitat mitigation options
recognized under die Clean Water Act include habitat restoration, creation,
enhancement, and/or compensation. Based on general guidance provided for this
project by die University of Washington, and in consultation with the Suquamish
Tribe and affected federal, state, and local agencies, proposed mitigation plans for
die nearshore fill include a combination of new estuarine wetland creation, eelgrass
revegetation, habitat enhancement, and tideland property compensation.
-------
kW:idr-l'i tJiv MprMiir
III. P^p VISIONS
In consideration of the mutual promises herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Tribal Comment of EPA's Proposed Plan. Prior to October 13. 1995, the
close of EPA's formal comment period for the Proposed Changes to the West
Harbor Cleanup Plan, the Suquamish Tribe will notify EPA of its decision to accept
the proposed mitigation outlined below for the Eagle Harbor nearshore fill.
WSDOT will address to the maximum extent practicable the local community's need
of maintaining a private boatyard facility in this area.
2. Nearshore Fill Design. Following an anticipated formal change to the Eagle
Harbor cleanup plan by EPA, WSDOT will work with PACCAR Inc. to develop .
the final design for the nearshore fill, including a detailed habitat mitigation plan.
Although EPA will be responsible for final approval of the design submittals
pursuant to Superfund and the Clean Water Act, the Suquamish Tribe will be
provided a further Opportunity to review and comment on draft .final design
documents and mitigation plans. WSDOT will incorporate the Tribe's comments to
the maximum extent practicable, provided they do not conflict with the
understanding presented in this Memorandum of Agreement or with enforcement
direction provided by EPA.
3. Benn Face Enhancement. WSDOT will enhance the habitat value and
ecological functions of the seaward face of the nearshore fill berm by covering the
slope with a layer of gravel and/or small pebbles.
4. Eelgrass Revegetation. WSDOT will perform a revegetation project in an
effort to introduce approximately 0.6 acres of eelgrass located on a delta
immediately west of the nearshore fill. In the event that initial revegetation efforts at
the delta site are not successful, WSDOT will develop an acceptable fallback
alternative, likely involving either a second attempt at the delta site or an attempt to
revegetate approximately 0.6 acres of eelgrass at a site near the former Wyckoff
facility.
5. Restore Estuarine Wetland. In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Suquamish Tribe, resource agencies, Trout Unlimited, and private
landowners, WSDOT will conduct a 2.0-acre estuarine wetland restoration project
on Tax Parcels 042402-1-037-2007 and 042402-1 -062-2005 situated near
Lynwood Center, Bainbridge Island. The wetland restoration project will include
restoring tidal influence to part of the project site, establishing conditions suitable
for restoration of an estuarine wetland! revegetating the restored estuarine wetland
with appropriate native plant species, and providing long-term monitoring and
maintenance for a period of ten years. The relocation of an existing unnamed
stream to a new stream channel that will flow through the restored estuarine wetland
will be performed by a separate Trout Unlimited creek restoration/enhancement
project In the event that the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) participates in a related tideland ownership transfer (see 46 below), fee title
to the completed estuary will be turned over to Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife, In the event that DNR does not participate in the related tideland
transfer, fee title to the completed estuary will be turned over to the Suquamish
Tribe, reserving the right of entry to WSDOT to perform monitoring, and WSDOT
will provide the Tribe with additional compensation equivalent to five years local
property taxes on die property, conveyed at the rate in effect at the time of
conveyance.
-------
HH-HJ.KS
6. Tideland Ownership Transfer. WSDOT will attempt to arrange for the
transfer to the Suquamish Tribe of tidelands, designated as Beach Identification
Number 260480, approximately six to eight acres of tidelands adjoining die Tribal
Center. These tidelands are currently held by DNR. The transfer will be attempted
through an exchange of privately held tidelands described in paragraph 5 above for
the Beach Identification Number 260480 tidelands held by DNR. WSDOT
understands the importance of this tideland transfer and will work to die maximum
extent practicable to arrange for this tideland transfer, including, but not limited to,
correspondence and/or testimony supporting this tideland transfer to DNR, the
Board of Natural Resources, and appropriate individuals and entities. However, if
DNR does not participate in the tideland transfer within two years after this
agreement becomes effective, WSDOT will convey to the Suquamish Tribe
approximately six acres of tidelands adjoining the new estuanne wetland (see #5
above). In this event. WSDOT will provide the Tribe with additional compensation
equivalent to five years of local property taxes on (he property, conveyed at the rate
in effect at the time of conveyance.
7. Shellfish Enhancement WSDOT will contribute $35,000 for materials for
shellfish enhancement project(s) to be conducted by the Suquamish Tribe in
tidelands adjacent to the Suquamish Tribal Center and/or other appropriate
location(s). In the event the DNR does not participate in the tideland transfer (see
#6 above), WSDOT wtil increase its commitment to 570,000.
IV. EXECUTION.
This agreement becomes effective upon signature of the Suquamish Tribe and
Washington State Department of Transportation and may be revised upon mutual
agreement.
Washington State Department / Suquamish Tribe
ofTr
Date
Approved As To Form:
&
Office of the Attorney
------- |