EPA 910/9-75-012
JANUARY 1976
EPA-10-WA-KITSAP-CENTRAL KITSAP CO -WWTW -76
SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE
EPA PROJECT NO.C-530494-01
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
-------
Supplement to the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
EPA Project No. C-530494-01
Prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
January 1976
Prepared with the Assistance of
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.
600 Bancroft Way 6420 Wilshire Boulevard
Berkeley, California 94710 Los Angeles, California 90048
Approved by
Regional Administrator
Date
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
6OO BANCROFT WAY BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 947IO -415 / 548 -797O
CABLE ADDRESS: ENGINSCI
TELEX: 33-6438
9 January 1976
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
.Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Mr. Richard R. Thiel
Gentlemen:
We are submitting 20 copies and a reproducible master of our report
entitled "Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement -
Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities" in accordance with Task
Order No. 1 of Basic Ordering Agreement No. 68-01-2860.
The master is our typed manuscript. Please return it after your
printing is completed so that we may retrieve the figures for use
in the final EIS. It is assumed that you will have printers nega-
tives of the figures for your own future use.
Thank you for your assistance in the preparation of this report
you have any questions, please call me.
If
Very truly yours,
T. A. Bursztynsky, P.E.
Project Manager
TAB:dg
OFFICES IN PRINCIPAL CITIES
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1
Introduction 1-1
Contents of Addendum 1-2
Summary 1-2
Alternative Plans 1-2
Numerical Rating 1-5
II ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING II-l
Soils II-l
Terrestrial Environment II-l
Proposed Treatment Plant Sites II-l
Proposed Alternative Pipeline Routes II-3
Marine Water Quality II-8
Waste Disposal and Water Quality 11-10
Initial Dilution at Candidate Sites 11-12
Dilution Due to Circulation and Flushing 11-14
Summary Comparison of Outfall Sites 11-17
Biological Marine Environment 11-17
Wastewater Outfall Disposal Sites 11-17
Utility Service Systems 11-20
Jurisdictions 11-21
Public and Social Services 11-22
Transportation H-22
Tax Base 11-23
Demography 11-24
Population Distribution 11-26
Visual and Aesthetic Environment 11-29
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
III PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE PLANS III-l
Introduction III-l
Design Flows and Quality III-l
Interaction with Other Plans III-l
Poulsbo III-l
Keyport II1-4
Alternatives III-4
Common Features III-4
Alternative Plans No. 3, 4 and 5 III-5
Alternative Plan No. 11 III-5
Project Costs HI-9
IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IV-1
Physical Impacts IV-2
Air Quality IV-3
Noise IV-4
Odors IV-5
Terrestrial Environment IV-6
Marine Biological Environment IV-14
Soils IV-20
Water Quality IV-21
Resource Impacts IV-28
Natural Resources IV-29
Utilities Service Systems IV-35
Municipal Services IV-38
Economic Impacts IV-44
Direct Effects IV-45
Indirect Effects IV-52
Socio-Cultural Impacts IV-56
Social Impacts IV-57
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts IV-61
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued)
Chapter Page
(IV) Traffic Effects IV-64
Revised Physical Impacts IV-65
Terrestrial Environment IV-66
Marine Biological Environment IV-68
Water Quality IV-85
Revised Resource Impacts IV-89
Municipal Services IV-90
Revised Economic Impacts IV-92
Direct Effects IV-93
Revised Socio-Cultural Impacts IV-100
Social Impacts IV-101
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts IV-104
V ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES V-l
Physical Impact Mitigation V-l
Mitigative Measures to Protect Vegetation and V-5
Wildlife
Mitigative Measures to Protect Groundwater V-7
Quality
Mitigative Measures to Protect Island Lake V-7
Resource Impact Mitigation V-9
Economic Impact Mitigation V-9
Socio-Cultural Impact Mitigation V-9
Revised Physical Impact Mitigation V-9
Mitigative Measures to Protect the Marine V-13
Benthic Community
Mitigative Measures to Protect the Marine V-15
Surface Community
Revised Resource Impact Mitigation V-15
Revised Economic Impact Mitigation V-15
Revised Socio-Cultural Impact Mitigation V-15
VI IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS VI-1
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
VII RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN VII-1
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Impacts of the Proposed Action VII-1
Physical Impacts VII-1
Resource Impacts VII-2
Socio-Cultural Impacts VII-2
Growth-Inducing Impacts VII-2
VIII REFERENCES VIII-1
Appendix A-2
Appendix A-3
Appendix B
Appendix D-6
Appendix I
APPENDICES
TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT
SUMMARY OUTPUT
SUPPLEMENT TO SOILS
INTERTIDAL BENTHIC SAMPLING RESULTS
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1-1 Summary comparison of alternatives
II4 Amended soil limitations for septic tank drain fields
II9a Proposed north Brownsville site
11-10 Amended proposed alternative pipeline routes
II-9b Interceptor routes through Lemolo and Keyport
H-lla Phase II benthic sampling sites
H-15 Supplement to proposed Kitsap County planning policy
HI-1 Revised location of alternative elements
III-6 Revised alternative plan no. 3
III-7 Revised alternative plan no. 4
III-8 Revised alternative plan no, 5
1-7
II-2
II-4
II-5
II-9
11-19
11-27
111-3
III-6
III-7
III-8
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Figure
III-14
Alternative plan no. 11
Page
111-10
11-13
11-14
11-15
II-20a
11-24
III-l
III-2
III-3
III-4
LIST OF TABLES
Comparison of Project Ratings for Ten Alternatives 1-6
Supplement to Biotic Communities Near Alternative II-6
Pipeline Routes
Percent of Time Site Provides 100:1 or More Initial 11-13
Dilution
Water Quality Standards and Estimated Diluted Waste 11-14
Concentrations
Summary of Alternative Disposal Site Characteristics 11-17
Existing Waste Collection and Treatment Systems 11-19
Annual Population Projections for Kitsap County 11-23
Wastewater Tiaatment and Disposal Alternatives III-2
Comparison of Total Revised Project Costs III-ll
Comparison of Project Costs after Navy Reimbursement 111-12
Cost to Kitsap County after Navy Reimbursement and 111-13
EPA and State Subsidies
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This document is an addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement prepared in conjunction with the Central Kitsap County Draft
Facilities Plan (Reference 1). It is written with the intent to provide
the reviewing public and agencies with supplemental information devel-
oped since the presentation of the draft and to present a modification
of a wastewater management alternative developed as a consequence of
public reaction to the Draft Facilities Plan.
The Draft Facilities Plan was released for public comment in July
1975. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement release followed shortly,
in August 1975. Since that time, several major ongoing studies bearing
on the proposed alternative projects have been completed. The Univer-
sity of Washington, which had prepared preliminary modeling results of
the Port Orchard system, completed onsite oceanographic sampling for
the verification and adjustment of their modeling results (Reference 53).
An ecological model developed for Puget Sound was verified through
field studies and evaluated by John R. Yearsley of the U. S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. This model was designed to simulate background
levels of 22 physical, chemical and biological parameters &.nd changes
in those levels expected as a result of wastewater discharges at each
of the proposed outfall sites. A draft copy of the report presenting
this work was released in December 1975 (Reference 54).
Parametrix, Inc. had contracted with the URS Company to conduct
mathematical modeling studies of dilution and dispersion from outfall
sites at Point Monroe, north Port Orchard channel and Dyes Inlet. This
report was submitted in November 1975 (Reference 55).
The oceanographic and modeling studies were used to reevaluate al-
ternatives for their effects upon marine water quality and the marine
biological community. A separate analysis of the basic data collected
In the studies was performed by the environmental impact statement pro-
ject team and the results presented in the following chapters.
A major study of population growth and distribution in Kitsap
County was recently completed by the Arthur D. Little Company (Reference
1-1
-------
56). The results of this study were used to verify the environmental
setting and impacts in socio-cultural categories and as the basis for
any changes presented in this addendum.
The Environmental Impact Statement for Central Kitsap County's
wastewater facilities was prepared concurrently with the Facilities
Plan. Thus, refinement of the Facilities Plan between the draft and
final document stages resulted in changes in the Environmental Impact
Statement. More extensive design and costing data became available for
the initial selection of alternatives. The proposed Brownsville treat-
ment site was relocated approximately one and one-half miles northward.
In response to public comments on the Draft Facilities Plan, a new al-
ternative was developed by varying one of the original alternatives
slightly. The new alternative, numbered 11 in this addendum, will be
fully evaluated in the following chapters.
Contents of Addendum
This addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement contains
a complete description of the proposed new alternative and a complete
analysis of the environmental impacts. Corrected or revised sections of
the draft are also included under the appropriate chapters. Where a re-
vision, correction or new data sheet has not been presented in the ad-
dendum, such as for sections in the chapter on environmental setting,
direct reference must be made to the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment.
SUMMARY
This summary contains a brief description of the new alternative 11
and addresses the major issues of the project as they relate to that
alternative. Because of changes in the environmental setting evaluation
and estimated environmental impacts necessitated by Phase II study re-
sults, each of the original alternatives has been reevaluated and as-
signed a new numerical score. The revised numerical ratings for nine
original alternatives and alternative 11 are presented in this summary.
Alternative Plans
Alternative Plan No. 1
The treated effluent submarine outfall will be located in Dyes In-
let in approximately 40 feet of water. Modeling results indicate that
1-2
-------
first mixing and dilution of effluent would be poor and that subsequent
dispersion and flushing would be fair. Water quality criteria should be
met consistently.
The costs of this alternative have been adjusted to include terti-
ary level wastewater treatment. This means that bacterial and nitrogen
removals would be increased. The poor-to-fair dispersion characteris-
tics of Dyes Inlet necessitated this change.
Alternative Plan No. 2
The submarine outfall will be located in Dyes Inlet in approximate-
ly 40 feet of water. Modeling results indicate that first mixing and
dilution of effluent would be poor and subsequent dispersion and flush-
ing would be fair. Water qualtiy criteria should be met consistently.
This alternative has also been upgraded to tertiary level waste-
water treatment.
Alternative Plan No. 3
The sumbarine outfall for this alternative has not yet been de-
signed but is expected to reach a depth of at least 165 feet, southeast
of Point Monroe. Modeling results indicate that first mixing, and dilu-
tion of the effluent would be excellent and subsequent dispersion and
flushing would be good. Water quality criteria should be met consis-
tently.
Alternative Plan No. 4
The submarine outfall for this alternative has not yet been de-
signed but is expected to reach a depth of at least 165 feet, south of
Point Monroe. Modeling results indicate that first mixing and dilution
of the effluent would be excellent and subsequent dispersion and flush-
ing would be good. Water quality criteria should be met consistently.
Alternative Plan No. 5
The submarine outfall would be located in approximately 40 feet of
water in north Port Orchard channel. Modeling results indicate that
first mixing and dilution of the effluent would be fair and subsequent
1-3
-------
dispersion and flushing would be good. Water quality criteria should
be met consistently.
Alternative Plan No. 6
Treated effluent from sub-basin 9 ?.nd the Trident Support Site
would be discharged to Dyes Inlet through a submerged outfall in approx-
imately 40 feet of water. Modeling results on Dyes Inlet indicate that
first mixing and dilution of the effluent would be poor and subsequent
dispersion and flushing would be fair. Water quality criteria should be
met consistently.
Treated effluent from sub-basin 10 and the Bremerton planning area
would be discharged to Sinclair Inlet through a submerged outfall after
treatment at a new facility at Enetai. Modeling results indicate that
first mixing and dilution of the effluent would be fair and subsequent
dispersion and flushing would be poor. Water quality criteria should
be met consistently.
Tertiary level treatment has been assumed for both facilities due
to the poor dilution and dispersion characteristics of the receiving
waters.
Alternative Plan No. 7
The treated effluent would be discharged to Sinclair Inlet through
a submerged outfall in approximately 35 feet of water. Modeling results
indicate that first mixing and dilution of the effluent would be fair
and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be poor. Water quality
criteria should be met consistently due to the tertiary level wastewater
treatment assumed for this alternative.
Alternative Plan No. 8
Treated effluent from the Enetai facility would be discharged to
Port Orchard channel through a sumbarine outfall into approximately 80
feet of water. Modeling results indicate that first mixing and dilu-
tion of the effluent would be poor and subsequent dispersion and flush-
ing would be fair. Water quality criteria should be met most of the
time.
1-4
-------
AAlternative Plan No. 9
The Manchester Sewage Treatment Plant's treated effluent would be
discharged to Puget Sound near Rich Passage below a depth of 165 feet.
Modeling results indicate that first mixing and dilution of the treated
effluent would be excellent, with excellent subsequent dispersion and
flushing. Water qualtiy criteria would be met consistently.
Alternative Plan No. 11
This plan was developed in response to public pressures against an
interceptor sewer along the Clear Creek drainage basin and in order to
better accommodate wastewaters from the Poulsbo Facilities Planning
Area. Wastewaters would be collected from drainage sub-basins 9 and 10,
the Trident Support Site and the Poulsbo area, with provision for accept-
ing Keyport's wastewaters. Secondary level treatment would be provided
at the north Brownsville site, and treated effluent would be discharged
into approximately 40 feet of water in north Port Orchard channel. The
north Brownsville site is reasonably well screened by thick stands of
trees and is aesthetically acceptable for a wastewater treatment plant
site.
The Trident Support Site wastewaters would be pumped eastward along
Luoto Road and State Highway 303 to Keyport and then south along State
Highway 303 to the plant site. Disruption of vegetation and ecosystems
by pipeline construction would be minimal because all pipeline routes
are along roadway right-of-ways except for the Liberty Bay crossing.
Outfall site modeling results, supported by some current measure-
ments, indicate that first mixing and dilution of the effluent would be
fair and subsequent dispersion and flushing would be good. It appears
that water quality criteria should be met consistently.
Numerical Rating
A numerical rating and evaluation system was used within this en-
vironmental impact statement as a tool to assist in the comparison of
the relative merits of each alternative. The evaluation system is ex-
plained in Appendix A, where the computer output correlating environmen-
tal impacts for all alternatives is also displayed. A sensitivity analy-
sis within the computer program presents the expected change a final
score may receive due to a change in a single category score.
1-5
-------
Table 1-1 presents the new final weighted scores for each alterna-
tive, reflecting all changes resulting from Phase II studies, new design
data and the new alternative plan No. 11. At this time, these scores
should be used with caution and only as an aid to the ranking of alter-
natives .
Table 1-1. COMPARISON OF PROJECT RATINGS FOR TEN ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
Project rating a
6.57
6.57
12.00
12.09
11.97
6.57
8.99
8.28
12.33
12.97
Relative rating b
50.7
50.7
92.5
93.2
92.3
50.7
69.3
63.8
95.1
100.0
.Resulting ranking
8
8
4
3
5
8
6
7
2
1
a Per E.I.R.S. computer output, based upon weightings derived from sur
vey conducted by URS Company.
Expressed as an index number (percentage)"; highest rated alternative
set at 100 percent; other ratings calculated from that point.
Figure 1-2 presents a graphic display and comparison of positive
and negative ratings of categories for the ten alternatives evaluated.
1-6
-------
ALTERNATIVES 1, 2 AND 6
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING - 6.57
ALTERNATIVE 3
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING
12.00
ADVERSE
MATING
POSITIVE
KATINCi
ADVERSE
POSITIVE
IMPACT ITEM NAME
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
AIR QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOK
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
WlLOLIFE & ITS HABITATS
FRESHWATER ECOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVIRONMENT
bENTMIC
WATER COLUMN
SUKFACE
taATEW DUALITY
SURFACE WATER
MARINE wATtw
GKOUND»ATER
GROUNUWATER QUANTITY
GROUNDfcATER DUALITY
SOILb (FtKTILITY)
RESOURCE IMPACTS
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTtMS
ELECTRICAL
WATER
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
PARKS ANO Rf-CRntl ION
SANITARY SE*EK SYSTEM
NATURAL KESOUKCtS
POIA8LE UNUERGKND WATER
DUALITY
OUANl ITY
POTAtlLE SUKFACE *Al£R
FAUNA
TERRESTRIAL
MARINE
FLORA - CROPS/COMMERCIAL
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
DIRECT EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL, SERVICES cobis
LOANS AND SUbSLDlES
PROPEHTY TAX-
CHANGES tfiT'TAX REVENULS
CHANGES IN TAX RATES.
INOIHECT EFFECTS
PHOPEHTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTUWAL IMPACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
HEALTH AND SAFETY
CULTURAL/ESTHETIC IMPACT
APCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICSL
tNTERTAINMENT/REC«EA 1 ION
tXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
NUMt- ! 1 - - -
K1CAL :0 7 b 21
KATING:O 5 0 5 0 (
2.4A:
-1.67: 1
0.00:
-b.oo:
0.00:
-If'.OH:
-S.oo: 1
-10.00:
-dO.oo: iHi
-13.33:
-IS. 00:
-10.00:
-1S.OO: tm
23.50:
t*,00:
10. 00:
12. bu:
-<:b.ao:
SO. 00:
0.00:
11.15:
-O.bO: 1
-1.00: G
0.00:
^«.33:
<;S.OO:
0.00:
bO.OO:
b.63:
12.50:
bO.OO:
-25. 00:
b.oo:
b.OO:
0.00:
10. 00:
0.00:
la. 75:
<;/.bo:
-10. 00:
^0 0 0 !
2.bO:
. b.OO:
0.00:
10.00:
1U.OO:
<*.17:
30.00:
iO.oo:
b6. 00:
-21.f>7:
o.OO:
-b.od.: 1
-fcO.Oo:
* * * * i
12570
105 0 5 0
I
BBHi
IMHMH
mmm^fm
am
i
i
^Bfld
^^HSMC
1
1
mm
^M
^^^^^^^^^^
1
1
1
mm*
ummmmm
I
!
NOME- : i - - -
HICAL :0 7 5 21
RATING:O 5 o b o c
9.73:
-1.67: I
0.00:
-S.oo:
o.oo:
-4.se:
-10. 00:
-10.00:
-20.00:
21.67:
30.00:
10. 00:
iS.OO:
<«5.17:
<*S<.00:
75.00:
12. bO:
-25.00: mmm
50.00:
0.00:
11.57:
-U.bO:
-l.un:
o.oo:
«:«.. ^3:
ib.OO:
(i.OO:
bO.OO:
6.8d:
12.30:
bO.OO:
-25.00:
5.00:
1U.OO:
0.00:
20.00:
0.00:
19.be:
29.17:
-b.OO: |
~y 0 0 0 *
2.bO:
5.00:
0.00:
10.00:
10. oo:
12.50:
30.00:
' 10. oo:
50. 00:
-5.00:
0.00:
-S.oo:
-10. 00:
+ * + + I
12 5 70
) 0 5 0 5 0
i
i
m^mmmm
§
mm
i
mmmmmm
i
^i
^B
m^mm
MMMB
1
mmm
i
i
^^IH
mmmmmm
COHYKIGHf SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.iCALIF. 1974
-------
! 3
:ING 12.00
POSITIVE
ALTERNATIVE 4
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING - 12.09
ALTERNATIVE 5
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING
11.97
HATING
AUVEKSE
HOSUIVE
AOVtHSE
HATINli
POSITIVE
1
2570
5050
BUM
BBBBBI
BBBBBBB
BBBBBi
1
BBBBBBBI
BBBBBI
BBBHHHHHHB
,
BBBBi
KICAL :o 7 5 21
KAUNG:O 5 o 500
9. /3:
-1.67: I
0.00:
-5.00: i
0.00:
-4.58:
-10.00: CM
-10. oo: m
-20.00: £
21 .b7:
30.00:
10. oo:
<=5.00:
4=>.l7:
y-'oo-
12. bO:
-25.00: BHBH
50. uo :
O.oo:
11.57:
-0.50:
-l.uO:
O.oo:
f^. J3:
ci.oo:
0.00:
bu.00 :
5 . t^H :
12.50:
bO.OO:
-2b.OO : BBBBi
b.OO:
1 0 . 0 0 :
0.00:
2 0 . 0 0 :
0.00:
CG.«2:
jo. s3:
O.uO :
9 r . 0 0 :
2 . b 0 :
b.OO:
0.00:
l o ,-0-fr:
1 o . 0 0 :
12.50:
JO.OO:
10. uO:
30.00:
-b.OO: '
0.00:
-5.00:
-10.00:
12570
05050
BBBBi
BBBBBi
BBBBi
BBIBBBBBBBi
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBi
MBH
BBBBBi
BBBBi
BBBBBBBBBi
1
BBB9
BBBBBBI
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBI
1
1
"
m
^^^^^^^^
^^BBBBBBB
H1CAL :0 7 5 21
KATINO:o 5 0 50
y.42:
-1.67: C
0.00:
-5.oo: I
O.oo:
-5.H3:
-lo. 00:
-10. oo:
-20.00: £
lb.67:
20.00:
lo.oo:
20.00:
45.17:
4B.UO:
75.ou:
12.50:
-25.00: BBBBi
50.00:
0.00:
11.57:
-0.50:
-1.00:
0.00:
2^.33:
25.00:
o.oo:
ou.oo:
f > . b H :
12.50:
30.00:
-25.00: BBBBB
5.00:
10. 00:
0.00:
20.00:
0.00:
20.42:
JO.H3:
li . o 0 :
s*G . 0 0 :
2.50 :
5.00:
0.00:
10.00:
10. oo:
12.50:
30.00:
lo.oo:
50.00:
-5.00: B
O.oo:
-5.00: B
-10.00: BB
12570
905 0 5 0
BBi
BBBI
Bi
BBBI
BBBBBBBi
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
MBBBBBBi
BBBBH
BBBBi
i"
BBBBBBBBBi
1
Bi
BBBB
BBB
BBBBBBH
BBBBBBBBBBBi
1
|
BI
BH
BiBBBBB
Bi
BBBBBBBBBi
KICAL :o
HAT 1NG:0
2.44:
-I.b7:
0.00:
-5.00:
O.oo:
-12.0ti:
-5.00:
-10. 00:
-20.00:
-13.33:
-15. oo:
-10. oo:
- 1 5 . u o :
irj.bo :
nta.oo:
1 1 . o o :
12.50:
-25. uu :
D (j . (j o :
o.oo:
11.15:
-0.50:
-l.oo:
ii.uo:
id. Jj:
(Tb.uu :
('.uo:
to. on :
^ . h i '
l£.^><>'.
t> C . u 0 :
- 1 b . 0 0 :
=> . u 0 :
b.OO:
o . u u :
KJ.OII:
i! . i) d :
lh.^1
£r/.--o:
- 1 1- . i.o :
'y'l -1 i1 *
2 " ^6 '
5.of>:
O.uo:
10.00:
lO.oo:
12.50:
jo.oo:
111.00:
50.00:
-5.00:
o.oo:
-5.00:
-10.00:
-------
E 5
TING - 11.97
'UbITIVE
ALTERNATIVE 7
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING - 8.99
ALTERNATIVE 8
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING - 8.28
RATING
ADVtHSE
POSITIVE
ADVERSE
RATING
POSITIVE
i
2570
b 0 5 0
mmm
mmmmmmm
^^^
m
mmmmmmm
~
^^^m
NUMt- : 1 - - -
WICAL :o 7521
KA11NG:0 b 0 SOt
2.44:
-1.67: g
O.oo:
-5.00: g
O.oo:
-12. OB: mm
-5.00: g
-lO.oo: m.
-20.00:
-13.33:
-ib.oo: mm
-10. Uu: gi
- 1 b . o o : mm
23. bo:
** fc (J 0
10.00:
12. bO :
- <; 5 . o o : mmm
tii no*
_> U . U \t
0 .00:
11. lb:
-u.bO: I
- 1 . o o :
o . u 0 :
cs.33:
<;b.OO :
0 . a 0 :
tO.OO:
b.bj:
Ic.bO:
DO.OO:
-
-------
E.l.R.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R£VIE* SERVICE
* KURt IUT5AP WASTEHAIER TKEAIMENT
*
1
0
0
DATE:
ALTERNATIVE 9
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING - 12.33
HATING
ADVERSE POSITIVE *
RICAL :o 7 5 2112 5 7 0
WATING:0 5 0 50005 0 5 0
12.23:
-1.67:
0.00:
-5.00: B
0.00:
-2.^2: I
-10. 00:
-10.00:
-20.00: mmM
28.33:
30. 00:
25.00:
30.00:
33.50:
48.00:
100. 00:
12.50:
-25.00: mmm
50.00:
0.00:
11.57:
-0.50:
-1.00:
0.00:
c 5 . 0 0 :
O.oo:
bO.00:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.00: mmmt
5.00:
1 0 . 0 0 :
0.00:
d d . 0 0 :
0.00:
^0.42:
3D. 83:
n.oo:
?0. 00:
2.50:
5.00:
0.00:
10. 00:
10. 00:
10. 00:
30.00:
10. 00:
50.00:
-10. 00:
O.OO:
-5.00:
-25.00: mmmm
mm
mmmmmmm
mmmmmm
mm
mm
^
i
mmm
mmmm
i
i
mmmmmm
12/31/75
ALTERNATIVE 11
OVERALL WEIGHTED RATING - 12.97
RATING
ADVERSE POSITIVE *
NUME- :l - - --«, . * i
RICAL :0 752112S70
RATING:O 5 o sooos o 5 o
7.Y4S
0.00:
-5.00: i
0.00:
-o.od:
-15.00:
5.00:
-12.00:
21.67:
25.00:
20.00:
20.00:
33.50:
38.00:
50.00:
12.50:
-25.00: mmm
50.00:
0.00:
11.57:
-0.50:
-1.00:
O.oo:
28.33:
25.00:
0.00:
60.00:
6.88:
12.50:
50.00:
-25.00: mmm
5.00:
10.00:
0.00:
20.00:
0.00:
20.42:
30.83:
O.oo:
2.50:
5.00:
0.00:
10. 00:
10. 00:
17.92:
37.50:
25.00:
50.00:
-1.67: d
O.oo:
5.00:
-10. oo: ml
m
i
h
mm
i
mmm
mmmmmmmmmmm
mmi
mmmmmm
mmmm-
mmmmmmm
IMPACT ITEM NfiMt
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
ATV QUALITY
EXTERNAL NOISE
ODOR
TFRPESTRIAL ENVIt*uNM£NT
WILDLIFE '(. ITS HAdlTAlS
FRESHWATER tCOLOGY
VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
MARINE BIOL. ENVlKONMEN
bENTHlC
WOTER COLUMN
SURFACE
i»ATEK UUALI 1 Y
SURFACE «A I E*
GfOUNOfATER
bROU'MO WATER UUALI 1Y
SOILS (FERTILITY)
"FSOURCE IMPACT
UTILITY SERVICE brbTEMb
» a f E R
"UNICI^AL .-.t-VlLts (It
-NVlKdr^f-'E^'T^L rA!_It-
KAK^S AMI) .-r CKHA 1 iuv-
uUtLITY
OUaNT I TY
f AUNA
TEHPESTP1AL
MARINE
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
IUIRECT FFFEC (S
MUNICIPAL StKVICEb COST!
LOANS AMJ SUBSIDIES
(PROPERTY TAX
CMANGES IIN TAX REVENUES
CHANGES IN TAX KATES
1MJIPECT EFFECTS
PROPERTY VALUES
SOCIO-CULTUKAL IMi-ACTS
SOCIAL IMPACTS
PLANNEO LA^O USE PATTER^
HEALTH AND SAFtTY
CULTUP-AL/ESTnETIC IMPACT
ARCHEOLOGICAL/HlSTORICAL
ENTERTAINMENT/RECREATIor-
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRESSION
Figure II-l Summary comparison of alternatives
1-7
-------
CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The recently completed results of Phase II studies have forced
some additions or changes in portions of the text describing environ-
mental setting. Furthermore, development of the new alternative plan
No. 11 and refinement of design details and project costs have neces-
sitated some changes in the socio-economic setting of the project. The
following sections in this chapter contain either supplemental informa-
tion to be added to the discussion in the draft EIR or complete substi-
tutions for corresponding sections in the draft EIR.
SOILS
On pages II-4 through II-7 of the draft EIR, within the discussion
of soils, Everett series were named as a predominant portion of the area
considered suitable for septic tank filter fields. A subsequent update
of the initial soil surveys indicates that Everett soils are much less
prevalent than originally reported in 1939 (Reference 61). Thus, on
page II-7, the first two categories of soil mapping units should be re-
moved from consideration for disposal fields and their coverage reduced
from "less than one-fourth" to "less than five percent" of the area.
Figure II-4 has been amended to reflect the changes in the soil classi-
fications.
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
Proposed Treatment Plant Sites
With the generation of a new alternative to the Kitsap County
Facilities Plan, a new treatment plant site north of Brownsville was
selected to replace the old site. The following site description
therefore replaces the previous section on the Brownsville site found
on page 11-28 of the draft EIR.
II-l
-------
Poulsbo
LEGEND
LIMITATION
RATINGS
FLIGHT AREA
MODERATE AREA
SEVERE AREA
FAILURE AREA
|u.s.
\\%VVS,
Naval!
lllaheeOc
Sources Reference 61
Figure II-4. Amended soil limitations for septic tank drain fields
II-2
-------
North Brownsville Site
The proposed site is adjacent to Highway 303, approximately 1.5
miles north of Brownsville, as shown in Figure II-9a. The site is situ-
ated within a 30- to 35-acre stand of Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest.
The land slopes gradually to the southwest in a wide mound beginning
near the-northeast corner. Tht- southern and eastern edges of the sight
descend towards open field and a freshwater marsh zone as depicted in
Figure II-9a. Several small springs were apparent during a winter 1975
field survey. Water seepage originated within the wooded areas and
probably indicates a high groundwater table.
The wooded stand is predominantly immature Douglas fir and western
red cedar with a scattered association of bigleaf maple and red alder
in semi-open areas. The understory is generally shaded and moist with
much tree litter and downed wood. The ground cover is patchy and con-
centrated mainly in clearings with maximum light penetration. Typical
ground vegetation includes lady fern, sword fern, salal, oregon grape,
holly and a seasonal environment of mosses and fungi.
Adjacent to the site, the wooded area borders a pasture with a
stream and seasonal marsh occupying the lower areas. The demarcation
between forest and open field is sharp and often linear following lot
lines. At the present time a farmhouse and barn on the site are
occupied; however, several old wooden structures for hay storage and
animal shelter are scattered through the woods. Due to the predominance
of Douglas^fir over maple and alders, wildlife on the site would be
characteristic of a Coniferous Forest community. Animal numbers are
generally low due to the uniformity of the wooded stand and limited
understory. In addition, domestic animalsparticularly cattleroam
freely throughout the area disturbing the natural environment.
Proposed Alternative Pipeline Routes
This section replaces the first paragraph under Proposed Alterna-
tive Pipeline Routes on Page 11-29 of the draft EIR.
A summary of the expanded proposed alternative pipeline routes is
shown on Figure 11-10. For presentation purposes, all routes have been
shown on the same figure. The exact pipeline selection for each alter-
native is discussed in Chapter III. Biotic communities which would be
traversed by the pipelines are presented in Table 11-10. The majority
of the pipeline routes will be within the road or the roadway right-of-
ways. Several alternatives have connecting pipeline segments which do
not follow road easements and will cross through vegetated areas.
II-3
-------
MIXED CONIFEROUS
AND
BROADLEAF
FOREST
TREATMENT FACILITY
SITE
BUCKLItV
V
Source: Reference 61 and site visits
Figure II-9a. Proposed north Brownsville site
II-4
-------
Source: References 1 and 61
Figure 11-10. Amended proposed alternative pipeline routes
II-5
-------
Table 11-10. SUPPLEMENT TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES NEAR ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ROUTES
Pipeline
route
303 C
From Bucklin Hill Rd. north 2 miles 10
to Brownsville treatment plant site
with 3 stream crossings. From
treatment plant site easi. 0.6 miles
to outfall site C at Port Orchard.
Gradually sloping terrain with farm-
lands and small wooded lots.
communitiesa traversed, approx. %
234567
5 10 30 30 10 5
Comments
2 miles of
route does
not follow
roads; see
text.
H
ON
3G3 D Bangor Naval Reservation to Moun- 20 30 50
tain View Rd. east and following
Highway 303 to Keyport. Undulating
hills, completely follows road ease-
ments.
a
Key to Biotic Communities: 1 - Coniferous Forest
2 - Broadleaf Forest
3 - Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf
4 - Pasture/Meadow
5 - Freshwater Marsh
6 - Residential
7 - Marine Shoreline
-------
Of the pipeline routes presented in the supplement to Table 11-10,
one route with significant sections which pass through vegetated areas
and which does not follow established roads is further discussed in de-
tail below. This route (303C) connects the Bucklin Hill Road (BHR) in-
terceptor with the Brownsville treatment plant site and includes the
route from the treatment plant to the outfall site in Port Orchard.
Pipeline Route 303C
The exact alignment of this pipeline segment is shown in Figure II-
9a. Three sections of the alignment pass through sensitive biotic com-
munities: (1) a wetland ecosystem between Madison Road and the proposed
Brownsville treatment plant site; (2) a freshwater marsh between the
treatment plant site and South Keyport Road; and (3) a steep ravine on
the last 600 feet of alignment descending to the beach at Port Orchard.
The pipe alignment between Madison Road and the treatment plant
site traverses low farmland within the drainage course of the north
fork of Steel Creek. The creek originates in springs within the wooded
area of the treatment plant site and flows southward, forming several
small ponds. During the wet season, the low pasturelands and woodlots
in the vicinity of the site become waterlogged because of high ground-
water table. The grassland area is generally poorly drained and unsuit-
able for agriculture. The extent of the wetlands varies greatly between
seasons and can be classified as forested swampland intergrading into
grassy marshland, which further drains into an open riparian strip
(Steel Creek). Aquatic vegetation is seasonal and is limited to mosses
and scattered rushes, while wildlife is limited to a few orders of
aquatic insects, amphibians, some migratory ducks and almost no fishes.
The freshwater marsh between the treatment plant site and South
Keyport Road was at one time contiguous with the marsh area, described
in the preceding section, at the origin of Steel Creek. Highway 303
now separates the marshes, but the habitat type remains similar for the
two areas. The roadbed forms a drainage barrier for the upper marsh
and induces an enclosed, permanent marsh environment. The pond area is
fringed with rushes and cat-tails, and common wildlife includes the red-
winged blackbird, various ducks, the Pacific treefrog and the red-legged
frog.
The last segment of the pipeline route follows a narrow ravine
which descends 200 feet to Port Orchard Channel. The open ravine is
relatively steep (30-40% slope in places) and is marked by a small,
permanent spring at the head of the ravine. The adjoining Broadleaf
Forest areas are extremely steep, with cliffs dropping 200 feet ver-
tically to the beach. A visual inspection of the cliff strata revealed
10 to 30-foot layers of alternating sand and grey clay. During the
II-7
-------
wet season, continuous water seepage within the upper 10 to 20 feet
of the cliff area causes random slumping in the clay layers. The ra-
vine itself was apparently formed from gradual erosion and is lined
with considerable thicknesses of water-saturated clay. The sides of
the ravine are thickly vegetated with alder, bigleaf maple, vine maple,
salal, Oregon grape, salmonberry, lady fern and sword fern. The center
of the ravine supports only a fragile ground cover of youth-on-age and
Synthyris over the unstable clay substrate.
Pipeline Routes 303D and 305
Figure II-9b has been provided to show the detailed location of
proposed pipeline segments through Lemolo and Keyport. Pipeline routes
303D and 305 would be constructed entirely within the right-of-ways of
existing roads.
MARINE WATER QUALITY
With the availability of Phase II study results, the following
section on marine water quality has been rewritten and should replace
the discussion beginning on page 11-34 of the draft EIR.
Information on the quality of waters in the study area has been
recorded as far back as 1932. The following paragraphs are summarized
from the Draft Facilities Plan (Reference 1), which itself summarizes
data obtained from a multitude of sources.
Point Jefferson to Blakely Harbor: extraordinary water quality,
with only occasional violations of standards, deemed to be due to na-
tural causes.
Port Orchard: generally extraordinary water quality; frequent
violations of bacteriological and turbidity standards in the Burke Bay/
Brownsville area.
Rich Passage: extraordinary water quality, with only occasional
violations of standards, probably due to natural causes.
Dyes Inlet/Port Washington Narrows: generally excellent water
quality; frequent violations of coliform standards and occasional vio-
lations of dissolved oxygen standards.
Sinclair Inlet: average water quality conditions; considered ac-
ceptable, but frequent violations of the coliform standards.
II-8
-------
POULSBO-
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
Source: Reference 61
Figure II-9b. Interceptor routes through Lemolo and Keyport
II-9
-------
In conclusion, marine water quality conditions in the study area
might be described as excellent but with local bacteriological problems
in areas that are subject to only mild flushing.
Waste Disposal and Water Quality
To relate effluent quality and the water quality standards, it is
necessary to consider the mechanisms that affect marine wastewater dis-
posal. Discharged wastewater, being less dense than the surrounding
ocean water, ascends from the point of discharge in the form of an ex-
panding plume. As the wastewater rises, it mixes with the adjacent
ocean water until the density of the wastewater-ocean water mixture
becomes equal to the density of the surrounding ocean water.
Dilution effected during this process is called initial dilution
and results from the mixing induced by the dissipation of energy as
the initial and buoyant momentums of the discharged wastewater are ex-
hausted. The degree of initial dilution depends on the diffuser de-
sign, the height of the rising plume, and the rate of transport of di-
luted wastewater away from the area above the diffuser. The rising
plume may stabilize at or below the ocean surface, depending on the
discharge depth and the prevailing density structure of the ocean. As
the wastewater-seawater field moves away from the discharge point, it
is subject to further dilution due to horizontal dispersion. Concen-
trations of nonconservative waste constituents are still further re-
duced by decay or disappearance.
Because the purpose of the diffuser system is to induce rapid mix-
ing of effluent with seawater in order to minimize the possibility of
contact between marine organisms and high concentrations of wastewater,
it is apparent that the initial dilution is the most important of the
diminution processes. Effective initial dilution depends on two phenom-
ena: rapid momentum-induced mixing of wastewaters with seawater, and
transport of clean dilution water across the site. The former phenom-
enon can be controlled by the system designer, provided an adequate
depth of water exists, while the latter is an uncontrollable natural
characteristic of the discharge site. In general, it is the latter
phenomenon that controls the degree of initial dilution obtainable at
a specific site.
Once initial dilution is completed, further waste concentration
diminution depends on horizontal dispersion and decay mechanisms. For
waste constituents that do not decay rapidly, the degree of flushing
or residence time of waters within the boundaries of the receiving
area determines the steady-state concentrations of waste constituents
that will remain.
11-10
-------
Thus it becomes apparent that with respect to both initial dilu-
tion and horizontal dispersion a key issue in comparing candidate
sites is the degree of mixing that occurs at each site. Another key
issuethe relative sensitivity of the biological community in the dis-
charge areais considered elsewhere in this report.
In the course of facilities planning activities, three models were
used to study water quality and mixing within the study area. A mathe-
matical model was used to simulate and link together ecologic succession
from primary producers through successively higher levels in the marine
environment. The ecologic model was combined with a hydrodynamic model
in order to predict water quality and biological characteristics that
might occur as a result of waste discharge. Due to limitations in the
data base for verification and the fact that the relationships between
different trophic levels are only poorly understood, the model is of
little use in simulating the effects of waste discharge upon water qual-
ity and biological characteristics in Puget Sound at the present time.
However, the model is conceptually ambitious and probably will represent
the most promising approach to simulating the effects of waste discharge
when the relationship between marine organisms and water quality is bet-
ter understood.
The second model used in the study was the University of Washing-
ton hydraulic model. The final report on the hydraulic model studies
of the possible outfall locations within the Port Orchard System and its
connecting passageways and i-nlets were submitted to the URS Company in
November 1975. Some measurements of water movements in the field were
made with vessel-mounted current meters and drogues in order to verify
the model results. A brief description of the model and its limitations
is included below since most of the conclusions with respect to disper-
sion are based on model results.
The study area for the physical hydraulic model encompasses an
area about 12 miles wide, from the edge of Dyes Inlet eastward to
Point Jefferson, and about 16 miles long, from Sinclair Inlet eastward
to Point Jefferson and beyond. Given the horizontal scale ratio for
the Puget Sound model, this area represents a rectangular grid 19 in-
ches wide by approximately 25 inches long. Hydraulic modeling of such
a physically small area can give erroneous results if extensive care
is not taken to assure precise measurement of all controllable param-
eters. Vertical and horizontal scale ratios were adjusted to reduce
possible side effects of surface tension and laminar flow, thus pro-
ducing better results. In general, model results can be regarded as
accurate, but there are limitations to this model which lead to ques-
tionable 'results from some of the outfall locations studied.
There are three major limitations of this model which cannot be
avoided. Because of the effects of surface tension and land topography
it was not possible to incorporate the effects of wind into the model-
ing of the study area. Winds and the waves caused by winds contribute
11-11
-------
significantly to mixing. Surface drag between wind and water inter-
faces can modify tides, surface transport of the effluent and water ex-
change processes.
Surface tension is also an important factor in the scaling of any
large body of water with a relatively shallow depth. Its effects
strongly influence water movement in shoals or near the shoreline, es-
pecially ir. areas where current velocities are low enough that the
water in the basin remains relatively undisturbed. As a result of sur-
face tension, estimations of current velocities are unreliable where
real tidal currents are weak.
Viscosity is another factor that cannot be scaled; thus, the pos-
sibility of laminar flow in the model exists where turbulent flow ac-
tually occurs in the area under consideration. This limitation, like
that relating to current velocity, is due to scale effects of the model.
A total of nine possible outfall locations was under considera-
tion, and these were studied using the model. The number of candidate
sites was subsequently reduced by URS to six: Dyes Inlet, Point Monroe
on Bainbridge Island, North Port Orchard channel, Port Orchard channel
at Enetai, Sinclair Inlet and Rich Passage at Manchester.
A third model, a mathematical model of dilution and dispersion at
three potential outfall sites, was developed for URS by Parametrix, Inc.
and reported on in November 1975. The three sites modeled were Dyes
Inlet, North Port Orchard and Point Monroe. This model aggregated sev-
eral mathematical models of dilution and dispersion and used them as a
means of calculating the dilutions that would occur if waste were dis-
charged at each site and if water movements and density structure were
as measured by the University of Washington during the summer of 1975.
The following sections describe the characteristics of the various
sites with respect to initial dilution and flushing action; a final sec-
tion summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of. the sites as poten-
tial waste discharge points. Where applicable, the results of modeling
efforts are discussed together with independent calculations made by
Engineering-Science, Inc.
Initial Dilution at Candidate Sites
Two approaches to the calculation of initial dilution are generally
used. The first approach is based on a mathematical model of dilution
produced when a buoyant plume rises in a stratified liquid, which is in
itself based on tests conducted in laboratory tanks. This approach is
embodied in the PLUME model used by Parametrix to calculate initial di-
lution. The second approach is based on the continuity equation:
11-12
-------
ubd
Q
where
C0 is the initial dilution
u is the current speed across the diffuser, ft/sec
b is the diffuser length, ft
d is the effective depth, ft
Q is the wastewater flow rate, cfs
Irrespective of diffuser port configuration and sizing, the maximum ini-
tial dilution can be calculated in this way on the basis of the amount
of clean water available for wastewater dilution that is passing over
the diffuser. In most situations the latter approach provides a more
reliable indicator of a site's potential from the point of view of ini-
tial dilution.
If it is assumed that an initial dilution of 100:1 is a desirable
goal, that one-half of available total depth is the effective mixing
depth and that a reasonable rule of thumb for diffuser length, based on
hydraulic considerations, is 50 feet per mgd, then a minimum current
speed necessary to obtain this dilution can be calculated. The frequen-
cy of occurrence of this current-speed, and consequently dilution, can
then be estimated from the University of Washington information on fre-
quency of occurrence of current speeds, as shown in Table 11-13.
Table 11-13.
PERCENT OF TIME SITE PROVIDES 100:1
OR MORE INITIAL DILUTION
Discharge site
Dyes Inlet
North Port Orchard
Point Monroe
Manchester
Sinclair Inlet
Port Orchard, Enetai
Depth,
ft
40
40
165
165
35
80
Spring
57
83
VLOO
VLOO
82
60
Frequency
Neap
66
60
VLOO
-100
65
66
Average
61
71
100
100
73
63
Table 11-14 compares applicable water quality standards with ef-
fluent from a secondary treatment plant which has been subject to di-
lutions of 10:1 and 100:1. Although this is a crude comparison and
11-13
-------
does not take account of complex"interactions between waste constitu-
ents and water quality, it does demonstrate that at any disposal site
which experiences good flushing action it is reasonable to expect that
secondary treatment will be sufficient to meet the standards.
Table IT-14. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ESTIMATED
DILUTED WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
Estimated waste concentration
Characteristic AA
standard
Total coliform, 70
MPN/100 ml
Dissolved oxygen, 7
mg/1
pH 7-8.5
Toxicity, t.u. b
Ammonium
Chlorine
Secondary
Undiluted Diluted 10
1,000 180
3 7
6-9 7.8 - 8.1
1.25 0.12
20-25 2-2.
0.1 - 0.5 0.01 - 0.
effluent a
:1 Diluted 100:1
11
7.9
8
0.01
5 0.2 - 0.25
05 0 - 0.005
3 Assumed background fo- secondary effluent is 100 MPN/100 ml for total
coliform; 8 mg/1 for dissolved oxygen; 8.0 pH value.
Assumes dechlorination of effluent.
ft
Can be significantly reduced by extending biological treatment period.
*
Dilution Due to Circulation and Flushing
The first area under consideration was the location off Point
Jefferson. Here the outfall would extend into the main causeway of
Puget Sound, where excellent mixing and dispersion would occur due to
the strong tidal currents in the area. Model study results for this
location are probably accurate because of the relatively large area
and deep water studied. Surface tension effects are 'probably limited
to the immediate shoreline because of relatively strong currents. As
indicated in the report, this site is probably the best within the
study area with respect to mixing and dispersal.
Also open to the main causeway of Puget Sound is the outfall loca-
tion at Point Monroe on Bainbridge Island. The water depth off the
Point increases very rapidly to depths greater than 60 feet and up to
300 feet. As at the Point Jefferson location, model results here are
probably accurate. Again, there is a large surface area with deep
11-14
-------
water which serves to reduce the effects of surface tension. The pres-
ence of weak currents around Point Monroe, which inhibit good mixing
and effective dispersal, are indicated by the results of the model
study as well as in tidal current charts. The model results also indi-
cate considerable tidal oscillation at the outfall location, which
could carry relatively large concentrations of effluent in and around
Point Monroe before eventual dispersion via Puget Sound. It should be
noted, however, that the early luodel results were based on a 60-foot
discharge depth. Extending the outfall to a depth of 165 feet would
carry the effluent out into more open waters, improving dispersion and
reducing waste concentrations likely to be experienced at the shoreline
at Point Monroe.
The next site considered was north Point Orchard, where an outfall
would be located about 1.5 miles north of Brownsville. Discharge
would be out into the deep water in the Port Orchard basin. Excluding
the effects of shoreline surface tension and possible laminar flow
through Agate Passage, model results for this area are probably accu-
rate. Strong currents coming from Agate Passage and Liberty Bay pro-
vide good mixing in this basin. An approximate dilution ratio was
calculated on the assumption that the northern Port Orchard basin, ex-
clusive of Liberty Bay, is a complete-mix basin. It was also assumed
that all net flow into or out of the basin occurs through Agate Passage
and that the basin is separated from Port Orchard at Battle Point.
Calculations were made during the preparation of thir- report to
confirm the good mixing observed in the Port Orchard basin section of
the model study- It was assumed that an eight-foot tide occurs and
that the effluent will be completely mixed in this basin after the two
days it takes to reach equilibrium concentrations. With a tidal ex-
change of 25 percent each tidal period, a dilution of one part effluent
to 5,000 parts water was estimated. This dilution is considered accu-
rate within an order of magnitude. Adverse wind conditions, local ed-
dies, etc. could reduce effective mixing.
Two more sites under consideration are located in Port Orchard,
at Brownsville and at University Point. Due to weak currents present
in the channel and its narrowness, scale effects may have a signifi-
cant impact on model results. It is known, however, that currents
through Port Orchard are always weak; therefore, proper mixing and dis-
persal may not be achieved. Where mixing does not occur, wind could
have the detrimental effect of blowing the effluent to the shore. It
is recommended that if either of these two sites is given serious con-
sideration a field dye study of the area be made to determine actual
feasibility.
The next outfall location considered is offshore from Silverdale
into Dyes Inlet. Surface tension and viscosity are probably the con-
trolling factors for mixing and dispersion in the shallow portions of
11-15
-------
Dyes Inlet, Actual performance results in Dyes Inlet are expected to
deviate significantly from the model results because of wind, surface
tension and possibly distorted channel velocities. Accumulation of
significant quantities of effluent is expected to occur under high on-
shore or northerly wind conditions. Model results obtained from the
deeper portion of Dyes Inlet are probably accurate. This deep inner
be-sin represents over half of the surface area of the inlet, and excel-
lent dispersal and mixing may be expected to occur due to strong flood
tidal currents in Washington Narrows. On the basis of the same assump-
tions as used for Port Orchard, an approximate dilution ratio of 1300:1
was calculated for Dyes Inlet. It would take about 3.4 days to reach
equilibrium concentrations. This relatively high dilution ratio is due
to the relatively large tidal exchange volume. Depending on the tide.
this volume represents approximately one-third of the total volume of
Dyes Inlet at mean lower low water level. Mixing would be less under
adverse wind conditions and local eddies.
Just north of Manchester, at the mouth of Rich Passage, is another
outfall location. Here the water depth increases rapidly to 60 feet
into Rich Passage. Modeling results for this location are probably ac-
curate because of the deep water in the fairly wide channel and the
swift currents (1.7-5.0 ft/sec). The strong southeasterly currents in
Rich Passage would probably induce good mixing and transport from the
diffuser site into Puget Sound.
The southernmost alternative location for an outfall is below
Bremerton in Sinclair Inlet. There is no net flow through Sinclair
Inlet, and currents are therefore weak or negligible in this area.
Surface tension, coupled with the fact that depth here is very shallow,
will limit model results throughout a large portion of the inlet. In
addition to the model results, information is available from a dye
study of the Charleston treatment plant outfall made on 23 -and 24 Jan-
uary 1973 (Reference 8). Results indicated poor dispersal, with con-
centrations of effluent near the diffuser. Dilution ratios for sur-
face samples ranged from 1.3:1 up to 2,140:1, depending on sample loca-
tion, with an overall average of 250:1. Subsurface samples indicated
considerably less dilution, with an average of 5.5:1. It was indicated
that low current velocities in Sinclair Inlet result in poor mixing.
The last site under consideration within the study area is located
in Port Orchard, off Enetai. As in the rest of Port Orchard, current
velocities at this site are very weak and could lead to erroneous con-
clusions in modeling. Inflow from Rich Passage may well serve to dis-
perse and mix the effluent with the salt water, but large accumulations
of effluent may be expected to occur along the shore during ebb tide
before eventual dispersal through Rich Passage.
11-16
-------
Summary Comparison of Outfall Sites
All the models of dilution and dispersion share a common draw-
back; their accuracy is predicated upon an extremely limited amount of
actual field current measurement. Because of this, and because of the
many assumptions involved in tt-/> model studies and in the confirmatory
calculations made as part of this study, it is not possible to make
precise comparisons of the dilutions likely to result from discharge
at each site. Thus, a qualitative rating of each site is given in
Table 11-15. Of the three sites chosen by the facilities planner for
further study, it is apparent that Dyes Inlet is a significantly poorer
discharge site than either North Port Orchard or Point Monroe. Based
on the relative exposure of the two remaining sites to large scale
water movements in Puget Sound, the latter should be the superior site.
The conclusion is not supported, however, by the model studies. Thus,
based on the information available, the extra cost of a Point Monroe
discharge probably cannot be justified on the grounds of superior dis-
persion. The fact remains, however, that the greater water depth and
greater exposure of the Point Monroe discharge site suggests that it
has an excellent potential as a discharge site; although, this could
only be verified by a more extensive current measurement program.
Table 11-15. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Initial dilution Dispersion and flushing
Dyes Inlet (tertiary) Poor Fair
N. Port Orchard Fair Good
Point Monroe Excellent Gi>od
Manchester Excellent Excellent
Sinclair Inlet (tertiary) Fair Poor
Port Orchard, Enetai Poor Fair
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Wastewater Outfall Disposal Sites
The following discussion is supplemental to that found on page
11-51 of the Draft EIR.
11-17
-------
In July and August 1975 the intertidal marine environment of three
of the potential wastewater outfall sites were assessed in detail by
Northwest Environmental Consultants. The sites studied were: (1) Site
B, Point Monroe; (2) Site C, North Port Orchard; and (3) Site F, Dyes
Inlet at Silverdale. These additional findings are briefly summarized
below. For detailed descriptions, refer to the baseline study (Refer-
ence 62).
Site B. Point Monroe
The northern section of Fay Bainbridge State Park and the adjoin-
ing Point Monroe were sampled and analyzed. The shoreline represented
a broad accretion beach with green algae (Ulvoids) covering the upper
gravel beach and eelgrass thickly dominating the lower sand and silt
beach down to 330 feet from the high tide line. Clam populations were
relatively low and attributed in part to recreational harvesting. The
overall benthic population was judged healthy and stable and repre-
sented by a large number of species with generally few individuals per
species. Only the polychaete worm Mesochaetopterus taylori was excep-
tionally abundant. Summer fish seining netted primarily young chum
salmon, shiner seaperch, striped seaperch and herring. The actual out-
fall alignment would not pass through the area studied but, instead,
approximately 0.8 miles south of Fay Bainbridge State Park. The ter-
rain is similar, although the upper beach zone (beyond the high tide
line) is limited. The lower beach zone south of the State Park be-
comes gradually wider towards Rolling Bay and would probably exhibit
intertidal communities comparable to the area studied.
Site C. North Port Orchard
The proposed site has an intertidal beach beginning at the base of
a steep 200-foot eroding cliff area. The first 30 feet is composed of
large cobbles, boulders covered with periwinkles and barnacles, drift-
ing logs and many fallen trees. From 30 to 60 feet, the beach becomes
silty sand with pebbles and cobbles and is populated by periwinkles,
limpets, purple shore crabs and native and Japanese littleneck clams.
From 60 to 90 feet, the beach flattens out to dark gray sandy silt
covered heavily with green algae (.Enteromorpha) and inhabited by the
bent-nosed clam and the parchment tube worm. Beyond 190 feet, the
sandy silt is thickly vegetated with eelgrass and supports several
clam species, cockles and polychaete worms of the family Owenidae.
Below the intertidal zone, aquatic vegetation diminishes and burrowing
animals, particularly geoduck clams, brittle stars (Amphiodra
occidental is), the tube worm Phyllochaetopterus prolifica, and the
nut clam Acila castrensis are abundant. Beach seining during summer
11-18
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
C BENTHIC SAMPLING SITES
NORTH
PORT ORCHARD
SITE C
Source: Reference 62
Figure II-lla. Phase II benthic sampling sites
11-19
-------
1975 netted predominantly shiner seaperch, staghorn sculpin and jelly-
fish.
Site F, Dyes Inlet at Silverdale
The intertidal zone at upper Dyes Inlet is broad, relatively shal-
low and divided into four substrate types. The upper intertidal zone
of cobbles, boulders and concrete debris gives way to a mixture of
sand, pebbles and shell debris at approximately 60 feet from the high
tide line. In this zone, native and Japanese littleneck clams, Enter-
omorpha and Ulva are dominant. At 120 feet, the substrate grades into
sand and pebbles overlying a layer of black sand, which indicates low
oxygen levels and reducing conditions. Clam populations are slightly
reduced and are probably influenced by the poor substrate conditions.
Beyond 180 feet the substrate becomes silty sand with copious quanti-
ties of ghost shrimp, sand dollars and littleneck clam. Beach seining
netted large numbers of shiner and striped seaperch, staghorn sculpin,
sole and starry flounder. A large number of juvenile dungeness crabs
in the seine confirm previous reports of a crab nursery area in Dyes
Inlet.
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
The following paragraphs should be added to the discussion of uti-
lities found in the draft EIS on page 11-60.
An expanded sewerage service area to include Poulsbo, Keyport and
Lemolo will not affect the available utility service systems described
in the draft EIS.
Electricity is delivered by the Puget Sound Power and Light Com-
pany.
At present, natural gas service does not extend as far north as
Poulsbo; however, it could be provided by Cascade Natural Gas Company
if demand reached a level high enough to justify system installation
cost.
Telephone service in Poulsbo, Keyport and Lemolo is provided by the
independently owned United Telephone Company.
The wastewater collection and treatment systems serving the Poulsbo,
Keyport and Lemolo areas are described in Table II-20a. As the table
indicates, Lemolo is sparsely populated and has no treatment plant.
Foulsbo has a wastewater treatment plant, though it gives only primary
11-20
-------
treatment and is at two-thirds capacity. Plans to expand and upgrade
the system are under consideration at this time, including as a serious
possibility the link-up with the proposed system in central Kitsap
County (References 61 and 66). Keyport has a secondary level plant,
with ample remaining capacity, but has been cited in the media as a
source of pollutants to Liberty Bay.
Table II-20a. EXISTING WASTE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Plant
Poulsbo
_, ,. Residences a
Existing
Existing Proposed flow, mgd
Primary plant 700 sf
.40
Capacity,
mgd
.60
100 mf
Keyport
civilian 2° treatment 105 sf .02 .06
plant
Navy 2° treatment industrial .08 .14
plant area serv-
ing popula-
tion equiv-
alent of
1,400.
Lemolo Individual 80 sf 75 mf .02
septic tanks
Q
sf = single-family dwellings; mf = units in multiple-family dwellings,
Source: References 60, 63, 64 and 65.
JURISDICTIONS
The following paragraphs should be substituted for the discussion
of jurisdictions on page 11-63 of the draft EIS.
Kitsap County's governmental responsibilities are defined by the
State. Three elected County Commissioners oversee administrative and
legislative activities. Other elected officials include sherriff, as-
sessor, auditor, treasurer, clerk, judges, prosecuting attorney and
coroner. In addition, there are 12 primary appointed County officials.
There are 11 districts in the County, including school, water, fire,
port and sewer districts, each with its own taxing authority. County
agencies such as the departments of planning, budgets and personnel,
human resources, public works, engineering, etc. handle planning and
development for the County. The County has four municipal governments:
Bremerton, Port Orchard, Poulsbo and Winslow, all located outside the
11-21
-------
planning area.
There are a number of Federal, State and regional agencies which
administer programs to the county. Three important regional agencies
which exercise planning policies in the county include the Puget Sound
Governmental Conference, the Central Puget Sound Economic Development
District and the Puget Sound Health Planning Council. The Health Plan-
niag Council and the Economic Development District do not directly af-
fect the selection of a facility alternative. The Puget Sound Govern-
mental Conference acts in an advisory capacity in the selection process
(Reference 60). Responsibility for alternative selection lies with
Kitsap County and the funding agencies.
PUBLIC AND SOCIAL SERVICES
The following is an addendum to the discussion on page 11-63.
The sewage treatment facilities in the planning area are adminis-
tered by the Kitsap County Department of Public Works. The wastewater
treatment plant at Keyport is within Kitsap County Sewerage District
No. 4, administered by three district commissioners. The Poulsbo treat-
ment plant is under the direction of the city engineer. A regional fa-
cility to serve a number of communities in the planning area would be
administered by the Kitsap County Department of Public Works (Reference
67).
TRANSPORTATION
This section should be added to the discussion on transportation
found on page 11-69 of the draft EIS.
The six-year road construction program for Kitsap County includes
two small segments which overlap parts of proposed pipeline routes. One
section to be repaired is about one-third of a mile long and is located
on Luoto Road in the northern part of the planning area just west of
Highway 3. The second segment is a one-tenth mile segment of Bucklin
Hill Road in Silverdale at Kitsap Way. Minor repairs to traffic facili-
ties will be made along this small section. At this time it cannot be
predicted when this roadwork will be undertaken. The work on Luoto Road
will probably not begin for several years due to present unavailability
of Federal funding. All utilities projects are coordinated by the Utili-
ties Coordinating Council in Kitsap County to minimize the disruption
and expense of road improvement and utilities excavations (Reference 68).
11-22
-------
TAX BASE
A general description of bonds for financing public works projects
has been moved from Chapter IV, Environmental Impacts, to the present
section on taxation.
The general obligation bon>\ (GO) approach is the method most widely
used by public entities to finance improvements which are considered to
be of general benefit to a region as a whole. They are primarily se-
cured by and payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable proper-
ties whthin the jurisdiction of the issuing entity. General obligation
bonds represent the highest type of credit that a public entity can is-
sue; as a result, they can normally be sold at lower interest rates than
can other types of bonds. The lower interest rates stem from the fact
that the GO bonds are backed by the public agency's total assets, and
the interest payments are not subject to Federal income tax. Such bonds
represent an equitable system for financing works of benefit to the en-
tire area of the agency; when employed with deferred redemption sched-
ules, the costs of the improvement may be paid by the future benefited
population, and per capita cost is held fairly constant over the life
of the issue.
General obligation bonds must be approved by a two-thirds vote of
the electorate and are limited to a reasonable percentage of the assessed
valuation. Under emergency or urgent circumstances, special legislation
may permit the issuance of general obligation bonds. Features of gen-
eral obligation bonds can be summarized as follows: (1) lower interest,
(2) lower annual cost to meet principal and interest payments compared
with other types of bonds and (3) greater flexibility in raising funds.
The revenue bond is another method which may be used by an entity
-to finance major facilities when an adequate method of levying and col-
lecting service charges to secure payment of the bonds can be developed.
As distinct from general obligation bonds, payment of revenue bonds is
secured solely by the revenues derived from or as a result of the im-
provements constructed with bond proceeds, and no property taxes may be
levied for their payment. This type of bond is becoming increasingly
popular in California and elsewhere in the United States because of in-
creasing difficulties faced by many communities and public agencies in
attempting to finance an increasing number of services within their gen-
eral obligation bonding capacity.
Major advantages of revenue bonds can be summarized as follows:
(1) there is no legal limit on the amount of such bonds; (2) revenue
bonds are payable solely from the revenues of the project and can never
become a lien or charge against real property; and (3) payment of the
bonds is derived solely from users of the facilities of the project for
which the bonds were issued.
11-23
-------
The disadvantages of such bonds can be summarized as follows:
(1) management of the funds is relatively inflexible; (2) the interest
rate is usually higher than that for general obligation bonds; (3) own-
ers of property now using the service pay nothing toward the bonds even
though some indirect benefit may be received by such owners from the
project financed by such bonds; and (4) a reserve fund must be main-
tained as additional security for bond payment and may be in excess of
expected requirements by 30 to 5~0 percent.
DEMOGRAPHY
The following section contains corrections to the population esti-
mates presented in the draft EIS.
The impacts on the study area population as a result of the Trident
base were studied by A. D. Little, Inc. and were recently made public in
their report entitled, "Analysis of Selected Impacts of Trident Related
Population Growth in Kitsap County; A Report to the Central Puget Sound
Economic Development District" (Reference 55).
The new data are shown below, together with corrected previous es-
timates to facilitate comparison.
KITSAP COUNTY POPULATION
Selected area of impact
Bremerton
Port Orchard
Poulsbo
Winslow
Unincorporated areas
County total
1960 B
28,922
2,778
1,505
919
52,293
86,417
1970 b
35,307
3,904
1,856
1,451
59,131
101,649
1970 c
35,307
3,904
1,861
1,529
61,054
103,655
1975 d
37,132
4,065
2,415
1,810
70,802
116,224
U.S. Census.
Reference 32.
c From A. D. Little report (Reference 56).
Includes locally stationed military and dependents.
The A. D. Little report presents some minor differences from esti-
mates contained in paragraph 2, page 11-76 of the draft EIS.
11-24
-------
POPULATION INCREASE ESTIMATES
Trident-induced increase
Civilian
Military
Total
Draft EIS
17,952
13,476
31,428 a
A, D. Little report
18,226
13,476
31,702
Corrected from 31,438
Table 11-24 contains annual population projections which appear in
the A. D. Little report, substantially expanding the projections found
on page 11-77 of the draft EIS.
Table 11-24. ANNUAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR KITSAP COUNTY a
Civilian population
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1990
1995
without
Trident
103,407
105,170
107,013
108,083
109,147
110,207
111,261
112,310
113,354
114,393
115,427
116,457
121,682
128,214
with
Trident
103,407
109,593
116,287
120,350
124,374
127,710
129,019
130,240
131,456
132,619
133,653
134,683
139,908
145,449
Military population
without with
Trident Trident
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,073
11,343
12,100
14,086
16,699
18,299
20,397
21,400
23,068
24,509
24,544
24,549
24,549
24,549
Total population
without
Trident
114,480
116,243
118,086
119,156
120,220
121,280
122,334
123,383
124,427
125,466
126,500
127,530
132,755
139,287
with
Trident
114,480
120,936
128,387
134,436
141,073
146,009
149,416
151,640
154,524
157,128
158,197
159,232
164,457
170,989
a Figures represent January totals.
Source: Reference 56.
The third paragraph from the bottom of page II-77 of the draft EIS
11-25
-------
contains a preliminary estimate of the 1990 Kitsap County population of
167,900 made by A, D, Little. Their most recent estimate, contained in
the table above, is 164,457,
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
The following new information should be added to the discussion
presented in the draft EIS.
An amended element of the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, ap-
proved on 24 June 1975 by the Kitsap County Planning Commission and on
28 July 1975 by the Board of Kitsap County Commissioners, is titled
Planning Policies; Outline for the Future Growth of Kitsap County,
Washington (Reference 58). Amended Figure 11-15 is taken from this
plan.
Four categories of land use intensity are described in the plan:
rural, transitional, urban and redevelopment areas, all but the last of
which are represented in the study area.
Residential development is considered desirable in urban areas, as
stated in the element (page 1): "Briefly stated, it is the County's
policy and goal to encourage development to take place in close proxim-
ity to existing urban centers." Transitional areas, which- are defined
in the element as "adjacent to urban areas" (page 1) may be considered
for installation of municipal service facilities as part of coordinated
development. "Rural areas," however, "are located ... where urban de-
velopment should not occur.
Kitsap County is predominantly rural in character. As of the 1970
census, 55.8 percent of the county's population lived in rural areas
which fringe the primary urban center of Bremerton and the smaller cen-
ters of Vinslow, Port Orchard and Poulsbo. Areas surrounding Liberty
Bay, Bainbridge Island and Dyes Inlet also contain a portion of the
rural population. In contrast, the urbanized population is clustered
in a number of cities, such as Bremerton, Winslow, Port Orchard and
Poulsbo, as well as in the unincorporated centers of Silverdale, Kings-
ton, Suquamish, Indianola and Manchester.
Current growth trends identified in the county include: a declin-
ing dominance of Bremerton; sectional shifts in new population growth,
with population increasing in the southern portion of the county at the
expense of the central and northern portion; and an increasing dispersal
of population throughout rural and urban fringe areas due in part to
preferences for single-family dwellings located in semirural areas.
Factors influencing these current trends include private market
11-26
-------
Poulsbo
LEGEND
URBAN AREA
TRANSITIONAL
RURAL
U.S.
fVW
Naval
XAXX;
Reservation
Source; Reference 58,
Figure 11-15. Supplement to proposed Kltsap County planning policy.
11-27
-------
forces and public policy. Private market forces have had a predominant
influence on the nature of population patterns and have consisted of
strong housing preferences for detached single-family dwellings and a
tendency to develop small but costly housing projects because of frag-
mented land ownership. Influential public policies include zoning
practices which have encouraged dispersed development; construction of
new roads, which has released adjacent land for development; and the
construction of utility lines, which has also allowed adjacent- popula-
tion growth to occur.
Future population growth trends will be influenced by additional
factors, according to the A. D. Little report. The county's physical
and environmental characteristics will play a more definitive role in
determining growth since future growth will occur in the county's in-
terior, where land is available, rather than along the shoreline, where
growth has traditionally occurred. Future development of the county
will therefore be subject to consideration of topographic barriers, un-
stable slopes, unsuitable soils, geology and hydrology. Growth will be
substantially influenced by the development of the Trident facility,
which will bring in military and civilian personnel. According to the
A. D. Little report,
... the recognition by a large number of people through-
out the County of a Trident base will not only result in prob-
able higher levels of in-migrants that can fill the construc-
tion jobs but a higher level of in-migrants related to the
expectation of jobs during the operation of the base (p. 11-25).
Table 11-24 contains population projections to 1995 and depicts
the anticipated growth of civilian and military populations with and
without the development of Trident.
Four alternative population growth models were developed by A. D.
Little, Inc. to illustrate means of managing future population growth
in Kitsap County. All models were defined in line with specific plan-
ning parameters, which included density factors, housing mixes, physi-
cal and environmental constraints and requirements for schools, shop-
ping and roadway facilities and water supply and sewer systems. Addi-
tionally, all models except one consider the population growth induced
by Trident. Because the Trident facility development appears certain,
the fourth model or Current Trends Model without Trident, will be dis-
missed from further discussion.
The first model, or Current Trends Model with Trident, considers
future population growth on the basis of past and present population
trends and projects them into the future. This model predicts that
rapid and decentralized population growth and housing construction would
take place in the more rural areas and in fringe areas around major ur-
ban areas. Densities in urban areas would be high since there is a lack
of available land; rural densities would be low because development
11-28
-------
would be scattered and devoted to detached, single-family units. In
terms of timing, growth would be dispersed, with new development occur-
ring simultaneously in different locations. As estimated, land required
for such development would consist of 23,554 acres, or a 60 percent in-
crease over that used currently for residential and related purposes.
The second model, or the Urban Concentration Model, suggests that
future growth could take place adjacent to existing urban centers in
order to concentrate or cluster the population. It is anticipated, con-
sequently, that no Trident-related growth would occur in the southern
portion of the county or on Bainbridge Island. New housing would devel-
op in high densities with decreased land consumption so that services
would be extended in an orderly fashion. Land required to manage this
type of growth would equal that utilized without Trident's development,
if current population growth trends were carried on into the future.
The third model, or New Town Model, calls for the creation of a
new town, which would accommodate the Trident-induced population in-
creases. By creating such a town, impacts of Trident would be elimi-
nated in existing urban centers such as Poulsbo and Silverdale and in
northern rural areas. Instead, the population (estimated at 11,000 by
1985) would be concentrated in northern Kitsap County in a town created
near the Bangor Annex. Densities would be low since primarily single-
family detached dwellings would be built, but the land required for such
development would be only 20 percent of that required in the Current
Trends with Trident Model.
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
The north Brownsville proposed treatment plant site occupies a
heavily wooded 10acre portion of a 40acre lot that adjoins an open,
marshy field. State Highway 303 passes through the extreme northeast
corner of the proposed site. The wooded portion contains young trees
and a great amount of fallen timber, indicative of recent logging acti-
vities. This, combined with standing water observed during a December
site visit, produces a littered appearance. There is a scrapped auto-
mobile yard located directly across the highway from the proposed site.
11-29
-------
CHAPTER III
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE PLANS
INTRODUCTION
In response to public comments on the Draft Facilities Plan, an
eleventh alternative was added for evaluation both in the Facilities
Plan and in the Environmental Impact Statement. A detailed description
of this alternative is provided in this chapter.
The sections on Design Flows and Quality, Interaction with Other
Plans, Sewage Sludge Disposal, Alternative Plan No. 10, and Project
Costs have also been amended to conform with Phase II study results
and current facilities design information.
Table III-l and Figure III-l have been amended to reflect recent
additions and changes to the alternative plans.
Design I7lows and Quality
The Draft EIS presented a design flow of 3.9 mgd from the study
area. This flow has since been reduced to 3.8 mgd, based upon a popu-
lation projection of 18,QOO parsons residing in the study area (Refer-
ence 56) and receiving sewerage service. Specifically, sub-basin 9
wastewater flow was reduced from 1.2 to 1.1 mgd in 1995. All other
wastewater flow and quality projections remained unchanged.
INTERACTION WITH OTHER PLANS
Poulsbo
The development of alternative plan No. 11, with its involvement
in the treatment of Poulsbo's and Lemolo's wastewaters, has been coor-
dinated with the citizens and facilities planning consultant for the
area. Although the Poulsbo Facilities Plan has not yet reached the
stage of selection of a preferred alternative, the planning consultant
III-l
-------
Table III-l. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Facilities Plan Plan
reference no. no.
( 1 ) 1
< 1*) 2
( 3 ) 3
( 3P) 4
( 4 ) 5
( 8 ) 6
< 9A) 7
(10A) 8
(11A) 9
(17 ) 10
C4A) 11
Service
area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Sub-basin 9 and
Trident facility
Sub-basin 10 and
Breme-ton plan-
ning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Bremerton plan-
ning area
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Sub-basins 9 and 10
Trident facility
Poulsbo facilities
planning area
Treatment fa-
cility site
Silverdale
Silverdale
North
Brownsville
North
Brownsville
North
Brownsville
Silverdalr
Bremerton
Bremerton
Enetai
Manchester
not chosen
North
Brownsville
Discharge
site
Dyes Inlet
Dyes Inlet
Bainbridge
Island
Bainbridge
Island
northern Port
Orchard
channel
Dyes Inlet
Sinclair
Inlet
Sinclair
Inlet
Port Orchard
channel at
Enetai
Manchester
Land dispo-
al sites
not chosen
.northern Port
Orchard
cha'nnel
III-2
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
Source: Reference 1
Figure III-l. Revised location of alternative elements.
III-3
-------
has been notified by letter of alternative systems 2, 4 and 11, which
would receive raw sewage from Poulsbo for treatment at the regional
facility (Reference 57). Similarly, the Lemolo Citizens Club has been
notified of the proposed plans and their comments solicited (Reference
59).
Keyport
With a design wastewater flow of 5.4 mgd, provision can easily be
made to accomodate the 0.2 mgd flow anticipated from the city of Key-
port and the Keyport Naval Torpedo Station. Both entities have been
notified of the willingness of a regional facility to accept their
wastewater.
ALTERNATIVES
Common Features
Sewage Sludge Disposal
It had been assumed for the draft EIS that 3.9 mgd of wastewater
would produce 15.9 tons of moist (20 percent dry solids) sewage sludge
daily. This was a misprint and should have read 15,900 Ibs daily.
Since that time the facilities planning consultant had estimated sewage
sludge generation at 3000 Ib dry solids/day from secondary treatment of
3.8 mgd of sewage and 5,480 Ib dry solids/day from secondary treatment
plus nitrification and denltrification of the effluent. It has also
been assumed that the sludge could be dewatered to a 25 percent solids
content; thus, it was estimated that daily disposal of sludge would be
on the order of 12,000 to 21,900 Ibs.
Proportioning these numbers to the sewage flow rate, sludge for
disposal could equal 17,000 to 31,000 Ibs daily for a wastewater flow
of 5.4 mgd. This would be the sewage flow rate if Poulsbo and Lemolo
were to be added to the Central Kitsap system. Wastewater from the
study area, Bremerton, Gorst and Port Orchard, and Manchester, but
excluding Poulsbo and Lemolo, could total 19.4 mgd with 61,000 to
112,000 Ibs of sewage sludge for daily disposal.
The Hansville Road sanitary landfill site is proposed as the
disposal site for sewage sludges generated by alternative systems
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11. This site has a 20-year design capacity of
517,000 tons and an ultimate capacity of 608,000 tons. The sewage
III-4
-------
sludges generated by alternative systems 6, 7, 8 and 9 would be taken
to the Brem-Air Northwest site, located south of Sinclair Inlet, with
a 20-year and 1,743,000 ton ultimate capacity.
It thus appears that the Hansville Road site could accomodate an
estimated 62,000 to 114,000 tons of sewage sludge over a 20-year period
without exceeding its total capacity. Poulsbo's waste sludge is in-
cluded in this estimate and would probably be trucked to the landfill
site even if Poulsbo were to develop a separate wastewater treatment
system.
The Brem-Air Northwest site would receive from 222,600 to 408,800
tons of sewage sludge over a period of 20 years under alternative plans
6, 7, 8 and 9. This would shorten the 20-year design life of the site
to 15 to 17 years. At the end of this time, a new sanitary landfill
site would need to be developed. Also, energy and materials recovery
systems will have evolved over the next 15 years to the point where
alternative solid waste disposal systems could be practically imple-
mented .
Alternative Plans No. 3, 4 and 5
The proposed Brownsville treatment plant site has been relocated
approximately 1.5 miles northward, as described in the preceding chap-
ter. This will affect only the proposed plant site and short pipeline
route segments for alternatives 3, 4 and 5. Figures III-6, 7 and 8
have been changed to reflect the new sites and routes. All other
features of these alternatives would remain unchanged.
Alternative Plan No. 11
Alternative plan No. 11 shares common features with plan No. 3.
A regional wastewater treatment facility would be located north of
Brownsville. This facility would receive 3.8 mgd of raw wastewater
from the study area and the Trident Support Site and 1.5 mgd of raw
wastewater from Poulsbo and Lemolo. Provisions will be made to
accomodate an additional 0.1 mgd of raw sewage each from Keyport and
the Keyport Naval Torpedo Station.
Raw sewage from sub-basins 9 and 10 would be pumped to the north
Brownsville site from Bucklin Hill Road along County Road 13 and Old
Military Road right-of-ways. Poulsbo's wastewater would be pumped
through sewers placed along State Highway 305 to Lemolo and then across
Liberty Bay to the Keyport Sewage Treatment Plant site. From Keyport
the wastewater would go southwest to State Highway 303 where it would
III-5
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
MILES
Source: Reference 61.
Figure III-6. Revised alternative plan no. 3.
III-6
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
PROBABLE SEWER PIPELINE
PROBABLE TREATMENT
FACILITY SITE
Source: Reference 61.
Figure III-7. Revised alternative plan no. 4.
III-7
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
:: 'PORT MADISON ::':;>:::; '.i^'C^^'Viv.'^V:'"^^:^
Source: Reference 61. M1LES
Figure III-8. Revised alternative plan no. 5,
III-8
-------
join sewage that would have been pumped from the Trident Support Site
along Luoto Road and State Highway 303. The combined wastewaters would
then go south along State Highway 303 to the north Brownsville treat-
ment plant site.
The proposed Brownsville facility would provide secondary level
wastewater treatment with an appropriate level of disinfection for
discharge to Port Orchard. The treated effluent outfall would be
buried in a county drainage easement eastward to the shoreline and then
be placed underwater to the discharge site. Figure 111-14 shows the
locations of major elements of this alternative plan.
Project Costs
Revised Table III-2 presents the current estimates made by the fa-
cilities planner for total project costs of each alternative. Table
III-3 shows project costs after reimbursement by the U.S. Navy for their
share of construction and operating costs. The final cost to Kitsap
County, after receiving subsidies from the Federal and State governments,
is presented in Table III-4. Alternatives involving joint treatment
with Bremerton or Manchester reflect the study area's relative share of
the cost. Alternatives No. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not include the
separate total cost of local wastewater treatment at Poulsbo. This is
estimated to equal $3,568,100 capital costs and $252,500 annual operat-
ing costs. Poulsbo's share of Alternative No. 2 costs is $6,742,500
capital and $322,900 0 and M and of Alternative No. 4 costs is $3,766,900
capital and $166,400 0 and M. The Poulsbo planning area would contribute
$3,829,900 capital and $176,600 0 and M of the total costs of Alternative
No. 11.
XII-9
-------
LEGEND
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
TREATMENT FACILITY SITE
SEWER PIPELINE
POTENTIAL OUTFALL AREA
y.'.y'r ' PORT MADISON.. \. ;.- 'Vi'x-: :::>-:^;i-/:Vr:V
Fay Bainbndge.-;Xv:"-y.'
e Pork ittX.*:-:-::
MILES
Source: Reference 61,
Figure 111-14. Alternative plan no. 11.
111-10
-------
Table III-2. COMPARISON OF TOTAL REVISED PROJECT COSTS a
H
Alternative
1 a
2d
3
4
5
6d
7
8
9
11
Annual cost
rank order
9
4
7
6
2
8
10
3
5
1
Capital cost,
$
16,982,700
15,429,000
19,480,600
18,622,700
15,678,000
17,487,100
22,105,000
18,989,800
19,426,300
13,751,300
0 & M cost,
$/vr c
847,800
799,700
572,300
513,500
535,800
795,100
750,300
406,200
412,800
457,600
Total annual cost, b
$
2,513,700
2,313,200
2,483,200
2,340,200
2,073,700
2,510,400
2,918,600
2,269,000
2,318,400
1,819,400
Cost to Central Kitsap Planning Area, before Navy subsidy.
Capital costs amortized over 20 years at 7-1/2 percent.
In June 1975 dollars.
Includes tertiary treatment.
-------
Table III-3. COMPARISON OF PROJECT COSTS AFTER NAVY REIMBURSEMENT
a
H
H
H
IsJ
Alternative
if
2 f
3
4
5
6 f
7 f
8
9
11
Annual cost
rank order
7
3
9
6
2
8
10
4
5
1
Capital cost,b
$
10,189,600
9,257,400
11,688,400
11,173,600
9,406,800
10,492,300
13,263,600
11,393,900
11,655,800
8,250,800
0 & M cost,
$/yr d'e
440,200
415,200
297,100
266,600
278,200
412,800
389,600
210,900
214,300
237,600
Total annual cost, c
$
1,439,700
1,323,300
1,443,600
1,362,100
1,200,900
1,442,000
1,690,600
1,328,600
1,357,600
1,046,900
Cost to Central Kitsap County.
Navy reimbursement is 40 percent of total capital cost.
Capital costs amortized over 20 years at 7-1/2 percent.
In June 1975 dollars.
Navy reimbursement is 48.08 percent of annual 0 & M cost.
-------
Table III-4. COST TO KITSAP COUNTY AFTER NAVY REIMBURSEMENT, EPA AND STATE SUBSIDIES
Capital cost, $
Alternative
ld
2d
3
4
5
6 d
'd
V
co 9
11
Rank order
10
7
6
5
4
8
9
2
3
1
Total
cost b
1,019,000
925,700
1,168,800
1,117,400
940,700
1,049,200
1,326,300
1,139,400
1,106,500
825,100
Annual
amortization c
100,000
90,800
114,700
109,600
92,300
102,900
130,100
111,800
114,300
80,900
Annual
0 & M cost a
440,200
415,200
297,100
266,600
278,200
412,800
389,600
210,900
214,300
237,600
Total annual
cash requirement
$
540,200
506,000
411,800
376,200
370,500
515,700
519,700
322,700
328,600
318,500
a
After Navy reimbursement.
Net cost to Kitsap County.
c At 7-1/2 percent for 20 years.
Includes tertiary treatment.
-------
CHAPTER IV
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The environmental impacts of alternative plan No. 11 are presented
on special project summary sheets which should be added to those pre-
viously presented in the draft EIS. These sheets provide not only a
discussion of the related impact but also the category and sub-category
of classification, the definition of the environmental impact category,
the boundary or extent of analysis and the method by which the analysis
was conducted. A basic reference source for background information is
presented along with the name of the individual providing the assess-
ment. The rating for any particular impact is generally the subjective
judgment of an evaluator technically qualified and experienced in that
impact category.
The following impacts are grouped by physical, resource, economic
and socio-cultural categories. Where it was felt that impact cate-
gories could be relevant to the proposed project, those factors were
evaluated and, where the impact was not trivial, rated. Irrelevant im-
pact topics, such as airport noise, are not even addressed. The ratings
developed for each impact were determined by an expert in that field.
The numbers developed are used in Appendix A where they are multiplied
by weighting factors which represent their relative value. Weighting
factors are selected to reflect community opinion, and their derivation
is explained in Appendix A. Weighted scores for each impact category
are combined for individual alternatives and the resulting numerical
values have been presented in Chapter I.
As a result of Phase II studies and refinements in the conceptual
facility design, some estimated impacts of alternatives 1 through 9
were judged to be altered, requiring reevaluation in specific cate-
gories. Following the presentation of the impacts of alternative plan
No. 11, revised project summary sheets are presented for the other
alternatives. These sheets are intended to replace comparable sheets
in the draft EIS.
-------
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
The assessments of physical impacts have been divided into the
following sub-categories and criteria to separate significantly inde-
pendent variables:
Air Quality
Noise
Odors
Terrestrial Environment
Vegetation Communities
Clear Creek
Overall study area less Clear Creek
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
Rare and Endangered Species
Freshwater Ecology
Clear Creek
All freshwater bodies except Clear Creek
Marine Biological Environment
Benthic
Water Column
Surface
Soils
Water Quality
Surface Water
Clear Creek
Burkes Creek
All streams other than Clear Creek and Burkes Creek
Lakes
Groundwater
Quality
, Quantity
Marine Water Quality
IV-2
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
li Critarion.\
il Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
1 I Category:_
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Air Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project pro-
duces air pollution emissions under current
regulations in the project area.
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area and treatment facility
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of known air emissions from similar
sewage treatment facilities
DISCUSSION:
Properly operated sewage treatment facilities generally
do not emit measurable quantities of air pollutants.
+50
+25
It "was estimated that daily, one to two truckloads +20
totalling 17.5 tons of dewatered, digested sewage sludge
would be taken to a sanitary landfill. The
exhaust emissions of the truck would be neg-
Igilble in comparison to the vehicle emissions
from the Study Area population.
Oust and particulates raised during construction activ-
ities can be reduced by following FPA published guide-
lines for minimizing fugitive dust from construction
sources. It will be shown in a subsequent section that
project induced population growth will be insignificant.
-Secondary impact air contaminants produced by such a
population would also be insignificant.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
M. Dean High, Senior Air Quality Engineer
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-10
-25
-50-
-75
-1001
RATING: 0
Reduces ambient pollution
by 50%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 25%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 15%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 10%.
Reduces ambient pollution
by 5%'.
No change from ambient
levels.
Increase ambient pollution
by 5%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 10%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 15%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 25%.
Increases ambient pollution
by 50%.
IV-3
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I \ Criterion:m
Pj Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Category:_
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Noise
DEFINITION:
The affect of ambient noise level upon resi-
dences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, picnic
areas.
RATING: - 5
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Major roads and pipeline routes in
Study Area and sewage treatment plant
site
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Comparison of existing noise levels with estimated
increases due to project. Scale based upon EPA
guidelines.
DISCUSSION:
Sewage treatment facilities are relatively quiet and do
not produce substantial noise outside facility location
but some motor noise may be detected.
Since traffic increase is not attributable to project
and major noisy roadways will remain so due to other
growth factors, only slight noise levels may be attri-
buted to trucks transporting sewage sludges to land-
fills once or twice daily.
+75
+50
+25
+10
-10
Construction noise for the facility or the placement of
major pipelines could be substa itia_ and over 10 dBA
but would be of short, temporary duration at any specific
location.
-50-
-75-
M. Dean High, Sr. Air Quality Eng.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: EPA NTID 300.3 "Community Noise";
EPA Region X Guidelines
EIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Over 10 dBA decrease of
Lso ambient.
10 dBA decrease of
ambient.
5 dBA decrease of 150
ambient.
0 dBA increase of LJQ
ambient.
5 dBA increase of LSQ
ambient, few complaints if
gradual.
10 dBA increase of LSQ
ambient, more complaints,
especially during sleeping
hours.
Over 10 dBA increase of 1.50
ambient, substantial number
of complaints.
rv-4
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
LJ Criterion :_
j) Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
fl
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Odors
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project
creates odors in the project area.
RATING: °
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area and treatment facility site
+100
+75
+50
+25
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of known odor generation from
similar sewage treatment facilities.
DISCUSSION:
Properly operated sewage treatment facilities generally
do not produce noticeable objectionable odors. Due to
the small size of the service are?, it is expected that
fresh, rather than septic, sewages would arrive at the +20
plant. Some local odor may be noticed at the plant
.when (1) tank trucks deliver septic tank sludges
to the treatment facility; (2) a malfunction in
Che sewage system delays flow to the plant; and
(3) an unforseen upset in plant process occurs.
- -10
Dewatered, well-digested sewage is relatively odor free
and transport of this sludge to a sanitary landfill would
would not result in odors at tha landfill or during
transport. A reduction in odors will be noticed in _25
areas of septic tank failure when these areas are con-
nected to a sewage system. This benefit would outweigh
possible plant odors.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
M. Dean High, Senior Air Quality Engineer
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-SO-
~?&
-100'
Reduces acbient odors by 50%.
Reduces anbient odors by 25%.
Reduces anbient odors by 15%.
Reduces anbient odors by 10%.
Reduces acbient odors by 5%.
No change from ambient
levels.
Increases ambient odors
by 5%.
Increases ambient odors
by 10%.
Increases ambient odors
by 15%.
Increases ambient odors
by 25%.
Increases ambient odors
by 50%.
IV-5
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
II Category;^
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Vegetation Community
Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
RATING:
0
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Clear Creek Pipeline Corridor
+200
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection.
DISCUSSION:
This alternative does not require a pipeline corridor
down the lower Clear Creek drainage. Only 2 stream
crossings are involved at Bucklin Hill Road and
Mountain View Road. Both crossings are on established
roads and thus should have negligible impact on the
creek or environs.
Upper Clear Creek Valley under the Kitsap County Master
Plan will retain the present rural designation.
f-SO
+2S
-10
-25
50
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIB Form #101B/
Copyright 1373
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Earnahaw and Richman, Consulting
Botanists
-10(fI
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat and food chain.
Aquatic productivity and
complexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved or
stabilized in local areas.
No changes reflected within
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productivity
promoting temporary instabil-
ity within system.
Significantly degrades or
removes aquatic habitat and
productivity.
IV-6
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
| I Category: Physical Impacts
^ I Sub-Category:
\ | Criterion: Vegetation Communities
[ 3^ Sub-Criterion: Overall Study Area less Clear Creek
SES Project No.
Terrestrial Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
vegetation as a soil stabilizer. Site charac-
teristics (topography, riparian location) de-
termine degree to which vegetation prevents
erosion.
RATING:
- 20
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Oil-site inspection and evaluation of existing
conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+7S
+50
+25
The majority of the pipe alignments will be within local
roadway right-of-ways. Within Central Valley, approximately
2 miles of the alignment must pass through vegetated sections
Pipeline construction will cause minor land disruptions +20
during vegetation clearing, trenching, and burying of pipes.
The open pasturelands and short segments of- woodlots
should recover within 6-12 months. Marsh areas may re- 0
quire a longer time.
The last section of the pipe alignment from South Keyport -10
Road to Port Orchard may suffer long-term effects. The
steep ravine leading down to the beach is a. sensitive area
due to the poor soils and slope instability. Construction
without proper mitigation methods could affect the vege- .55
tation community in that localized area.
-SO
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Bcxnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Project increases soil
stability by introduction
of vegetation (planting,
seeding, fertilizing).
Project will not induce
erosion, i.e., no or neg-
ligible effects on soil
stability.
Erosion hazard reduced by
less severe site character-
istics.
Vegetation removal will
cause serious erosion and
sedimentation because of
site characteristics (topo-
graphy, riparian location).
IV-7
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
L i4 Criterion :^
tj Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Category :m
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
wildlife numbers, complexity and habitat.
RATING:
- 15
+100
+75
+50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation.
DISCUSSION:
+2S
Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility will
remove 5-10 acres of wildlife i.abitat .and displace wildlife
presently utilizing Che area. The proposed site is generally
In areas previously disturbed by human actions. The
+10
small size and proximity to major thoroughfares also limits
the disruption of wildlife and habitats.
C
All proposed pipeline routes except for small portions
north of Brownsville will be within road right-of-ways and
should cause negligible impact to wildlife and habitats _j^
in adjacent areas.
Construction within the Steel Creek (North Ford) drainage
will cause a temporary disruption of habitat. Sensitive _g^
areas are the freshwater marsh and swamp adjacent to the
treatment plant site. These areas provide a seasonal wild-
life habitat. Disruption or reduction of the marsh could
lead to a reduction in wildlife associated with this
ecosystem. ..54
The construction route of the final pipeline segment leading
to the marine outfall will diverge from the road easements
and traverse a. wooded area to reach the shoreline. Wildlife
will be temporarily disrupted during this segment of pipe- ,,,
line construction. The ravine descending to the Port
Orchard outfall is unstable with sparse vegetation and thus
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Significantly improves wild-
life habitats and wildlife
number.
«
Increased wildlife numbers
provide more "niches".
Improves or expands wildlife
habitat in localities.
No changes reflected within
system.
Degrades or reduces wildlife
habitat in localities.
Decreases wildlife numbers
or leads to unstable popula-
tion.
Significantly degrades wild-
life habitats and reduces
wildlife number and complex
ity.
IV-8
-------
Socio-Economic Systems " SES Project NO.
l~l Catniom: Physical Impacts
LJ Sub-Category: Terrestrial
EC") Criterion: _ Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
i| Sub-Criterion: __
represents the disturbance of only a marginal wildlife habitat.
Operation of facility or pipelines will not affect terrestrial wildlife. Relocation
of population near available sewer lines will disturb, if not eliminate, most wildlife.
Since it is assumed that population growth in the Study Area will occur with or without
the project and that presently built-up areas would not increase substantially in
density, this increase in population, wherever it occurs, would disturb wildlife for a
negligible impact difference between project and no-project.
IV-9
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project No-
f~l Category: Physical Impacts
II Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
lx| Criterion: Rare and Endangered Species
I | Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affectd ACSBCCFTI HUT
the viability of habitat for the rare or en- ««.r nA-r
dangered species. NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing information
DISCUSSION:
No rare or endangered plant species will be affected within the study area. Of the
rare mammals, the sea otter will not be affected. The mountain li-n and fisher
which might occur in the area and which are wide-ranging animals, may ten-porarily
be disturbed by construction activities and perhaps slight loss in habitat. The
western gray squirrel appears in the oakprairie association and will probably not
be affected by the projects.
No long-range negative impacts are associated directly with the project itself.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
References 19 and 20
SIR Form 91016/
Copyright 1973
IV-10
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I \ Category: Physical Impacts
[| Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
I J Criterion: Freshwater Ecology
|x| Sub-Criterion: Clear Creek
SES Project No.
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
RATING: 0
+100
+7S
+£0
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Clear Creek Pipeline Corridor
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection
DISCUSSION:
This alternative does not require a pipeline corridor
down the lower Clear Creek drainage. Only 2 stream
crossings are involved at Bucklin Hill Road and Mountain
View Road. Both crossings are on established roads and +10
thus should have negligible impact on the creek.
Upper Clear Creek Valley will retain the present rural
environment as designated in the Kitsap County Master
Plan.
0
-10
-21
-sc
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst,
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
SIS Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
-100
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat and food chain.
«
Aquatic productivity and
complexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved or
stabilized in local areas.
No changes reflected within
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productiv-
ity promoting temporary in-
stability within system.
Significantly degrades or
removes aquatic habitat and
productivity.
IV-11
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Fl Category :^
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
L ] Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Freshwater Ecology
All freshwater bodies except Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the Riparian or marsh system: shore vegetation,
aquatic habitat and aquatic productivity.
RATING: +10
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Island Lake, Barker, Steel and Burke
Creeks and all other tributaries
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing conditions
DISCUSSION:
+100
+7,
#50
+25
-10
Pipeline construction will cause m-'nor land disruptions
during vegetation clearing, trenching and burying of
pipes. In limited areas, some erosion may occur which
can damage stream beds during the first rainy season. +10
These would be limited impacts and should not last more
than 6 months. More significantly, runoff from septic
fields and leaking septic tanks will be removed from "
tributaries to Burke Bay and lower portions of Barker's
Creek. This will reduce organic loading and lead to
an overall improvement in the freshwater environment.
This is most significant during the summer when flows
are low and aquatic organisms are more sensitive to
external influence.
-25
The crossing of all creeks by new sewage pipelines
should be made after the salmonid spawning season and
with proper construction techniques; these crossings
are expected to affect only very small sections of
the streams at present roadway crossings.
The freshwater marsh zone at the head of the North Fork
of Steel Creek will be temporarily disrupted. Pipeline
construction will remove marsh vegetation and enclose
sections of the marsh. This effect is greatly reduced
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst; Earnshaw and Richman,
-50
-7.
EOl Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Consulting Botanists
Significantly improves and
promotes stable aquatic hab-
itat and food chain
Aquatic productivity and com-
plexity increased within
system.
Aquatic habitat improved and
stabilized in local areas due
to '.mprovement in water
quality.
No changes reflected with
present conditions.
Disturbance of nearby water-
shed area causing deteriora-
tion of aquatic habitat in
local areas.
Decreases aquatic productiv-
ity promoting temporary in-
stability within system.
Significantly degrades or re-
moves aquatic habitat and
productivity.
IV-12
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°J'ect No-
Q Caie.jory: _ Physical Impacts _
Q Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environnent
Criterion: _ Freshwater Ecology
Ixl Sub-Criterion: All freshwater bodies except Clear Creek
if construction occurs during the late summer when the ground is comparatively drier.
The disruption and possible loss of small segments of marsh offsets to a small degree
Che overall benefit to Freshwater ecosystems accrued by the proposed project.
IV-13
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category:
Sub-Category: i
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
IxJ Criterion:
I | r-tb-Criterion:
Benthic Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING:
+ 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Port Orchard, Liberty Bay
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Water circulation within these areas will provide
adequate dilution of wastewater and lead to negligible
effects on the benthic community.
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes Inlet
should provide a marked benefit to the lower strata
of the marine environment. The removal of sources
of organic pollution, heavy metal contaminants and
public health hazards from these restricted inlets
should provide an environmental improvement from
the present conditions.
+50
+25
+10
-10
Construction and laying of the outfall pipe will have a
short-term negative impact on the benthic community.
Disruption of the substrate, increase in turbidity,
and displacement of marine organisms, particularly
clam beds, is unavoidable during construction. Along
the eastern shore of the Port Orchard channel may
occur some short-term disruption of populations of
littleneck, butter, gaper and bentnose clams, mussels
and barnacles. Marginally, some pea crabs (Finnixia sp.)
and brittles stars (Ophiodphus sp.) along with some sea
lettuce, Laminaria and eel grass will be disturbed. The
presence of adjacent benthic communities should lead -75)
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-100*
Significantly enhances benthic
productivity and promotes
stable bottom community.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces benthic
productivity and degrades
bottom environment.
IV-14
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
I I Category: Physical Impacts
1^1 Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
I aj Criterion: Benthic Community
Sub-Criterion:
to substantial repopulation within 2 years.
A raw sewage pipeline would cross Liberty Bay from Lemolo to Keyport. Disruption
of local beach and sublittoral communities by underwater pipeline construction
would be a short-term impact. Elimination of sessile invertebrates and limited
marine flora in the path of construction would be a significant but localized
impact.
Adequate dilution and mixing at Port Orchard as calculated in Chapter III should
greatly reduce potential adverse impacts of wastewater discharge through the outfall
system. A long multiport diffuser system would promote fast mixing. The diluted
effluent thus have minor direct impact on the benthic community, although sere
cumulative effects of effluent material concentrations, as mentioned in Alternative 1,
may occur. Avoidance of the central plume ares, by salmonids and pelagic fish may
occur as a reaction to salinity and temperature changes.
IV-15
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I"") Category:
II Sub-Category: __
fee I Criterion: Water Column Community
t) Sub-Cri.teri.on:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment within the Water Column Zone
(beginning at the benthic community and extend-
ing up to two feet below the water surface).
RATING:
+ 20
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Fort Orchard, Liberty Bay, Dyes Inlet
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Construction of a pipeline crossing at the mouth of
Liberty Bay will have a noticeable short-term impact.
Disruption of the substrate would lead to a temporary
Increase in turbidity at the mouth of the poorly cir-
culating Liberty Bay. The sediment load in the water
could have a short-term effect on photosynthetic plants
and filter-feeding animals. These effects should be
United to the construction period plus a few months to
halfa-year for the bioregeneration lag time.
Wastewater effluent entering Port Orchard will con-
tribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Within small shallow bays and inlets, nutrient en-
richment can trigger algal blooms which block light
transmittance to benthic plants, and rob dissolved
oxygen from the water when they decompose.
A dally input of 5.4 million gallons of freshwater
may have small effects on salinity and temperature
directly in the mixing zone. Some mortality will
occur as plankton and more sensitive marine organ-
Isms become entrained in the freshwater/seawater
outfall plume.
+50
+25
+10
-10
o c
£jd
-so
-7J
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIS Form 1H016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
"K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Enhances and maximizes use of
intermediate water column for
fish and other marine organ-
isms.
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to im-
proved water conditions.
So or negligible changes to
present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
tosynthesis capability of
plants and reduce productiv-
ity.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water column
for fish and other marine
organisms.
IV-16
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject NO.
Q Cats.:ior:i: Physical Impacts
Q Sub-Catc'sory: Marine Biological Environment
|x| Criterion: Water Column Community
Wastewater discharge into open-ended passages with good mixing will minimize these
effects or entirely eliminate them.
Elimination of effluent discharge to Dyes Inlet will improve water quality in that
area and help to reduce the frequency of algal blooms.
IV-17
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
InCOGPORATtB «
I I Category Physical Impacts
LJ Sub-Category: _
be j Criterion: Surface Community
l) Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING:+ 25
+200
n
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Liberty Bay, Port Orchard and
Puget Sound
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes Inlet
and Poulsbo should provide a m-rked benefit to the
upper strata of the marine environment. The reduction
of nutrient loadings would decrease the frequency of
algal blooms in these restricted inlets. The cessa-
tion of primary sewage flows and septic tank seepages
should provide an overall improvement to the present
conditions.
Construction of a pipeline crossing at the mouth of
Liberty Bay will have a noticeable short-term impact.
Disruption of the substrate would 7ead to a temporary
increase in turbidity at the mouth of the poorly cir-
culating Liberty Bay. The sediment load in the water
could have a short-term effect on photosynthetic plants
and filter-feeding animals. Liberty Bay normally has
high algal biomass in the upper layers in the spring
runoff season. The shallow Bay depths also sustain
large shellfish populations. These effects should be
limited to the construction period plus a few months
to half-a-year for the bio-regeneration lag time.
+50
+25
-TO
-25
-50
Wastewater effluent entering local areas can contribute
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Within small.?,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016'/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Enhances and maximizes use
of surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
<
No or negligible changes
to present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality lead-
ing to simplification and
reduction of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
IV-18
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject
L_J Category: Physical Impacts
11 Suit-Category: Marine Biological Environnent
i J Criterion: Surface Community
I 1 Sub-Criterion:
shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment can trigger algal blooms which
block light transmittance to benthic plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the
eater when they decompose.
Adequate mixing of effluent through a well-designed outfall will greatly dilute
these effects, especially in areas of good circulation.
IV-19
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
_«f
LJ Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Soils
0 Criterion:
|J Sub-Criterion: _
Long-Term Soil Fertility
DEFINITION:
The extent of change tn yield of native and/or
cropped vegetation brought about by the proposed
alternative.
RATING:
0
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Portion of Kitsap County within Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
+100
+75
+50
Examination of soil and geologic reports prepared by the
USDA Soil Conservation Service and the State of Washington
DISCUSSION:
+2.
Extent of change of yield is estimated from a series of
existing soil-vegetative associations, climatic conditions
and the available information on effects of increased ir-
rigation, fertilization and toxic element additions as +10
a result of effluent discharges upon soil surfaces.
Disruptions in soil properties along pipeline
routes are assumed to involve the destruction
of soil A and B horizons and their replacement
with mineral aggregates of low fertility; however,
these effects are minor and generally involve road
right-of-ways.
-25
-50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form §1016 /
Copyright 1973
B. Sheikh, Ph. D.t Soil Scientist;
References 6 and 7
<
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by more than 50
percent.
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 30 percent.
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 20 percent.
Yield of vegetation is in-
creased by 10 percent.
Soil Properties Remain Un-
changed.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 10 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 20 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by 30 percent.
Yield of vegetation is de-
creased by more than 50
percent.
IV-20
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
LJ Criterion:_
Sub-Critei-ion:
SES Project No.
Category:^
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Surface Water
Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING: + 50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Clear Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures
have occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading
to the stream.
DISCUSSION:
Bacteriological standards i- the lower reaches of
Clear Creek are violated 90 percer." of the time. In
stallation of sewers, although it may cause some
temporary construction related degradation, will
Improve water quality over the long-term after
presently contaminated groundwater and construction
related disturbances have been flushed out. Im-
provement will be confined to the lower reaches,
hence a rating of + 50 is appropriate.
+100
+75
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
EH! Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
76-
Substantlally upgrades
presently degraded stream
to meet standards through-
out its length.
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in
selected reaches.
No or negligible effect.
Degrades selected reaches of
stream.
Substantially degrades a
stream that presently meets
the standards throughout
its length.
IV-21
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
ri Category:_
PI Sub-Category: __
I | Criterion; Surface Water
PI Sub-Criterion: Burkes Creek
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING:
+ 50
+100
+76
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
-SO
-76
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Burkes Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures
have occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading
to the stream.
DISCUSSION:
Bacteriological standards for Burkes Creek are ex-
ceeded over 80 percent of the time in the lower
reaches. Installation of sewers will improve long-
term water quality after the polluted groundwater
presently being discharged from failing septic tank
drainfields is flushed out. Improvement will be con-
fined to the lower reaches, hence a rating of + 50
is appropriate.
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-10&"
Substantially upgrades a
presently degraded stream
to meet standards throughout
its length.
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in
selected reaches.
No or negligible effects.
Degrades selected reaches
of stream.
Substantially degrades a
stream that presently meets
the standards throughout its
length.
IV-22
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
Category :m
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Criterion:
Surface Water
SubCriterion: All stre-ms other than Clear Creek and Burkes Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
| RATING: + 40
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
All streams other than Clear Creek
and Burkes Creek
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Delineate proposed sewered area within drainage
basin, especially where septic tank failures have
occurred, and estimate the reduced waste loading to
the stream.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
There are at least six major septic tank drainfield
failure areas located within a number of small tributary
streams of Dyes Inlet and Port Orchard channel. Although
no vater quality data exists for these streams, except
for Silverdale Creek, it can be assurced that Class A
standards are not being met. The impact of sewage col-
lection will be less than in Clear Creek and Burkes
Creek because not all of the other stream basins will
be sewered so it can not be assumed that the effect
is equally beneficial. A lower positive rating of
+ 40 has been established.
+10
-10
-25
-50-
-71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: w. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng..
Reference 1 ; State Health Department Data
EIB Form Ml 016/
Copyright 1973
-10&-*
"I Substantially upgrades
presently degraded streams
to meet standards throughout
their length.
Upgrades stream to meet water
quality standards in selected
reaches.
Upgrades selected water
quality indicators in selec-
ted reaches.
No or neglegible effect.
Degrades selected reaches of
selected streams.
Degrades all streams through-
out their length.
IV-23
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
1"") Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
II Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
Surface Water
Lakes
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
ambient surface water quality.
RATING:
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Island Lake
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Review Draft Facilities Flan
DISCUSSION:
Alternative plan No. 11 presently does not include
an interceptor sewer to the Island Lake area. It
therefore has no impact on lake water quality.
+100
+7S
+50
+25
+10
0
-10
-25
-SO
-76
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 1; State Health Department Data
SIR Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
-100
Substantially upgrades a
presently degraded lake to
consistently meet Lake Class
Standards.
Upgrades a presently degraded
lake and reduces the fre-
quency of violating Lake
Class Standards.
<
No or negligible effect.
Degrades a lake so that there
is some frequency of violat-
ing the standards.
Degrades a lake so that Lake
Class Standards are consis-
tently not met.
IV-24
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
f~l Category._
| I Sub-Category:
\ I Criterion: Ground Water
nrj Sub-Criterion: Quality
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The degree to which alternatives affect the
quality of the principal aquifers in the
Study Area.
RATING:
50
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed Sewered Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing water quality, septic tank
failures, location of wells
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
The installation of sewers 'fill alleviate the
recently observed pollutioi. of sha.llow wells in areas of
septic tank malfunctions. This will help in the Silver^0
dale area and particularly the Meadowdale and Browns-
ville area where dug wells predominate. Pollution of
wells would grow worse in the future if septic tank
disposal is continued to be used in areas of suburban
density land use. Groundwater quality is excellent in all
deep aquifers not subject to septic tank infiltration -10
and the installation of sewers will not change this.
Therefore a rating of + 50 is assigned to alternatives
1 - 9.
-25
-SO
~7S
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; References 1 and 5
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
Substantially increases
groundwater quality through-
out Study Area, all aquifers.
Groundwater quality increases
in localized areas or in se-
lected aquifers.
No or negligible effect.
Groundwater quality reduced
in localized areas or selec-
ted aquifers.
Substantially reduces ground
water quality throughout
Study Area.
IV-25
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
1 I Criterion._
Su.b-Criteri.or.:
SES Project No.
[~1 Category :m
Sub-Category:
Ground Water
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Quantity
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of groundwater
in the Study Area.
RATING: - 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+SO
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the.areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +10
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particularly
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adversely -10
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-SO
-71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form K1016/
Copyright 1973
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
-100J
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
IV-26
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCOHftOBATCO __
[I Category Physical Impacts
[I Sub-Category:
(3 Criterion: Marine Water Quality
| ) Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated waste-
waters discharged to marine waters.
RATING:
+ 50
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
north Port Orchard channel
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet water quality standards,
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
+50
+2,
Based upon model studies, discharges to north Port
Orchard would receive good mixing and dispersion and fair
initial dispersion. For explanation see Chapter 2. Pres-
ent contamination of Dyes Inlet would be reduced. +20
It is unlikely that noticeable increases in background
concentrations of nutrients would be detected after
dispersion of the effluent from this site.
-10
-50-
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concen-
trations of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone
(plume). Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential
problem by extending the biological treatment period to
nitrify the effluent.
Properly operated secondary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent
with total coliform levels as low as 23MPN per 100 ml.
After dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be
negligible in the receiving water.
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would
reduce pollutant concentrations to at least water
quality standards levels. Ultimate dilution is roughly
estimated at 5000:1.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: J- A- Davis, Water Quality Engineer;
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area.
SIR Form #1016/ -100*
Copyright 1973
Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water quality
standards; would maintain
present water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water quality
standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-27
-------
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The impacts of the proposed alternative plans upon natural,
social and utility resources in the study area are assessed and
rated by the following sub-categories:
Natural Resources
Surface Water Resources
Potable
Ground Water
Quality of Potable Supplies
Quantity of Potable Supplies
Flora
Fauna
Terrestrial
Marine
Utilities Service Systems
Electrical
Gas
Water
Municipal Services
Environmental Health
Parks and Recreation
Flood Control and Storm Drains
Sanitary Sewer System
Streets and Lighting
IV-28
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
Criterion:
|x! Sub-Criterion.: Potable
f~j Category: Resource Impacts
| Sub-Category: Natural Resources
Water Resources - Surface
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects the quality and quantity of potable
water obtained from surfaces in the impact area
RATING:
+5
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study area.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
engineer's report.
Staff review of consulting
+50
+25
DISCUSSION: Sub-standard and overtaxed tanks
permit raw sewage to flow into surface
waters in the planning area.
The proposed project, by carrying the sew-
erage to a treatment plant, will reduce
or prevent further pollution of surface
water supplies and will enhance the quality
of surface waters.
The use of surface waters as potable water supply in the
Study Area is insignificant. -10
-25
-SO
-71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EZZ? Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
Amnon Feffer, Senior Environmental
Analyst
-100
Significantly enhances the
quality and quantity of
potable surface water
Enhances the quality and
quantity of potable surface
water
No or negligible effect
Diminishes quality and
quantity of potable surface
water
Significantly diminishes
quality and quantity of
potable surface water
IV-29
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
1"") Category:
LJ Sub-Category:
tl Criterion: Ground Water
|x| Sub-Criterion: Quality ci7 Potable Supplies
SES Project No.
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
DEFINITION: The degree to which alternatives
affect the quality of the principle potable water
supplies in the Study Area.
RATING:
+ 50
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed Sewered Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Evaluation of existing water quality,
septic tank failures, location of wells.
DISCUSSION: The installation of sewers will alleviate
the recently observed pollution of shallow wells in
areas of septic tank malfunctions. This will help in the
Silverdale area and particularly the Meadowdale and Browns-
ville area where dug wells predominate. Pollution of wells
would grow worse in the future if septic tank disposal +10\
is continued to be used in areas of surburban density
land use. Groundwater quality is excellent in all deep
aquifers not subject to septic tank infiltration and the 0
installation of sewers will not change this. Therefore
a ratine of + 50 is assigned to alternatives 1-9.
-10
"25
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: W.O. Maddaus, Water Resources
Engineer; Reference 1 and 5
ED? Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
-100*-*
Substantially increases
groundwater quality throughout
Study Area, all aquifers
1 Groundwater quality increase in
localized areas or in selected
aquifers.
No or negligible effect.
Groundwater quality reduced
-50JJin localized areas or selected
aquifers.
-7i
Substantially reduces ground-
water quality throughout Study
Area.
IV-30
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
f Category._
Sub-Category:
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
I j Criterion: Ground Water
Quantity of Potable Supplies
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of potable ground-
water in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +20
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particularly 0
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adversely -10
affected by exporting water extracted, from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
-7,
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
~10(fI
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
Water levels increase in
sonK existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
IV-31
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
I«CO«»0«ATCO ^_
I I Category: Resource Impacts
II Sub-Category:
Q Criterion: Flora
j [ Sub-CriteTfion: ^_______
Natural Resources
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
vegetation as an economic resource.
RATING:
0
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
DISCUSSION:
Proposed treatment plant sites and pipeline routes
require only small amounts of land area. This limited
land utilization should have a. mini-Tial effect or no
effect at all on any type of vegetation as an economic
resource.
+100
+7,
+60
-10
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst;
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
-SO -^
-75-
-100**
Increases significantly
amount of vegetation for
economic production.
No or negligible effect.
Removes significant amount
of vegetation from economic
production.
IV-32
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
ll Category:_
II Sub-Category:
I I Criterion: Fauna
PC] Sub-Criterion: Ter;-estrial
SES Project No.
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
terrestrial game species and abundance.
RATING: 0
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of available data
DISCUSSION:
Proposed treatment plant sites and pipeline routes
require minimal land utilization, some of which passes
through areas of human usage and traffic. The project
will probably have a negligible effect on game species
and abundance.
Natural population growth in the study area, not asso-
ciated with the proposed project, will have a negative
effect on the abundance of game species.
+50
+2:
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
-10
-25
-SO -
-75-
-100'
Provides attractive and
stable habitat for many
species.
Improvement or extension of
favored game habitats in
local areas.
No or negligible effects on
present condition.
Destruction of habitat de-
creases animal abundance in
localized areas.
Significantly decreases types
of game species and number
through loss of habitat.
IV-33
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I I Category:_
|l Sub-Category:
I | Criterion: Fauna
|) Sub-Criterion: Marine
SES Project No.
Resource Impacts
Natural Resources
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
commercial and sport fisheries, including effects
on mollusc abundance.
RATING: + 20
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Port Orchard to Illahee State Park,
Rich Passage and Puget Sound
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of present condition
DISCUSSION:
Overall marine biological resources will not be greatly
affected in the Poulsbo or Port, Madison/Kingston regions.
+50
+25
The Fletcher Bay region which has large harvests of Geo- -.
ducks is slightly more sensitive. However, large sections
of~ the shorelines in the Study Area are presently
legally restricted from commercial harvest. .,
At the present time, geoduck harvest is greatly in-
fluenced by the Washington Fish and Game legal require-
ment that no harvest occur within 1/4 mile of shore. If
this requirement were removed at some time in the future,
significant additional stocks would be available.
Overall benefits would be achieved from reduced
bacteriological pollution of marine waters.
-10
-25
-50-
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist, E. Chan,
Environmental Analyst
Reference 5
Promotes and enhances con-
tinuation of shellfish beds
and marine fish resources.
Attracts and sustains addi-
tional fish populations.
No or negligible effects on
present condition.
Reduction in range of shell-
fish harvesting.
Impaired productivity and
decline in fish populations.
Degradation or deterioration
of shellfish beds and signi-
ficant reduction in marine
fish resources.
IV-34
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
II Category.-_
LJ Sub-Category:
Q Criterion: Electrical
| | Sub-Criterion: ^____^_____
SES Project No.
Resource Impacts
Utilities Service Systems
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on the local electrical
power supply system.
RATING:
- 1
BOUNDARY: Planning Area, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of
the Kitsap County Public Works Dept., Puget Sound
Power and Light Co.
+100
+75
+50
DISCUSSION: The planning area, excluding the Trident
base itself, will be serviced by the Puget Sound Power +25
and Light Co., the western division of the Bonneville
Power Administration. The U S. Naval Base at Bangor,
where Trident will be located has, -md will continue to
have its electrical needs served separately by the
Bonneville Power and Light Company.
Although the project engineers cannot yet provide an esti-
mate of the power demand of the proposed project, the
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. indicates that electrical
power resources in the area are adequate to meet the -10
Increased demand of Trident related growth, and expressed
confidence that the additional demand that this project
will impose can be met.
-25
~SO-
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Suzanne Yuen, Environmental Analyst
References 1, 35, 36 and 38
SIS Form 1H016/
Copyright 1973
Continuously supplies
significant power.
Supplies power at peak
demand times.
Supplies stand-by.power.
Supplies emergency power.
No power demand.
Approaches limits of current
service capacity.
Requires augmenting existing
transmission lines.
Requires enlarging existing
transmission facilities
Requires new substation.
Requires increases generating
IV-35
-------
I
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
Q Category: Resource Impacts
C] Sub-Category: Utilities Service Systems
PP(| Criterion: Gas
I | Sub-Cr-iterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject imposes demands on the local natural gas systen
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD-OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel from the Cascade Natural Gas Co., URS
DISCUSSION: The Cascade Natural Gas Company does not yet supply natural gas to the plan-
ning area, but does service the Bremerton and Port Orchard areas which are located just
outside of the planning area. The gas company anticipates that there will be ample gas
available for all of Kitsap County even with the increased demands due to Trident related
growth. Although the service capacity will be more than adequate for future demands there
exists the problem of transporting the gas to the area. The Gas Company says that this
problem has yet to be worked out.
The proposed project will probably not use any significant amount of gas since electricity
will be readily available and the preferred source of power. The project will therefore
have only negligible impact on the gas supply system.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Suzanne Yuen, . Environmental Analyst References 26, 36
SIP Form 1U 016 /
Copyright 1973
IV-36
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
| ) Category Resource Impacts
n Sub-Category: Utilities Service System
0 Criterion: Water
[ | Sub-Criterion: __________^^^^__^_______________
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demsnds on the local water
supply system.
RATING: 0
+100
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of the
Kitsap Cpunty Public Works Dept., URS; Examination of
Kitsap County planning policies.
+50
DISCUSSION: Although the project engineers are not yet
able to estimate the water needs of the proposed pro- +25
ject, demand in this resource is expected to be small.
No supply problem is anticipated, as "productive aquifers
known to exist....will provide supplies of ground water to
meet anticipated 1990 requirements" (Draft Facilities
Plan).
The impact on this resource can be considered insignifi- 0
cant.
-10
-25
-SO
-71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Suzanne Yuen, , Environmental Analyst
References 1, 35 and 36
£27? Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
Continuously supplies potable
water.
Continuously supplies non-
potable water.
Supplies emergency potable
water
Supplies emergency clean, non-
potable water.
No water demand.
Approaches limits of current
service capacity.
Requires increase in local
pressure to increase volume
delivered.
Requires installing larger
lines.
Requires augmenting storage
capacity.
-IQCf ' Re1u:I-res major addition to
water distribution system.
IV-37
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
fl Category.-_
Sub-Category:
Resource Impacts
Municipal Services
. |x| Criterion: Environmental Health
I| Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on the environmental
health division of the local health district.
RATING:
+ 25
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with Kitsap County
Department of Public Health Staff, review of Project
plans.
+100
+7S
+50
DISCUSSION: There is an existing potential health hazard
in Kitsap County resulting fr-m the over-loaded con- +25
dition of septic tanks and the inadequate sewage treat-
ment facilities now in use. The demand for environmental
health services, vector control, etc. can be expected to
rise as Trident-induced growth, combined with natural
population increases and use of inadequate disposal
systems impact on the area.
0
Centralized, effective treatment facilities will reduce
sewage-related health hazards and complaints. The pro-
posed project will thus enable the local health dis- -10
trict to monitor fecally transmitted infectious agents
more efficiently and with greater assurance that the
public health is protected.
-25
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form K1016/
Copyright 1973
Bill Ulwelling, Environmental
Scientist; Reference 38
-50-
-7.'
-200>
Greatly augments service
on a continuous basis
Significantly augments
services
Slightly augments service
capacity
Neither supplies nor
demands services
Approaches li.liits of
service capacity
Requires minor increase in
services
Destroys existing facilities
and places major new demands
or services and facilities
IV-38
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. iso
1 I Category:
Sub-Category:
Resource Impacts
Municipal Services
Criterion:
Parks and Recreation
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
proj ect imposes demands on local parks and
recreation facilities and services (services
include personnel and equipment).
RATING:
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of County recreation
resources, proposed project plans.
+100
+7S
+50
DISCUSSION: There is currently a. deficiency in public
recreational areas in the planning area as well as all +25
of Kitsap County which was indicated by the October 1974
ORB study. ORB reported that the present total demand
for all recreational areas in Central Kitsap County (in
which most of the planning area falls) is 814 acres
(calculated by totaling the various demands for each
type of recreational area based on the individual standards
(No. acres/1000 population) e.g., neighborhood parks
(2.25 acres), community parks (2.5 acres), large urban
parks without shoreline (1.5 acres), large urban parks
with freshwater shoreline (1.5 acres), and large urban -10
parks with saltwater shoreline (2.0 acres). The present
supply is 481 acres with only 43 acres actually occuring
in the planning area. There are no shoreline parks in
Che planning area. _25
The demand for, hence the shortage of recreational areas
will be greater when the full impact of Trident related
growth is felt. The recreation consultant (ORB) estimates
that 1,013 acres of recreational land will be needed at SO
that time, based on an assumed Trident related increase
of 24,000 people by 1981.
Alternative 11 is not expected to have any significant
Impact upon parks of recreation facilities.
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Analyst; Reference 25
'SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Suzanne Yuen, Environmental
-lOCr*
Makes available major
new facilities
Substantially increases
available facilities.
Slightly increases available
facilities
Neither supplies nor
demands facilities
Approaches limits of
current service capacity
Requires minor increase
in services
Requires major increase in
services
Required increase in
services and expansion of
facilities
Requires construction of
major new facilities.
IV-39
-------
Socio-Economic Systems ss Project NO. _iso_
LJ Sub-Category: Municipal Services
EJ Criterion.- Parks and Recreation
I"! Sub-Criterion:
CONTINUED:
The'shortage of recreational land will not be affected by the proposed project.
Vqry little-more probably no-recreational land will be used by the project
itself. The employment potential of the project is small (20-40 employees), and
-BUI not significantly affect the population and thus the demand for recreational
facilities. To the extent that the proposed project reduces the rush of contamination
of local surface and marine waters, it may even beneficially affect this resource
slightly.
Regardless of the alternative selected, the net effect with respect to recreational
resources in Kit sap County is considered insignificant.
TV-40
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject N°-
| I Category: Resource Impacts
[ j Sub-Category: Municipal Services
[ TJ Criterion: Flood Control and Storm Drains
tj Sub-Criterion-
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project im-
poses demands for drainage and flood control
on surrounding properties and local flood
control systems.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study Area
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with Mr. Bullard, Kitsap County Engineer.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project alternative will not significantly interfere with normal
runoff or affect existing or planned storm drains.
The present and growing hazard of raw sewage from failing septic tanks being washed
into storm drains is discussed elsewhere (See "Environmental Health," "Sanitary
Sewer System," "Health & Safety").
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: William Ulwelling, Environmental Scientist; Lauryn Jones,
Environmental Planner; References 1 and 69
SIS Form H1016/
Copyright 2973
IV-41
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
Q Category: Resource Impacts
Sub-Category: Municipal Services
Criterion: Sanitary Sewer System
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project imposes
demands on the local sanitary sewer system.
RATING:
+ 60
BOUNDARY: Study Area
Alternative 11
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with Department of Public Works and review
of Central Kitsap County Interim Facilities Plan.
+50
DISCUSSION:
+25
The goal of the proposed projr-;t is to provide transport
and treatment capacity for sewage in aa area with seriously
inadequate existing capacity, and to prepare for a sharp
Increase in demand for this service in the near future 7,
resulting from the construction of the Trident Support ~l
Site.
The Bremerton-Kitsap County Health Department lists numer- 0
ous areas which have failing drainage, transport, and
treatment systems. Approximately 90% of the Planning Area
is classified as having severe limitations for drainage. -10
The existing sewer system in the Bounty, serving Silverdale,
Is inadequate to meet legal requirements for secondary
treatment. The need for an adequate sewer system to serve
the growing population of Kitsap County is evident. _25
Alternative 11 will significantly augment existing sewage
disposal capacity. Thus it is given a strongly positive
rating, as are the other alternatives.
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: William Ulwelling, Environmental
Analyst; Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner; References
1 and 61.
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
<
-75 -
Creates a new system with
capacity significantly
greater than current de-
mand
Creates a new system pro-
viding adequate treatment
of current demand projec-
tions
Significantly augments
existing systen on a
continuous basis
Augments existing system
for overload demand
Slightly upgrades treatment
Neither supplies nor de-
mands service
Slightly increases demand
for service
Reduces adequacy of
existing service
Requires major expansion
of exisitng facilities
Requires major expansion
of existing facilities
and construction of over-
load capacity facilities
IV-42
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pro-Ject No-
I | Category: Resource Impacts
LJ Sub-Category: Municipal Services
JX J Criterion: Streets and Lighting
j j Sub-Criterion: ^
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposed demands on local street and
lighting service.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study area, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Analysis of project plans.
DISCUSSION: The demand for street and lighting service created by the proposed project is
expected to be negligible, regardless of the project alternative selected.
Existing sites will be served by existing access roads, which at most may require limited
vldening or repair.
New sites may require the construction of short access roads and possible lighting, if the
sites are not served by existing roads, and if the extensive development required to support
Trident-induced growth does not provide the necessary access.
The demand f.or service to support the small operational staff (20-40 employees) of the facility
will not impact measurably on this resource.
In the context of projected growth resulting from the Trident Support Site development, the
potential increase in demand on local resource for streets and lighting due to the proposed
project is deemed too minor to rate.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Amnon Feffer, Senior Analyst; Reference 34
XIS Form 91016 /
Copyright 1373
IV-43
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The economic impacts of the proposed alternative plans are
assessed and rated in this section. The sub-categories are divided
as follows:
Direct Effects
Employment Potential
Municipal Service Costs
Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
Loans (Bonds)
Subsidies
Property Tax Base
Changes in Property Tax Rates
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
Indirect Effects
Property Values
Existing Local Businesses
New Business Formation
New Construction
IV-44
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project No- ^L
IMCftBPAflATSB M«M
| | Category: Economic Impacts
Sub-Category: Direct Effects
[""I Criterion: Employment Potential
I J Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects the employment potential of the local
area by creating or eliminating employment.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination of U.S. Dept. of Commerce data; consultation with
engineering consultant
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will employ between 20 and 40 people, depending
on the alternative selected and the operational procedure established. Kitsap County
had in 1973, a work force totaling over 36,000. The project will thus have.an in-
Significant effect on the local job market, in its operational phase.
There will be a temporary increase in available employment during the construction
phase. The project engineers are not yat able to estimate the size of the increase,
nor its duration.
Because the proposed project will not have a meaningful impact on local employment
potential regardless of the alternative selected, no rating is given. If the con-
struction force will be large and needed for an extended period, a rating should
be given when the facts are established or can be estimated.
While employment opportunities will expand in the study area due to Trident related
growth, the proposed project will affect the location of jobs (by attracting residents
to its service area) rather than the number of jobs.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryri Jones, Environmental Planner
SIR Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
IV-45
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
^ ] Criterion:
1 [ Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Category .-
Sub-Category:
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Municipal Services Costs
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the cost of providing municipal services to the
agencies and consumers.
RATING:
0
BOUNDARY: Central Kitsap County
Alternative 11
+200
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
See individual criterion sheets.
DISCUSSION:
The following table indicates the c-stimated annual cash
requirements to Kitsap County for project alternative
No. 11 and new sewer hookups needed to pay for the cash
requirements.
+50
+25
+20
Alter-;
native
Total
Annual
Cost(a)
Annual New
Hookups
Needed(b)
Hookup Requirements
Beyond Projected
Population Increase(c)
318,500
192
(28)
-20
-2,
(a) From Table III-4
(b) Based on a value of $1,660 per new hookup:
$8/front foot - $
25Z of 2.5e/SF - $
$8/mo. x 12 mo. x 20 yrs/2
$1,660
(c) Based on planning area projected 20-year population -50
Increase of 11,017 (Reference 61) and an index of 1 hookup
per 2.5 people (220 hookups per year).
The population of the planning area will increase by
11,017 according to A. D. Little. Using a faction of -7
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: George Johnson, Economic Analyst,
References 56 and 70
SIB Form 1H016/
Copyright 197S
Community income exceeds
expenditures by more than 50%,
Community income exceeds ex-
penditures by more chan 25%.
Community income exceeds ex-
penditures by more than 10%.
No change.
Community expenditures in-
crease by 10%.
Community expenditures in-
crease by 25Z.
IV-46
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject NO.
I«C«*»»B«TIO
[ | Catc-iory: Economic Impacts
f~t Sub-Cate.joi'i/: 'Direct Effects
P~| Criterion: Municipal Services Costs
I | Sub-Criterion:
one new sewer hookup per 2.5 people, 4,407 new hookups will be generated, or 220 per year.
There are currently three one-time hookup charges in Central Kitsap County, as follows:
(1) $150 for stub and line to street. This applies only where the county actually
installs a side sewer, and is hence not applicable here.
(2) 2.5
-------
Economic Impacts
Socio-Economic Systems
f| Category :_
fl Sub-Category: __
LJ Criterion: Loans (Bonds') and Subsidies
HJ Sub-Criterion: Loans (Bonds')
SES Project No.
Direct Effects
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the funding of the proposed
project tends to increase or decrease the
financial burdens of the community.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Kitsap County
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with major bank bond specialist and project
engineers.
DISCUSSION: Kitsap County's share of financing the proposed project will be borne
through the issuance of revenue bonds. There is no legal limit on the amount of
revenue bonds that may be isev.ed; however, from a practical standpoint, and in order
to make the bonds saleable, the principal amount of bonds so issued should be suf-
ficiently small that the required annual principal and interest payments are less
than the revenues available for bond service. Estimated revenues should be in the
range of 30 percent to 50 percent in excess of projected requirements to allow for
possible errors in forecasts. In addition, a bond reserve fund equal to about one
year's bond service requirements is usually created from the initial proceeds of
their sale and is maintained over the life of the issue to further secure their
payment. Interest rates on revenue bonds are generally one-fourth to one-half
percent higher than the rates applicable to comparable general obligation bond
issues.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner; References 45 and 60.
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-48
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 18°
Category ..Economic Impacts
n Sub-Category: Direct Effects
I] Criterion: ^
Sub-Criterion: Subsidies
(Bonds) and Subsidies
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project attracts
outside funding.
RATING: + 90
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Kitsap County
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with project engineers and Washington
State Department of Ecology.
+100
+75
+50
+25
DISCUSSION:
Ninety percent of the project cost will be subsidized by
State and Federal grants. The Federal Government is
assuming 75% of the project cost and Washington State is
.assuming an additional 15% of the cost.
The policy of the Environmental Protection Agency (Region
X) regarding Federal funding for wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal systems is that 75% of the funding
for the needed system is federally provided. Treatment
facilities and regional interceptors are generally con-
sidered of higher priority for funding. _J
Presently local collection systems are not being funded
until the State's criteria for priority listings for re-
quired local collectors is acceptable to EPA. The faci-
lities to be funded must be sized to be cost-effective, ~^
in harmony with the local land use and planning goals, and
based upon realistic population projections.
These subsidies and Kitsap County's remaining cost apply
to the net project construction cost after 40% reimburse-
ment by the Navy. (Navy reimbursement is of the total
project cost before EPA and Washington State subsidies.)
+10
-?£
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Norm Siebertson, Water Operations
Branch, EPA, Region X; Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner;
Reference 1; Richard Thiel, Chief.Environmental Impact
SIR Form K2016/ Section, EPA. -100*
Copyright 1973
Project totally subsidized
_ 80:20 subsidy to local
funds
70:30 subsidy to local
funds
60:40 subsidy to local
fui.'ls
50:50 subsidy to local
funds
No subsidy'
Subsidy partially
forfeited
Subsidy entirely
forfeited
IV-49
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
II Category; Economic Impacts
Sub-Category: Direct Effects
[j Criterion: Property Tax
| J Sub-Criterion: Change in Property Tax Rates
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
property tax rates in the local area.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County Tax Districts
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with County Planning Personnel, County Appraiser and Engineering
Consultant.
DISCUSSION:
According to Washington State law, property tax revenue may not be >ised to pay for
sewage district construction or 0 & M costs. Therefore, Kitsap County property tax
rates will be unaffected.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: George Johnson, Environmental Planning Analyst; References 56 and 70
EIR Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
IV-50
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
l~) Category :m
f~l Sub-Category: _
ll Criterion:
Ixl Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 18°
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Property Tax Base
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project tends to increase or decrease local
property tax revenues in the local area.
RATING:
+5
BOUNDARY: Service area
Alternative 11
+200t Significantly increases
property tax revenues
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of the
Kitsap County Assessors Office and staff review of "1974
Assessed Valuation with Levies and Taxes for 1975"
DISCUSSION: The project will have both direct and indirect
impacts on property tax revenues by increasing the pro- +25
perty values within the project service area.
Direct Impacts: The amount of property tax revenue
collected from a parcel is a function of the parcel's +10\
assessed value and the tax rate for that tax district.
In Kitsap County the assessment ratio is 100.00 (which
means the .assessed value is 100% of the market value)
*Assuning the tax rate remains constant, property values
in the planning area will rise even without the proj ect
in response to demand for^housing rauseJ by Trident. -10
The location of the proposed project will help define
the specific areas that will rise in value and will
cause a somewhat greater rise in property value in the
service area. 25
The additional increase in property values, hence re-
venues beyond the rise expected due to Trident-induced
demand and which is attributable to the proposed pro-
ject is estimated at 5% this is a favorable impact and -SO
so rated.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Analyst; Reference 45
SIX Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
Feffer, Senior Environmental
Increases property tax
revenues
Ho or negligible effect
Decreases property tax
revenues
~10
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCO*»*«*TCO . ,
I I Category :m
f~l Sub-Category:
lH 'Criterion:
|J Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 18°
Economic Impacts
Jndirect Effects
Property Values
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects the property value in the
local area.
RATING: +10
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Staff assessment of local economic
pressures for residential and commercial areas.
+100
+75
+50
DISCUSSION: Property values in the planning area will rise
as a result of the large Trident-induced population +25
influx. The proposed project will serve to increase
further the property values in its service area, because
the availability of adequate sewerage is limited else-
where in Central Kitsap County. This additional in- +20
crease due to sewerage expansion is not likely to be
extreme, since factors other than sewerage also enter
into the decision to buy, rent or build a home. 0
-10
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: E. Taft, Building Contractor
EIR Form
Copyright 1973
Significantly augments
property values
Slightly augments property
values
No or nagligible effect
Slightly degrades property
values
-100** significantly degrades
property values
IV-52
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project No-
[ | Category: Economic Impacts
180
|~| Sub-Category: Indirect Effects
[3 Criterion:m
\ | Sub-Criterion:
Existing Local Businesses
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project effects the volume of trade in local
businesses
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Examination of project alternatives
DISCUSSION: The proposed project will minimally stimulate local business activities
with Trident-induced growth fueling a significant increase in population and hence,
a growth in trade for local suppliers of goods and services. The additional in-
.crease resulting from this pioject --ill be relatively small, both during the con-
construction and the operational phases.
The impact with respect to this criterion will not change regardless of the al-
ternative selected and will be too small to rate.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Lauryn Jc>ies, Environmental Planner
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-53
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
f~) Category:
LI Sub-Category: _
|X I Cflterion Sew Business Formation
1 | Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 18°
Economic Impacts
Indirect Effects
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project stimulates or retards formation of new
businesses in the local area
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Kltsap County
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Projection of demand resulting from the proposed project which
may or may not accentuate the need for new services.
DISCUSSION: The project itself is service oriented and does not impose significant
service or utility demands on the community. The small number of employees necessary
to operate the facility (20-40) will not generate sufficient demand to support the
formation of new businesses. New businesses will undoubtedly be established in the
County, to meet the Trident-induced needs, and will easily absorb the minor Increases
in demand caused by the proposed project. The location of new business formation
will be affected by the project by attracting residents, and hence service bus-.nesses,
to its service area.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: ' Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner
EIB Form #1026/
Copyright 1973
IV-54
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject No-
I | Category; Economic Impacts
(~| Sub-Category: Indirect Effects
|x | Criterion: New Construction
| [ Sub-Criterion: ^
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects future construction outside
of the project area.
ASSESSED BUT
NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: study area, Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Assessment of project plans
DISCUSSION: The proposed project is not expected to stimulate new construction in the
area beyond the small amount needed to house the 20 to 40 employees of the facility, and
even that assumes that all employees will be newcomers to the area. This level of con-
struction activity will be submerged in the much larger effort to house che Trident-in-
duced growth in the area.
The impact with respect to this criterion will be the same regardless of the alternative
selected, and is considered too small to rate. The proposed project will permit multiple
unit housing development in it's service area, which is not possible presently because of
the lack of adequate service capacity to receive the concentrated volumes associated with
multiple unit housing. The number of units required will not be affected.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner
SIR Form #1016 /
Copyright 1973
IV-55
-------
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
The category of socio-cultural impacts has been subdivided into
sub-categories of unique, identifiable subjects as follows:
Social Impacts
Compatibility with Planned Land Use Patterns
Health and Safety
Population Size and Density
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
Archaeological and Historical Sites
Entertainment and Recreational Facilities
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
Traffic Effects
IV-56
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Pr°Ject N°- _i§o_
Q Category: Soclo-Cultural Impacts _
Sub-Category: Social Impacts _
(x I Criterion: Compatibility with Planned Land Use Patterns
[] Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project conforms to planned land use in the
project area.
+100r
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with Kitsap County Planning Department +"
staff; examination of Kitsap County Planning policies.
DISCUSSION:
Alternative 11 is preferable to the other alternatives,
which serve Navy Trident development with an interceptor
running along Clear Creek. Almost all the land bounding
Clear Creek is designated as rural (Kitsap County Compre- +^
hensive Plan, Proposed Planning Map). An interceptor
traversing this rural area will tend to induce development
which might not otherwise occur. In fact, it was in large
part due to these concerns, expressed by the public, that
this alternative was put forward. Alternative 11's routing
of the pipeline from Trident will avoir! the Clear Creek _^
area and thus obviate any potential growth-inducing im-
pacts along the creek. There are no foreseeable growth
pressures along this alternative pipeline route.
-5,
7£
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn L. Jones, Environmental and
Planning Analyst; References 58 and 71.
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
RATING: + 15
Project of a scale that
essentially achieves
ultimate planned land
use for the regions.
Promotes planned land use
development on a regional
scale.
Promotes planned land use
in local area.
Site is compatible with
planned land use.
No or negligible effect on
ultimate planned land use.
Projected land use slightly
different from planned use.
Substantially different from
planned use.
Thoroughly incompatible with
planned land use.
IV-57
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO. _"2_
[I Category: Soclo-Cultural Impacts
I I Sub-Category: Social Impacts
|X3J Criterion: Health and Safety
| j Sub-Criterion: __^__^^^^_^____^_____________________________
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject affects health and safety in the local area
and within the project itself.
RATING: +50
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of existing conditions, pro-
ject plans, Trident Report, consultation with Bremerton-
Kitsap County Health Dept., PACE Corp. Report.
DISCUSSION: The existing health hazard in the area has
been documented by the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health +25
Department. Projected growth resulting from the Tri-
dent' Base work force will overload existing sewage treat-
ment capacity at the existing Navy facility at Bangor
and will induce substantial growth in the planning area, +10\
increasing the existing hazard.
The hazard results from (a) hydraulic overloading of the
existing sewage systems, and (b) the generally poor
soil suitability for drainfields in the area. A further
complication results from the high gfmndwater table, -20
which can lead to contamination of subsurface water
from failing drainfields. In addition, surface waters also
show excessive levels of contaminants, for example at
Island Lake, Port of Brownsville, Dyes Inlet, Port _£,
Washington Narrows, Clear Creek and Silverdale Creek,
among others.
The proposed project will substantially reduce the
existing and potential health hazard by reducing
pressure on the overloaded systems, thereby reducing
the risk of contamination from failing septic tanks
and inadequate treatment facilities such as the
existing system at Silverdale.
The impact rating is thus significantly positive.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones,
Environmental Planner ; References 4 and 42
William Ulwelllng, Environmental Scientist
EIB Form #1016 /
Copyright 1973
-SO
-7,
'-lOff
Creates ideal health
and safety conditions.
Greatly improves health
and safety conditions.
Significantly improves health
and safer.y conditions.
Promotes health and safety
conditions.
No or negligible net
effect.
Health and safety conditions
barely meet current minimum
standards.
Slightly degrades health
and safety conditions.
Significantly degrades health
and safety conditions.
IV-58
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject N°-
| | Cateaory: Socio-Cultural Impacts
i~l Sub-Category: Social Impacts
|x| Criterion: Population Size and Density
S-ub-Cri.teri.or.:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project promotes
desired (General Plan, Zoning Laws) local popula-
tion size and density without overtaxing the local
infrastructure.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Review of "Amendment to Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan,"
"Planning Policies Outline for the Future Growth of Kitsap County, Washington
An Element of the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan," Planning Policies, Project
Plan, Staff Analysis.
DISCUSSION: The "Amendment" document referred to above outlines the planning
policies with respect to intercity of development of rural, transitional, urban
and redevelopment areas. The plan c-:tlines an approach to the management of
growth which will encourage higher densities in and around urban centers (urban
and transitional areas), while maintaining the rural character of other areas.
In addition to preserving existing attractive qualities of rural and semirurai.
areas, the control of urban growth will promote more efficient delivery of public
services to the present and expected population.
The proposed project gives county planners the opportunity to channel growth
toward selected areas in conformity with local goals. The growth itself has
become inevitable as a result of the Decision to proceed with the Trident 3£-se.
Assuming that access to the sewer lines will only be permitted in designated
growth areas, and that the project alternative selected will provide service
in those areas, population size and density should conform to planning goals.
While local infrastructure will be taxed (and perhaps overtaxed) by expected
growth, the proposed project, rather than causing this situation, will be a
major component of the effort to enable the infrastructure to cope with the
growth.
One characteristic of Alternative 11 which makes it preferable to the others is
that it does not include the Clear Creek corridor in its pipeline route. This
relieves the corridor of development pressure. Population growth in this area,
which is generally designated "Rural" in the Kitsap County Proposed Planning
Policy Map, is not encouraged by present county policy.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Arrie Bachrach, Environmental Analyst
£XR Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
IV-59
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
1 | Category:
fl Sub-Category:
jx| Criterion: Population Size and Density
1 I Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Socio-Cultural Impacts
Social Impacts
Population size will be minimally increased by the proposed project, regardless of
alternative, since it will employ between 20 and 40 people.
Population density will be increased by the proposed project, inducing concentration in
.those areas served by the facility that will be greater than the more random dispersal
that could be expected if no sewage collection service is available in the planning
area. This will be compatible with local planning if the service, hence the increase
in density, is available in the urban and transitional areas designated for growth, and
if actual development is not permitted to violate zoning restrictions affecting density.
A small positive rating is therefore given to each alternative. However, until sewered
areas are better defined, no rating will be shown.
IV-60
-------
Socio-Cultural
Socio-Economic Systems
l~j Category:
11 Sub-Category: __
jytjj Criterion: Archaeological and Historical Sites
\ j Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 18Q
Cultural and Aesthetic
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project affects local archaeological and paleon-
tological sites.
RATING:
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Project planning area
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination of the archaeological
reconnaisance report.
+60
DISCUSSION: A literature survey (National Register of
Historic Places, Site Survey Records for Kitsap County
at the University of Washington) indicated that there were
no known sites of archaeological or historical significance
within the project planning aiaa. An archaeological survey
of the planning area in December, 1974, revealed only +20
one archaeological site, a shell midden near the Brownsville
Marina on Burke Bay. The midden has essentially been de-
stroyed by historic and modern activities (e.g., dredging 0
operations, road construction) and the investigating
archaeologist has judged that the cultural information
coming from further investigation of this site would be
of dubious value. The proposed project would therefore
have little or no impact upon the midden. No other
historical or archaeological sites have been identified
in the planning area. _25
-10
,50-
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Analyst ; Reference A3
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Suzanne Yuen, M Environmental
-100
Preserves and enhances
archaeological and
paleontological remains.
No or negligible effect on
archaeological or paleonto-
logical remains.
Destroys paleontological or
archaeological remains.
IV-61
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°j'ect N°-
[""I Cateaory: Socio-Cultural
|""| Sub-Category: Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
|x ) Cri.teri.on: Entertainment end Recreational Facilities
I ] Siib-Critericr.:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project supplies
or demands entertainment and recreational facili-
ties.
RATING: + 5
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternative 11
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Examination of the alternative plans for the
proposed project.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will have a beneficial impact on the
recreational resources of the area. Outfall sites releasing
sewage after primary treatment will either be upgraded or
replaced, reducing the level of coastal pollution to +1 i
acceptable levels. The most significant improvements will
be noted in such areas as Liberty Bay and Dyes Inlet, which
receives the outfall from the Silverdale plant and which C
suffers from inadequate flushing. The beneficial impact
will result regardless of the alternative selected because
no outfall will be permitted after only primary treatment <-lC
The pipeline rights-of-way offer potential recreational
resources. Once the'pipeline is installed, the corridor
mayat the county's discretionbe developed as nature .25
trails, bike trails and recreational access to shoreline.
However, these options have not as yet been included with
the facilities design.
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
William Ulwelling, Environmental
Scientist
-71
-10 (f
Provides maj or new
facilities.
Significantly augments
existing facility inventory.
No or negligible effects.
Overloads existing facilities.
Destroys existing facilities
without replacement.
IV-62
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 180
c o o .
f~| Category: Socio-Cultural
Sub-Category: Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
|""|
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
il
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Sewage treatment facility location
Pipeline routes
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visitied
proposed sites.
+100
+75
+50
DISCUSSION:
The north Brownsville site is well screened from view "
from adjacent roadways and property. Its location on a
major route through the Study Area precludes any use of
the site as a "natural or serene" preserve. Its present
condition of overgrown farmland contains little aesthetic^ 0
value.
No aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline placement
along existing roads.
-10
25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-7
-10P-*
Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
Promotes aesthetic
quality in localized areas.
No changes, in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic qualities
in some local areas
Substantially degrades
aesthetic qualities.
IV-63
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
l~| Category: Socio-Cultural
fxl Sub-Category: Traffic Effects
Ij Criterion:
| ) Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed pro-
ject impacts traffic flows and patterns.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study Area
Alternative 11
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with Traffic Engineer and the Engineering Consultant
DISCUSSION' The loading imposed by project-related traffic generated by the approximately
20-40 employees of a sewage treatment facility is negligible when compared with baseline
traffic loads. Additionally, these 20-40 employees will work in thre-; shifts.
In the context of projected growth resulting from the Trident Support Site development,
traffic increases due to the proposed project are deemed too minor too rate.
Preliminary estimates of construction related traffic, provided by the engineering
consultant are intended to show an order of magnitude. For an initial 12 to 18 month
period, approximately 12 truck trips/day can be expected, for the final 2-3 month,
an estimated 18 truck trips/day can be expected. The construction crew will add
approximately 22 trips/day. In the event of an urgent request to reduce the construction
period, related traffic can be expected"to rise to 21/day (12 to 18 months), 20/day
(2-3 months), 44/day (work force).
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: William Ulwelling, Environmental Analyst.
SIR Form H1016/
Copyright 2973
64
-------
REVISED PHYSICAL IMPACTS
The following physical impact rating sheets will replace rating
sheets for the same topics and alternatives in Chapter IV of the draft
EIS. Impact categories that have been revised include the following:
Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
Marine Biological Environment
Benthic Community
Water Column Community
Surface Community
Water Quality
Marine Water Quality
Any rating sheets not directly replaced by those presented in
this section will contiaue to be valid.
IV-65
-------
Physical Impacts
Socio-Economic Systems
I | Category:
\I Sub-Category:
Q Criterion: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
| | Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Terrestrial Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
wildlife numbers, complexity and habitat.
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9
Study Area
+200
+75
+50
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation.
DISCUSSION:
+25
Construction of a new waste---;ter treatment facility will
remove 5-10 acres of wildlife habi-it and displace wildlife
presently utilizing the areas. The proposed sites are
generally in areas previously disturbed by human actions.+10
The small size and proximity to major thoroughfares also
limits the disruption of wildlife and habitats.
All proposed pipeline routes except for the Clear Creek
Corridor will be within road right-of-ways and should
cause negligible impact to wildlife and habitats in
adjacent areas.
Construction within the Clear Creek Corridor will cause
temporary disruption of habitat. Areas where trees and
brush have been removed will revegetate quickly with
successional species. Wildlife will be displaced to
adjacent areas for a short term but return upon re-
vegetation within 12-18 months.
-10
-25
-SO
The construction route of the final pipeline segment
leading to the marine outfall will diverge from the road
easements and traverse a wooded area to reach the shore-
line. Wildlife will be temporarily disrupted during this
segment of pipeline construction. Revegetation of the .75
pipeline route will restore the habitat quickly and
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Significantly improves wild-
life habitats and wildlife
number.
Increased wildlife numbers
provide more "niches".
Improves or expands wildlife
habitat in localities.
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
SIR Form H101S/
Copyright 1973
-1001
No changes reflected within
system.
Degrades or reduces wildlife
habitat in localities.
Decreases wildlife numbers
or leads to unstable popula-
tion.
Significantly degrades wild-
life habitats and reduces
wildlife number and complex-
ity.
IV-66
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject No-
niory: Physical Impacts
( I Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
G] Cnterion: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
1 ) Sub-Criterion:
wildlife nvnnbers should be restored in 1-3 years.
Operation of facility or pipelines will not affect terrestrial wildlife. Relocation
of population near available sewer lines will disturb, if not eliminate, most wildlife.
Since it is assumed that population growth in the Study Area will occur with or without
the project and that presently built-up areas would'not increase substantially in
density, this increase in population, wherever it occurs, would disturb wildlife for
a negligible impact difference between project and no-project.
IV-67
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject No-
Q Cfitaior'j: Physical Impacts
{| Sub-Csicgor": Marine Biological Environment
PH Criterion: Benthic Community
|_.J Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING:
30
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and 4
Liberty Bay, Agate Passage and
Puget Sound
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
Construction of conveyance pipelines and the marine
outfall to Bainbridge Island will have short-term
impacts in 2 areas.
+50
+10
To reach site B on Bainbridge Island from Brownsville,
two intermediate saltwater crossings are planned. The
first crossing would traverse the narrow mouth of Liberty Q
Bay from Keyport to Lemolo. Disruption of local beach.
and sublittoral communities by underwater pipeline con-
struction would be a short-term impact. Elimination -20
of sessile invertebrates and limited narine
flora in the path of construction would be a signifi-
cant localized impact. The second pipeline crossing
would be at Agate Passage. Probable pipeline instal-
lation underneath the existing bridge would avoid a
.. submarine channel crossing and have only negligible
Impacts on the marine environment.
Coastruction of a 900-foot outfall near Fay Bainbridge -50
State Park south of Point Monroe on Bainbridge Island
would displace intertidal and subtidal populations of
littleneck clams, butter clams, gaper clams, sea lettuce
and Laminaria in the path of the outfall. Because of
the small localized populations and moderately fast
-75
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form til 016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference ( 22)
Significantly enhances ben-
thic productivity and pro-
motes stable bottom com-
munity.
Benthic conditions improved
| so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces ben-
thic productivity and de-
grades bottom environment.
IV-68
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject
I] Category: Physical Impacts
II Sub-Cataffory: Marine Biological Environment
I x| Criterion: Benthic Community
[ | Sub-Criterion:
regeneration times, the construction impact for this area should be short with
community reestablishment proceeding quickly in 2 to 3 years.
Adequate dilution and mixing at the Point Monroe site, as calculated in Chapter IV,
should greatly reduce potential adverse impacts of wastewater discharge through
the outfall system. An approximately 250 foot long multiport diffuser system
would further promote fast mixing. The great dilution would thus have minor direct
Impact on the benthic community, although some cumulative effects of effluent
material concentrations, as mentioned in Alternative 1, may occur. Avoidance
of the central plume area by salmonids and pelagic fish may occur as a reaction
to salinity and temperature changes.
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet and Poulsbo
should provide a market benefit to the benthic community. The removal of these
sources of organic pollution, heavy metal contaminants and public health hazards
from these restricted inlets should provide a significant overall environmental
Improvement from the present conditions.
IV-69
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project No-
t«CO*»O««TCO I
| J Category: Physical Impacts
II Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
| xj Criterion: Benthic Community
l\ Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
Immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING:
+ 20
BOUNDARY: Alternative 5
Port Orchard
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
Water circulation within these areas will provide
adequate dilution of wastewater and lead to negligible
effects on the benthic community.
+50
+25
+10
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes
Inlet should provide a market benefit to
the lower strata of the marine environment. The removal 0
of sources of organic pollution, heavy metal contaminants
and public health hazards from these restricted inlets
should provide an environmental improvement from the 10
present conditions.
Construction and laying of the outfall pipe will have a
shortterm negative impact on the benthic community. -2
Disruption of the substrate, increase in turbidity,
and displacement of marine organisms, particularly
clam beds, is unavoidable during construction. Along
the eastern shore of the Port Orchard channel may occur
some short-term disruption of populations of little- -50
neck, butter, gaper and bentnose clams, mussels and
barnacles. Marginally, some pea crabs (Pinnixia sp.)
and brittles stars (Ophiodphus sp.) along with some sea
lettuce, Laminaria and eel grass will be disturbed. The
presence of adjacent benthic communities should lead to _
substantial repopulation within 2 years.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIB Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
. E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Reference 22
-100*'
Significantly enhances benthic
productivity and promotes
stable bottom community.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces benthic
productivity and degrades
bottom environment.
IV-70
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject NO.
IM«0"»0«**CO ,
1 | Catenary: Physical Impacts
[I Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
Rj Criterion: Benthic Community
I I Sub-Criterion:
Adequate dilution and mixing at Port Orchard as calculated in Chapter III
should greatly reduce potential adverse impacts of wastewater discharge
through the outfall system. A long multiport diffuser system would promote
fast mixing. The diluted effluent thus have minor direct impact on the
benthic community, although some cumulative effects of effluent material
concentrations, as mentioned in Alternative 1, may occur. Avoidance of the
central plume area by salmonids and pelagic fish may occur as a reaction to
salinity and temperature changes.
IV-71
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
1 | Category: Physical Impacts
[~| Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
L29 Criterion: Benthic Community
II Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING: - 15
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 7
Sinclair Inlet
+100
+75
+50
+25
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
Construction and laying of the outfall pipeline will
have a limited short-term negative impact on the benthic
community. Large portions of the Fubtidal and shallow
intertidal habitats have been eliminated or altered +-JQ
along the Bremerton waterfront. Benthic organisms near
the proposed outfall site are limited and consist pri-
marily of pollution tolerant polychaete worms (see Q
Chapter 3).
Mixing in Sinclair Inlet is highly variable depending
on wind factors. Flushing and dispersion is generally
fair, although in the upper reaches or Sinclair Inlet
near Gorst water exchange and circulation is sluggish.
The increased volume of wastewater, although treated .35
to the tertiary level, would not lead to any immediate
^. enhancement in the local environment.
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Z. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-71
-lOff
Significantly enhances ben-
thic productivity and pro-
motes stable bottom com-
munity.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces ben-
thic productivity and de-
grades bottom environment.
IV-72
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
F~] Category:_
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
pc") Criterion:
| [ Sub-Criterion: _
Benthic Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING:
- 15
J
BOUNDARY: Alternative 8
Port Orchard
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Water circulation within t".:2se areas will provide
adequate dilution of wastewater a:id lead to negligible
effects on the benthic community.
+50
+25
+10
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes
Inlet should provide a marked benefit to
the lower strata of the marine environment. The removal Q
of sources of organic pollution, heavy metal contaminants
and public health hazards from these restricted inlets
should provide an environmental improvement from the -20
present conditions.
Construction and laying of the outfall pipe will have a
short-term negative impact on the benthic community. _2£
Disruption of the substrate, increase in turbidity,
-and displacement of marine organisms, particularly
clam beds, is unavoidable during construction. Along
the eastern shore of the Port Orchard channel may occur
some short-term disruption of populations of little- _g,
neck, butter, gaper and bentnose clams, mussels and
barnacles. Marginally, some pea crabs (Pinnixia sp.)
and brittles stars (Ophiodphus sp.) along with some sea
lettuce, Laminaria and eel grass will be disturbed. The
presence of adjacent benthic communities should lead _,,
to substantial repopulation within 2 years. The poor
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Reference 22
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-100*
Significantly enhances benthic
productivity and promotes
stable bottom community.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces benthic
productivity and degrades
bottom environment.
IV-73
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I | Category:
1 1 Sub-Catctjory: ______
L_g Criterion: Bcnthic Community
'i 1 Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
dispersion and flushing characteristics near Enecai, however, would not promote
an enhancement of benthic conditions in the area.
Adequate dilution and mixing at Port Orchard as calculated in Chapter III should
greatly reduce potential adverse impacts of wastewater discharge through the
outfall system. A long multiport diffuser system would promote fast mixing.
The diluted effluent thus have minor direct impact on the benthic community,
although some cumulative effects of effluent material concentrations, as
mentioned in Alternative 1, may occur. Avoidance of the central plume area by
.salmonids and pelagic fish may occur as a reaction to salinity and temperature
changes.
IV-74
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
LI Category:
I I Sub-Category: _____
Ix) Criterion: Benthic Community
jj Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
Immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING: + 30
BOUNDARY: Alternative 9
Rich Passage and Puget Sound
+7,
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Water circulation within t'.°se areas will provide
adequate dilution of wastewater and lead to negligible
effects on the benthic community.
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes
Inlet should provide a marked benefit to
+50
+25
+20
the lower strata of the marine environment. The removal "
of sources of organic pollution, heavy me'tal contaminants
and public health hazards from these restricted inlets
should provide an environmental improvement from the
present conditions.
-10
The excellent flushing and dispersion characteristics for
this site indicate the minimal amount of environmental -2*
effects to the benthic community.
Adequate, dilution and mixing at Port Orchard as calculated
in Chapter III should greatly reduce potential adverse
Impacts of wastewater discharge through the outfall -SC
system. A long multiport diffuser system would promote
fast mixing. The diluted effluent thus have minor direct
Impact on the benthic community, although some cumulative
effects of effluent material concentrations, as mentioned
in Alternative 1, may occur. Avoidance of the central -75
plume area by salmonids and pelagic fish may occur as a
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
£. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Reference 22
Significantly enhances
benthic productivity and
promotes stable bottom
community.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces benthic
productivity and"degrades
bottom environment.
IV-75
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
II Category: Physical Impacts
I I Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
[xj Criterion: Water Column Community
| | Sub-Criterion: __________________^____^________^^_^_______
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment within the Water Column Zone
(beginning at the benthic community and extend-
ing up to two feet below the water surface).
RATING:
+ 10
+100
n
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and A
Liberty Bay and Puget Sound
+75
+25
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
Construction of a pipeline crossing at the mouth of
Liberty Bay will have a. noticeable short-term impact.
Disruption of the substrate would lead to a temporary
increase in turbidity at the mouth of the poorly cir- ,
culating Liberty Bay. The sediment load in the water
could have a short-term effect on photosynthetic plants
and filter-feeding animals. These effects should be
limited to the construction period plus a few months to
half-a-year for the bio-regeneration lag time.
Outfall operation may contribute added nutrients to
the local waters causing slight enrichment, but is
not expected to become greatly concentrated due to
mixing conditions. Avoidance of the central plume
area by salmonids and pelagic fish may occur as a
- reaction to salinity and temperature changes.
Cessation of the present wastewater input at Dyes Inlet,
Sinclair Inlet and Liberty Bay should provide an over- -50
all environmental improvement from the present condi-
tions. The removal of pollutants from Dyes Inlet should
help protect the marine nursery areas for fish and
invertebrates.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-7,
-100
Enhances and maximizes use of
intermediate water column for
fish and other marine organ-
isms.
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to im-
proved water conditions.
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
tosynthesis capability of
plants and reduce productiv-
ity.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water col-
umn for fish and other
marine organisms.
IV-76
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
LJ Category: Physical Impacts
[I Sub-Category:
|x | Criterion: Water Column Community
| | Sub-Critcr-ion:
SES Project No.
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment within the Water Column Zone
(beginning at the benthic community and extend-
ing up to two feet below the water surface).
RATING: + 10
BOUNDARY: Alternative 5
Port Orchard
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
+100
+75
+50
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+i
Wastewater effluent entering Port Orchard and Rich Passage
will contribute nutrients such as i.itrogen and phosphorus.
Within small shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment
can trigger algal blooms which block light transmittance^jfl
to benthic plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the
vatcr when they decompose.
A daily input of 5.4 million gallons of freshwater may
have some effects on salinity and temperature
directly in the mixing zone. Some mortality will -10
occur as plankton and more sensitive marine organisms
become entrained in the freshwater/seawater outfall plume.
Elimination of effluent discharge to Dyes Inlet and _
Sinclair Inlet will improve water quality in those areas
..and indirectly provide an overall environmental benefit.
The protection of fish and invertebrate nursery areas in
Dyes Inlet would improve the marine resources in the
entire area. -SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form ffl016/
Copyright 1973
Z. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
JC
IV "
-100*
Enhances and maximizes use of
intermediate water column for
fish and other marine organ-
isms.
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to im-
proved water conditions.
No or negligible changes
to present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
tosynthesis capability of
plants and reduce productiv-
ity.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water column
for fish and other marine
organisms.
IV-77
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I I Cat&ioru:
\I Sub-Category: __
pTI Criterion: Water Column Community
II Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment within the Water Column Zone
(beginning at the benthic community and extend-
ing up to two feet below the water surface).
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 8
Port Orchard
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+25
Wastewater effluent entering Port Orchard and Rich Passage
will contribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Within small shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment
can trigger algal blooms which block light transmittance''"^'-
to benthic plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the
water when they decompose.
A daily input of 5.4 million gallons of freshwater may
have some effects on salinity and temperature
directly in the mixing zone. Some mortality will
occur as plankton and more sensitive marine organisms
become entrained in the freshwater/seawater outfall plume.
-10
The poor wastewater dispersion potential at the Enetai
may concentrate effluent in narrow bands along depth
gradients. Pelagic marine life in contact with these
areas may. experience some of the effects discussed in
Alternatives 3 and 4.
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-1001
Enhances and maximizes use of
intermediate water column for
fish and other marine organ-
isms.
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to in-
proved water conditions.
No or negligible changes
to present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
tosynthesis capability of
plants and reduce productiv-
ity.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water column
for fish and other marine
organisms.
IV-78
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
1*1 Criterion: _
ij Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
[~1 Category :m
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
Water Column Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project
affects marine environment within the Water
Column Zone (beginning at the benthic community
and extending up to two feet below the water
surface).
RATING:
+ 25
BOUNDARY: Alternative 9
Rich Passage, Puget Sound
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Wastewater effluent entering Poj.t Orchard and Rich Passage
will contribute nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
Within small shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment
can trigger algal blooms which block light transmittance
to benthic plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the
water when they decompose.
A daily input of 5.4 million gallons of freshwater may
have some effects on salinity and temperature directly
iif the mixing zone. Some mortality will occur as
plankton and more sensitive marine i-rganisms become
entrained in the freshwater/seawater outfall plume.
Wastewater discharge into open-ended passages such as
Rich Passage with good-mixing will minimize these effects
or.entirely eliminate them.
+50
+25
+10
-10
-25
Elimination of effluent discharge to Dyes Inlet and Sinclair
Inlet will improve water quality in those areas and in- _«
directly provide an overall environmental benefit. The
protection of fish and invertebrate nursery areas in Dyes
Inlet would improve the marine resources in the entire area.
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Enhances and maximizes use of
intermediate water column for
fish and other marine organ-
isms.
Increased productivity in the
marine environment through
lower food chain due to im-
proved water conditions.
No or negligible changes
to present system.
Changes in water quality par-
ameters which may affect pho-
to synthesis capability of
plants and reduce productiv-
ity.
Degrades and severely limits
the intermediate water column
for fish and other marine
organisms.
IV-79
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
[I Category Physical Impacts
[ I Sub-Category: _
Ix] Criterion: Surface Community
li Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below the water surface to six feet above
the water surface).
RATING:
+ 25
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3, 4
Port Orchard and Puget Sound
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+lOOr.Ennances and maximizes use
of surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
+75
+50
+25
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes Inlet,
Poulsbo and Sinclair Inlet sr.ould provide a market
benefit to the upper strata of the marine environment.
The reduction of nutrient loadings would decrease the +-0
frequency of algal blooms in these restricted inlets.
The cessation of primary sewage flows and septic tank
seepages should provide an overall improvement to the
present conditions.
Construction of a pipeline crossing at the mouth of ~*"
Liberty Bay will have a noticeable short-term impact.
Disruption of the substrate would lead to a temporary
increase in turbidity at the mouth of the poorly cir-
culating Liberty Bay. The sediment load in the water ~25
could have a short-term effect on photosynthetic plants
and filter-feeding animals. Liberty Bay normally has
high algal biomass in the upper layers in the spring
runoff season. The shallow Bay depths also sustain
large shellfish populations. These effects should be
limited to the construction period plus a few months
to half-a-year for the bio-regeneration lag time.
Wastewater effluent entering local areas can contribute
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Within ~7'
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016 /
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-100'
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality lead-
ing to simplification and
reduction of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
IV-80
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
F~l Category: Physical Impacts ,
I~l Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
Q Criterion: Surface Community
I | Sub-Criterion: .
snail shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment can trigger algal bloons which
block light transmittance to benthic plants, and rob dissolved oxygen frot: the
water when they decompose.
Adequate mixing of effluent through a well-designed outfall will greatly dilute
these effects, especially in areas of good circulation.
IV-81
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
I I Category.\
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
Fj Criterion:^
I) Sub-Criterion:
Surface Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING:
+ 20
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 5
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
+2
Wastewater effluent entering locaj areas can contribute
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Within small
shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment can trigger
algal blooms which block light transmittance to benthic +
plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the water when
they decompose.
Adequa'te mixing of effluent through a well-designed
outfall will greatly dilute these effects, especially
through areas of good circulation. ~
Removal of wastewater input at Sinclair and Dyes Inlets
will provide a benefit to these systems and in the con-
text of the Central Kitsap Peninsula provide ~
overall benefit.
Enhances and maximizes use of
surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
-SO
-7;
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E2K Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
No or negligible changes
to present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality leading
to simplification and reduc-
tion of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
IV-82
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I«COH»OH*TCD J'"-|
I) Category:
II Sub-Category:
Ix] Criterion: Surface Community
| ) Sub-Criterion: ___^_____________
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING:
- 20
+200i .Enhances and maximizes use of
surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 8
Port Orchard
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing conditions.
+50
DISCUSSION:
Wastewater effluent entering local areas can contribute +~
nutrients such as nitrogen and ph?sphorus. Within small
shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment can trigger
algal blooms which block light transmittance to benthic
plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the water when +-0
they decompose.
Adequate mixing of effluent through a well-designed
outfal'l will greatly dilute these effects, especially
through areas of good circulation.
The poor flushing and dispersion characteristics near
Enetai nay concentrate wastewater pollutants in narrow
bands along depth gradients and topographical contours.
Algae and marine life may be subject to temperature
differentials and exposure to discrete concentrations
of pollutants in the vicinity of the outfall.
-10
-25
-SO
-71
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
"K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality leading
to simplification and reduc-
tion of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
IV-83
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
il Category: Physical Impacts
I I Sub-Category: __
1x1 Criterion: Surface Community
I I Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from twc
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING:
+ 30
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternative 9
Rich Passage and Puget Sound
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+60
+2,
Wastewater effluent entering local areas can contribute
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Within small
shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment can trigger
algal blooms which block light transmittance to benthic +
plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the water when
they decompose.
Adequate mixing of effluent through a well-designed
outfall will greatly dilute these effects, especially
through areas of good circulation. -he excellent dis-
persion characteristics at the Manchester site greatly
reduce any negative effects of wastewater disposal.
Removal of wastewater input at Sinclair and Dyes Inlets
will provide a benefit to these systems and in the con-
text of the Central Kitsap Peninsula provide an overall
benefit.
~~"
-SO
-7,
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR form 1U016/
Copy-fight 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
Enhances and maximizes use of
surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
No or negligible changes
to present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality leading
to simplification and reduc-
tion of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
IV-84
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCOM'OKATCO _
|I Category: Physical Impacts
II Sub-Category: Water Quality
Li] Criterion: Marii-; Water Quality
1 J Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated waste-
waters discharged to marine waters.
RATING:
+ 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1, 2, and 6
Dyes Inlet
+100
+7:
+60
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet state quality standards
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
+25
Based upon model studies verified through measurement
of currents, discharges to Dyes Inlet receive poor initial
dilution and fair dispersion and flushing. For ex-
- planation see Chapter 2. Present contamination of +j(
Dyes Inlet would be reduced through improved treat-
ment levels.
(
There might be a slight increase in background nutrient
levels of nitrogen and phosphorus but substantial de-
crease in coliform organisms. _2(
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concen-
trations of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone
(plume). Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a. potential _^i
problem by providing nitrogen removal processes at the
treatment plant.
Properly operated tertiary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent _fi/
with total coliform levels as low as 2 MPN per 100 ml.
After dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be
negligible in the receiving waters.
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would re-
duce pollutant concentrations to at least water quality
standards levels.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: J- A. Davis, Water Quality Engineer;
W.O. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area.
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Maximum dispersion of
effluents to exceed
water quality standards;
would maintain present
water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water quality
standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-85
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCOMPOCATCO ,
I I Category: Physical Impacts
(I Sub-Category: Water Quality
LX| Criterion: Marine Water Quality
I] Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated waste-
waters discharged to marine waters.
RATING: + 75
+1QO\| Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water
quality standards.
+50
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3 and 4
Waters off Bainbridge Island
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet state quality standards,
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
+25
Based upon model studies and field measurements, discharges
from Bainbridge Island receive good mixing and dispersion
and excellent initial dilution. For explanation see
Chapter 2. Present contaminators of Dyes Inlet would +10
be reduced.
It is unlikely that noticeable increases in background
concentrations of nutrients would be detected after
dispersion of the effluent from this site.
-10
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concen-
trations of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone
(plume). Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential
problem by extending the biological treatment period -25
to nitrify the effluent.
Initial dilutions consistently reading 100:1 would
reduce pollutant concentrations to at least water
quality standards levels.
-SO
-?£>
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: q- A. Davis, Water Quality Engineer;
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-100
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water quality
standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-86
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
IMCOAPOMATCO _^
I) Category Physical Impacts
PI Sub-Category: Water Quality
[xj Criterion: Marine Water Quality
| ) Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated waste-
waters discharged to marine waters.
RATING:
+ 50
+100r-\
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 5
north Port Orchard channel
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet water quality standards,
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
+50
+25
Based upon model studies, discharges to north Port
Orchard would receive good mixing and dispersion and fair
initial dispersion. For explanation see Chapter 2. Pres-
ent contamination of Dyes Inlet would be reduced. +20
It is unlikely that noticeable increases in background
concentrations of nutrients would be detected after
dispersion of the effluent from this site.
-10
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concen-
trations of ammonia at the limits of the mixing zone
(plume). Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential
problem by extending the biological treatment period to
nitrify the effluent.
Properly operated secondary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent
with total coliform levels as low as 23MPN per 100 ml.
After dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be
negligible in the receiving water.
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would
reduce pollutant concentrations to at least water
quality standards levels. Ultimate dilution is roughly
estimated at 5000:1.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: J- A- Davis, Water Quality Engineer;
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area.
SIR Form V1016/
Copyright 1973
Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water quality
standards; would maintain
present water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water quality
standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-87
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
f~] Category:
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
pc] c*. £ terion :
| ] Sub-Criterion:
Marine Water Quality
DEFINITION:
The effects of secondary level treated
wastewaters discharged to marine waters.
RATING: + 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 and 8
Sinclair Inlet; Port Orchard
channel at Enetai
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Assuming all discharges meet water quality standards,
calculation is made of degree of mixing and dispersion
at each site.
DISCUSSION:
Based upon model studies, discharges to Sinclair Inlet
and Port Orchard channel at Enetai would receive fair
and poor initial dilution, mixing and dispersion. For
explanation see Chapter 2. There probably would be a
slight increase in background nutrient levels of
nitrogen and phosphorus.
+100
+75
+50
+25
+10
Mixing would be sufficient to prevent toxic concentra-
tions of ammonia at the limits of the rixing zone (plume)
Ammonia was assumed eliminated as a potential problem
by extending the biological treatment period to nitrify
the effluent at Enetai and providing tertiary level
nitrogen removal at Charleston.
Properly operated tertiary level treatment facilities
with disinfection facilities can produce an effluent
with total coliform levels as low as 2 MPN per 100 ml.
After dilution, dispersion and die-away, this would be
negligible in the receiving water.
Initial dilutions ranging from 50:1 to 200:1 would
reduce pollutant concentrations to at least water
quality standards levels.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: J. A. Davis, Water Quality Engineer;
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Engineer; Reference 1;
University of Washington modeling studies of Study Area.
EIR Form 1916 /
Copyright 1973
0
-10
-25
-SO
7C
.
»
-100
Maximum dispersion of ef-
fluent to exceed water
quality standards and main-
tain present water quality.
Minimum dispersion of ef-
fluent to meet water
quality standards.
Water quality standards
violated.
IV-88
-------
REVISED RESOURCE IMPACTS
The following resource impact rating sheets supersede the rating
sheets for the same topics and alternatives in Chapter IV of the draft
EIS:
Resource Impacts
Municipal Services
Environmental Health
Flood Control and Storm Drains
IV-89
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
1 | Category: Resource Impacts
I 1 Sub-Category: Municipal Services
|x| Criterion: Environmental Health
I ] Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No. 180
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project imposes demands on the environmental
health division of the local health district.
RATING:
25
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County, Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with Kitsap County
Department of Public Health Staff, review of Project
plans.
+200
+75
+50
DISCUSSION: There is an existing potential health hazard
in Kitsap County resulting from the over-loaded con- +25
dition of septic tanks and the inadequate sewage treat-
ment facilities now in use. The demand for environmental
health services, vector control, etc. can be expected to
rise as Trident-induced growth, combined with natural
population increases and use of inadequate disposal
systems impact on the area.
Centralized, effective treatment facilities will reduce
sewage-related health hazards and complaints. The pro-
posed project will thus enable the local health dis-
trict to monitor fecally transmitted infectious agents
more efficiently and with greater assurance that the
public health is protected.
-10
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form til 016/
Copyright 1973
Bill Ulwelling, Environmental
Scientist; Reference 38
-100
Greatly augments service
on a continuous basis
Significantly augments
services
Slightly augments service
capacity
Neither supplies nor
demands services
Approaches li-nits of
service capacity
Requires minor increase in
services
Destroys existing facilities
and places major new demands
or services and facilities
IV-90
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES p'r°Ject No-
| I Category: Resource Impacts
j j Sub-Category: Municipal Services
I ]j Criterion: Flood Control and Storm Drains
| | Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project im-
poses demands for drainage and flood control
on surrounding properties and local flood
control systems.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Study Area
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with Mr. Bullard, Kitsap County Engineer.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project alternative will not significantly interfere with normal
runoff or affect existing or planned storm drains.
The present and growing hazard of raw sewage from failing septic tanks being washed
into storm drains is discussed elsewhere (See "Environmental Health," "Sanitary
Sewer System," "Health & Safety").
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: William Ulwelllng, Environmental Scientist; Lauryn Jones,
Environmental Planner; References 1 and 69
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 197Z
IV-91
-------
REVISED ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The following economic impact rating sheets supersede the rating
sheets for the same topics and alternatives in Chapter IV of the draft
EIS:
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Municipal Services Costs
Loans and Subsidies
Loans
Subsidies
Property Tax
Change in Property Tax Rates
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
IV-92
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°J'ect No-
t»eo*»o*«~co r ,
| | Category: Economic Impacts
[~| Sub-Category: Direct Effects
\ [ Criterion: Municipal Services Costs
j | Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the cost of providing municipal services to the +^00
agencies and consumers.
'BOUNDARY: Central Kitsap County +?£
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
See individual criterion sheets.
DISCUSSION:
+25
The following table indicate; the estimated annual cash
requirements to Central Kitsap County for each project
alternative and new sewer hookups needed to pay for the
cash requirements. -.
Total Annual New Hookup Requirements
Alter- Annual Hookups Beyond Projected
native Cost (a) Needed (b) Population Increase (c)
1 $540,200 325 105 w
2 506,000 305 85
3 411,800 248 28
4 376,200 227 7
5 370,500 223 3
6 515,700 311 91 ~*°
7 519,700 313 93
8 322,700 194 (26)
9 328,600 198 (22)
(a) From Table III-4
(b) Based on a value of $1,660 per new hookup:
$C/front foot = $ 640
252 of 2.5C/SF «= $ 60
$8/mo. x 12 mo. x 20 yrs/2 = $ 960
$1,660
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: George Johnson, Economic Analyst,
References 56 and 70
RATING: See Table.
^^
1 Community
penditures
Community
penditures
Community
penditures
No change.
Community
crease by
Community
crease by
income exceeds ex-
by more than 50%.
income exceeds ex-
by more than 25%.
income exceeds ex-
by more than 10%.
expenditures in-
10%.
expenditures in-
25%.
EIR Form HI 016/
Copyright 197 Z
IV-93
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject No-
I I Category: Economic Impacts
f~| Sub-Category: Direct Effects
[~| Criterion: Municipal Services Costs
j~) Sub-Criterion:
(c) Based on planning area projected 20-year population increase of 11,017 (Ref-
erence 61) and an index of 1 hookup per 2.5 people (2.20 hookups per year).
The population planning area will increase by 11,017 according to A. D. Little.
Using a faction of one new sewer hookup per 2.5 people, 4,407 new hookups will be
generated, or 220 per year.
There are currently three one-time hookup charges in Central Kitsap County, as follows:
(1) $150 for stub and line to street. This applies only where the county actually
Installs a side sewer, and is hence not applicable here.
(2) 2.5C per square foot area charge for new customers. This applies only where
there is currently no adjacent collection system and will be charged to only
about 25% of all new hookups. Consequently, this was only given a 25% weight
in the average new hookup in the above table. At an average lot size of 80
feet x 120 feet (9,600 square feet), this amounts to $60 per average hookup.
(3) $8 per front foot for all properties. This applies to all new users, since all
benefit by sewage systems. At the average lot frontage of 80 feet noted above,
this amounts to $6-'O per hookup.
In addition, current users are charged approximately $8 per month service charge.
Assuming a straight-line increase in new hookups to 1995, the average customer will
pay exactly 10 years of service charges to 1995, or $960 per average new hookup (1975
dollars).
These charges added together give the $1,660 total revenue per average hookup used
In the above table.
This assumes a straight-line population increase, which is conservativp. '..'Jtal Kitsap
County population is projected to increase to 56,509 by 1995. Of this total, 31,529
(55.8%) will occur in the first five years. Assuming a proportional increase for the
planning area, over half the new hookups will occur in the first five years yet will
contribute monthly service charges for most of the 20-year period. This will increase
average hookup revenues substantially.
Further, this analysis assumes that the entire construction cost to Kitsap County will
be financed by a bond issue, which may not necessarily be the case.
The cost of other municipal services necessary to serve the 20-40 facility employees
Is considered to be negligible and was not considered.
ALTERNATIVE RATINGS
Alternative 123456789
Rating -10 -10 -500 -10 -10 0 0
IV-94
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I I Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
I | Category
Sub-Category:
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
Loans (Bonds)
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the funding of the proposed
project tends to increase or decrease the
financial burdens of the community.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Kitsap County
METHOD OF ANALYSIS'
Consultation with major bank bond specialist and project
engineers.
DISCUSSION: Kitsap County's share of financing the proposed project will be borne
through the issuance of revenue bonds. There is no legal limit on the amount of
revenue-bonds that may be issued; however, from a practical standpoint, and in order
to make the bonds saleable, the principal amount of bonds so issued should be suf-
ficiently small that the required annual principal and interest payments are less
than the revenues available for bond service. Estimated revenues should be in the
range of 30 percent to 50 percent in excess of projected requirements to allow for
possible errors in forecasts. In addition, a bond reserve fund equal to about one
year's bond service requirements is usually created from the initial proceeds of
their sale and is maintained over the life of the issue to further secure their
payment. Interest rates on revenue bonds are generally one-fourth to one-half
percent higher than the rates applicable to comparable general obligation bond
issues.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Lauryn Jones, Environmental'Planner; References 45 and 60.
riff Form #1016/
Copyright 1373
IV-95
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. 18°
I I Category:
Sub-Category: m
_E.c.pafiffli c_I op acts..
Direct Effects
Lj Criterion:
|X| Sub-Criterion:
Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
Subsidies
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project attracts outside funding.
[RATING: +90
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 1 through 9
Kitsap County
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with project engineers
and Washington State Department of Ecology. +50
+25
DISCUSSION: Ninety percent of the project cost will be
subsidized by State and Federal grants. The Federal
Government is assuming 75% of the proj ect cost and
Washington State is assuming an additional 15% of the
cost.
The ratio of subsidized to local costs is the same
for each alternative, hence each receives the same
rating..
Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include Poulsbo, which will
thus require independent additional service capacity of 20
1.5 MGD at a cost of $1 million to $1.25 million. A
federal subsidy of $937,500 and a state subsidy of $187,500
(75% and 15%, respectively, of $1.25 million) will be
necessary to provide the additional capacity. While _g.
this additional cost will not affect the study area, it
will raise the total combined cost of meeting the waste-
water treatment needs of Kitsap County.
The policy of the Environmental Protection Agency -SO
(Region X) regarding federal funding for wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal systems is that
75% of the funding for the needed system is federally
provided. Treatment facilities and regional interceptors
are eenerally considered of higher priority for funding. _
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Norm Siebertson, Water Operations
Branch, EPA, Region X; Lauryn Jones, Environmental Planner;
Reference 1; Richard Thiel, Chief Environmental Impact
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Section, EPA.
-lOff
Project totally subsidized
80:20 subsidy to local
funds
70:30 subsidy to local
funds
60:40 subsidy to local
f.i-.ds
50:50 subsidy to local
funds
No subsidy
Subsidy partially
forfeited
Subsidy entirely forfeited
IV-96
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
LJ Category: Economic Impacts
Sub-Category: Direct Effects
Criterion: _ Loans (Bonds) and Subsidies
Sub-Criterion: Subsidies
CONTINUED:
Presently local collection systems are not being funded until the state's criteria
for priority listings for required local collectors is acceptable to EPA. The
facilities to be funded must be sized to be cost-effective, in harmony with the
local land use and planning goals, and based upon realistic population projections.
IV-97
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject NO.
lac»«»ftanfco , .
| | Category: Economic Impacts
(~1 Sub-Category: Direct Effects
Pi Criterion: Property Tax
I | Sub-Criterion: Change in Property Tax Rates
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
property tax rates in the local area.
ASSESSED BUT NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County Tax Districts
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Consultation with County Planning Personnel, County Appraiser and Engineering
Consultant.
DISCUSSION:
According to Washington State law, property tax revenue may not be used to pay for
sewage district construction or 0 & ~A costs. Therefore, Kitsap County property tax
rates will be unaffected.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: George Johnson, Environmental Planning Analyst; References 56 and 70
SIS Form #2016/
Copyright 1973
IV-98
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No. _18°
Q Category:_
|I Sub-Category:
Economic Impacts
Direct Effects
Ij Criterion:^
Ixl Sub-Criterion:
Property Tax Base
Changes in Property Tax Revenues
DEFINITION: The degree to which the proposed
project tends to increase or decrease local
property tax revenues in the local area.
RATING:
+5
BOUNDARY: Service area
Alternatives 1 through 9
+2QQ. Significantly increases
property tax revenues
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Consultation with personnel of the
Kitsap County Assessors Office and staff review of "1974 +50
Assessed Valuation with Levies and Taxes for 1975"
DISCUSSION: The project will have both direct and indirect
impacts on property tax revenues by increasing the pro- +25
perty values within the project service area.
Direct Impacts: The amount of property tax revenue
collected from a parcel is a function of the parcel's
assessed value and the tax rate for that tax district.
In Kitsap County the assessment ratio is 100.00 (which
means the assessed value is 100% of the market value)
*Assuning'the tax rate remains constant, property values
in the planning area will rise even without the project
4nr response to demand for housing caused by Trident.
The location of the proposed project will help define
the specific areas that will rise in value and will
cause a somewhat greater rise in property value in the
service area.
The additional increase in property values, hence re-
venues beyond the rise expected due to Trident-induced
demand and which is attributable to the proposed pro-
ject is estimated at 5% this is a favorable impact and
so rated.
+10
-10
-25
-50
-?£
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: A""1 Feffer, Senior Environmental
Analyst; Reference 45
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1873
Increases property tax
revenues
No or negligible effect
Decreases property tax
revenues
-J00* significantly decreases
property tax revenues
IV-99
-------
REVISED SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS
The following socio-cultural impact rating sheets supersede the
rating sheets for the same topics and alternatives in Chapter IV of
the draft EIS:
Socio-Cultural Impacts
Social Impacts
Compatibility with Planned Land Use Patterns
Population Size and Density
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
Entertainment and Recreational Facilities
Visual and Aesthetic Environment
IV-100
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project NO. _180
I | Category: Socio-Cultural Impacts
(~1 Sub-Category: Social Impacts
ixij Criterion: COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANNED LAND USE PATTERNS
(j Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION: Tne degree to which the proposed
project conforms to planned land use in the
project area.
RATING: +10
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Examination of Kitsap County planning
policies; consultation with the associate planner of the +50
Kitsap County Planning Dept.
DISCUSSION: In order to comply with planned land use of
the planning area, as recommended in "Amendment to
County Comprehensive Plan Panning Policies", the proposed
project must be located in either an urban or a transitional
area (adjacent to an urban area where urban development is
anticipated). The alternative sites for the proposed prof-I
ject fall within these categories. The proposed Bremerton,
Silverdale, Manchester, and Enetai sites are all in urban
locations, while the proposed sites at Brownsville are in 0
a transitional area.
Sew facilities or major expansions and reconstruction -10
will be required at all of the sites.
For alternatives 1-9, the proposed project in general
will: A) Conform with planned land use with respect -25
to site
B) Assist the local jurisdiction to direct develop-
ment to areas designated for growth by the
Planning Dept. by providing service in desired-50
areas and denying access in other areas. The
rating for alternatives 1 - 9 is therefore
slightly positive.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Amnon Feffer, Senior
Environmental Analyst; References 27, 40 and 41
sat Form moie/
Copyright 1972
Project of a scale that
essentially achieves
ultimate planned land
use for the regions.
Promotes planned land use
development on a regional
scale.
Promotes planned land use
in local areas.
Site is compatible with
planned lane use.
No or negligible effect on
ultimate planned land use.
Projected land use slightly
different from planned use.
Substantially different
planned use.
-75
_J00LJ Thoroughly incompatible with
planned land use.
IV-101
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES pr°Ject N°-
| | Category.' Socio-Cultural Impacts
LJ Sub-Category: Social Impacts
| x| Criterion: Population Size and Density
I] Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project pro-
motes desired (General Plan, Zoning Laws) local
population size and density without overtaxing
the local infrastructure.
ASSESSED BUT -NOT RATED
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Review of "Amendment to Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan," Planning Policies,
Project Plan, Staff Analysis.
DISCUSSION:
The "Amendment" document referred to above outlines the planning policies with re-
spect to intensity of development of rural, transitional, urban and redevelopment
areas. The plan outlines an approach to the management of growth which will encourage
higher densities in and around urban centers (urban and transitional areas) , while
maintaining the rural character of otl'ier areas. In addition to preserving existing
attractive qualities of rural and semirural areas, the control of urban growth will
promote more efficient delivery of public services to the present and expected pop-
ulation.
The proposed project will enhance the ability of county planners to channel growth
toward selected areas in conformity with local goals. The growth itself h:.i become
Inevitable as a result of the decisi-on to proceed with the Trident Base. This growth
has been analyzed in the September, 1975 Study by Arthur D. Little, Inc'. , "Analysis
of Selected Impacts of Trident-Related Population Growth in Kitsap County."
If an alternative or operational plan is selected which increases service capacity
in areas not selected for growth, or if access to the sewer lines is permitted at
a future date in areas not now selected for growth, the proposed project will under-
mine current planning goals.
Assuming that access to the sewer lines will only be permitted in designated growth
areas, and that the project alternative selected will provide service in those areas,
population size and density should conform to planning goals. While local infra-
structure will be taxed (and perhaps overtaxed) by expected growth, the proposed
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Arrie Bachrach, Environmental Analyst
EIS Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
IV-102
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
[""} Category:
LJ Sub-Category: _
[x[ Criterion: Population Size and Densit\
|~ Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Socio-Cultural Impacts
Social Impacts
project, rather than causing this situation, will be a major component of the effort
to enable the infrastructure to cope with the growth. Population size will be mini-
mally increased by the proposed project, regardless of alternative, since it will
employ between 20 and 40 people.
Population density will be increased by the proposed project, inducing concentration
in those areas served by the facility that will be greater than the more random dis-
persal that could be expected if no sewage collection service is available in the
planning area. This will be compatible with local planning if the service, hence
the increase in density, is available in the urban and transitional areas designated
for growth, and if actual development is not permitted to violate zoning restrictions
affecting density. A small positive rating is therefore given to each alternative.
However, until sites are better defined, no rating will be shown.
IV-103
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°J'ect N°-
| I Category Socio-Cultural
[""] Sub-Category: Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
[x ] Criterion: Entertainment and Recreational Facilities
[ | Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project supplies
or demands entertainment and recreational facili-
ties.
RATING: + 5
BOUNDARY: Kitsap County
Alternatives 1 through 9
+100
+75
+50
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Examination of the alternative plans for the
proposed project.
DISCUSSION:
+25
The proposed project will have a beneficial impact on the
recreational resources of the area. Outfall sites releasing
sewage after primary treatment will either be upgraded or
replaced, reducing the level of coastal pollution to +10
acceptable levels. The most significant improvements will
be noted in such areas as Liberty Bay and Dyes Inlet, which
receives the outfall from the Silverdale plant and which 0
suffers from inadequate flushing. The beneficial impact
will result regardless of the alternative selected because
no outfall will be permitted after only primary treatment<-lC
The pipeline rights-of-way offer potential recreational
resources. Once the pipeline is installed, the corridor
mayat the county's discretionbe developed as nature -25
trails, bike trails and recreational access to shoreline.
However, these options have not as yet been included with
the facilities design.
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form H1016/
Copyright 1973
William Ulwelling, Environmental
Scientist
Provides major new
facilities.
Significantly augments
existing facility inventory.
No or negligible effects.
Overloads existing facilities.
Destroys existing facilities
without replacement.
IV-104
-------
Socio-Cultural
Socio-Economic Systems
Q Category:
II Sub-Category:
fxl Criterion: Visual and Aesthetic Environment
I) Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Cultural and Aesthetic Impacts
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
the public's visual and aesthetic enjoyment of
an area.
RATING:
- 10
BOUNDARY: Alternatives 3, 4, and 5
Sewage treatment facility locations
Pipeline routes
+100
+75
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Subjective opinions of project staff who have visited
proposed sites.
DISCUSSION:
The north Brownsville site is well screened from view
from adjacent roadways and property. Its location
on a major route through the Study Area pre-
cludes any use of the site as a "natural or serene"
preserve. Its present condition of overgrown farmland
contains little aesthetic value.
+50
+S5
+20
Ko aesthetic impact would be felt from pipeline placement
along existing roads. Placement of the sewer trunkline
along the upper third of Clear Creek would be _
through wooded areas that would suffer visual
scarring for several years until vegetative re-
growth occurred. Pipeline placement along the middle
third of Clear Creek would follow existing roads. Along_gi;
the lower third, one half of the route would be in open
fields skirting woodland and one half in woodlands be-
fore intersection with Bucklin Hill Road. Some of the
lower third route would pass through yards of nearby
residences. It is felt that with careful construction _§Q
techniques designed to protect the stream bed, negative
aesthetic impact would be minimal.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE: Project staff
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
-75
-100*
Substantially improves
aesthetic qualities and
provides for future.
Promotes aesthetic
quality in localized areas.
No changes in present
aesthetic quality.
Degrades aesthetic qualities
in some local areas.
Substantially degrades
aesthetic qualities.
IV-105
-------
CHAPTER V
ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
This chapter first presents adverse impacts and mitigative mea-
sures for alternative plan No. 11. Following that, revised impacts and
mitigative measures for alternatives 1 through 9 will be presented.
Impacts which received ratings between -10 and +10 are considered
to be of. negligible importance. In some instances these impacts would
have rated higher scores except that mitigative measures were auto-
matically built into the system. As an example, odors from a poorly
operated sewage treatment facility could be very unpleasant and far
ranging. It must be assumed that the facility would be designed, con-
structed and operated with reasonable care and diligence. Under such
conditions, odors are very rarely a problem.
This chapter specifically identifies substantially negative envi-
ronmental, social and cultural impacts and states special mitigative
measures that should be taken to lessen those impacts. The discussion
is separated into categories of physical, resource, economic and socio-
cultural impacts. Only impacts with ratings lower than -10 are con-
sidered sufficiently substantial to warrant a discussion.
PHYSICAL IMPACT MITIGATION
The following are physical impacts identified as being of sub-
stantially negative nature within the study area and/or as a result of
implementation of project alternatives.
V-l
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Project NO.
| | Category: Physical Impacts
[~| Sub-Category: Terrestrial Environment
[_| Criterion: Vegetation Communities
I :d Sub-Criterion: Overall Study Area less Clear Creek
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
vegetation as a soil stabilizer. Site charac-
teristics (topography, riparian location) de-
termine degree to which vegetation prevents
erosion.
RATING:
- 20
+100
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation of existing
conditions.
DISCUSSION:
+50
+25
The majority of the pipe alignments will be within local
roadway right-of-ways. Within Central Valley, approximately
2 miles of the alignment must pass through vegetated sections
Pipeline construction will cause minor land disruptions
during vegetation clearing, trenching, and burying of pipes.
The open pasturelands and short segments of woodlots
should re'cover within 6-12 months. Marsh areas may re- 0
quire a longer time.
The last section of the pipe alignment from South Keyport -10
Road to Port Orchard may suffer long-term effects. The
steep ravine leading down to the beach is a sensitive area
due to the poor soils 'and slope instability. Construction
without proper mitigation methods could affect the vege- _->5
tation community in that localized area.
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
Earnshaw and Richman, Consulting Botanists
SIR Form #2016/
Copyright 1973
-100*
Project increases soil
stability by introduction
of vegetation (planting,
seeding, fertilizing).
Project will not induce
erosion, i.e., no or neg-
ligible effects on soil
stability.
Erosion hazard reduced by
less severe site character-
istics.
Vegetation removal will
cause serious erosion and
sedimentation because of
site characteristics (topo-
graphy, riparian location).
V-2
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
SES Project No.
| | Category: Physical Impacts
Terrestrial Environment
II Sub-Category: i
Q Criterion: Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
II bub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
wildlife numbers, complexity and habitat.
RATING: - 15
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Study Area
+100
+75
+50
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
On-site inspection and evaluation.
DISCUSSION:
+25
Construction of a new wastewater treatment facility will
remove 5-10 acres of wildlife habitat and displace wildlife
presently utilizing the area. The proposed site is generally
in areas previously disturbed by human actions. The
+10
small size and proximity to major thoroughfares also limits
the disruption of wildlife and habitats.
. I
All proposed pipeline routes except for small portions
north of Brownsville will be within road right-of-ways and
s/ould cause negligible impact to wildlife and habitats _j(
in adjacent areas.
Construction within the Steel Creek (North Ford) drainage
will cause a temporary disruption of habitat. Sensitive _g
areas are the freshwater marsh and swamp adjacent to the
treatment plant site. These areas provide a seasonal wild-
life habitat. Disruption or reduction of the marsh could
lead to a reduction in wildlife associated with this
ecosystem. _5(
The construction route of the final pipeline segment leading
to the marine outfall will diverge from the road easements
and traverse a wooded area to reach the shoreline. Wildlife
will be temporarily disrupted during this segment of pipe- _,.
line construction. The ravine descending to the Port
Orchard outfall is unstable with sparse vegetation and thus
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
SIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
.100**
Significantly improves wild-
life habitats and wildlife
number.
Increased wildlife numbers
provide more "niches".
Improves or expands wildlife
habit?..; in localities.
No changes reflected within
system.
Degrades or reduces wildlife
habitat in localities.
Decreases wildlife numbers
or leads to unstable popula-
tion.
Significantly degrades wild-
life habitats and reduces
wildlife number and complex-
ity.
V-3
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°ject NO.
1~1 Catfitory: Physical Impacts
Sub-Category: Terrestrial Env-tr
Criterion: _ Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats
represents the disturbance of only a marginal wildlife habitat.
Operation of facility or pipelines will not affect terrestrial wildlife. Relocation
of population near available sewer lines will disturb, if not eliminate, most wildlife.
Since it is assumed that population growth in the Study Area will occur with or without
the project and that presently built-up areas would not increase substantially in
density, this increase in population, wherever it occurs, would disturb wildlife for a
negligible impact difference between project and no-project.
V-4
-------
MItigative Measures to Protect Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats
The destruction of vegetation along the pipeline route is un-
avoidable. The severity of the effects of this destruction and its
duration can be shortened. Appropriate measures would include re-
seeding and replanting disturbed areas with native vegetation and
short-term stabilization of the soil surface with organic mulches.
Straw has been successfully used as a mulch and soil stabilizer for
sloping embankments along new highway construction.
A chipper should be used to shred the brush and slash, with the
resulting mulch being used with the soil to fill in the trench. Be-
sides serving to check erosion, this activity would facilitate re-
seeding by native vegetation and reduce the availability of dry brush
feed for wild fires.
Seeding and fertilizing should be carried out,.particularly in
pasture and meadow areas where natural reseeding would be expected to
be difficult. Additionally, reseeding would assure the growth of de-
sired plant species. Fertilization within forested areas would also
enhance revegetation of bare areas.
Separate storage during construction and replacement of the upper
natural soil layers over the backfill material would provide an im-
proved environment for the growth of new plants.
These mitigative measures should be applied at all locations
where the sewers would deviate from roadside cuts.
t
Secondary effects due to population growth can be minimized if
the County officials implement measures to protect the rural/agri-
cultural planning area designation north of Bucklin Hill Road.
V-5
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
II Criterion:
Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
["") Category ;_
Sub-Category:
Ground Water
Physical Impacts
Water Quality
Quantity
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of groundwater
in the Study Area.
RATING: - 25
+100
+SO
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +20
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be localized declines in the water table, particularly 0
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
.Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream basin will be adversely -10
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-2.
-50
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
I Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
V-6
-------
Mitigative Measures to Protect Groundwater Quantity
The reduction of local availability of groundwater from the upper-
most water bearing strata will come about primarily due to the place-
ment of sewerage systems. Groundwater tables above the elevations of
gravity flow sewers will cause the infiltration of groundwater into the
sewers. This effect is somewhat minor and can be greatly minimized by
using neoprene or plastic gaskets or seals at sewer pipe joints. Of
greater impact would be the drainage of local groundwaters along the
bed of the sewer pipe. The beds upon which sewer pipe are placed and
the backfill material are usually more porous than surrounding undis-
turbed soils and will act as drains. All available groundwaters in
the vicinity of such drains and above the sewer pipe elevation would
be drained to the sewer pipe elevations. This impact can be very sub-
stantially mitigated by the careful placement of impermeable clay dams
at regular intervals along the sewers. These dams would act as a stop
to the drainage of groundwaters.
Water levels in shallow dug wells would still decline and may de-
cline in slightly deeper drilled wells in spite of these measures. The
current practice of using septic tank disposal fields in most of the
study area provides a natural, albeit impure, recharge to the local
groundwater. The proposed plans to extract waters from the ground, use
them and then transport them out of the local recharge areas will re-
duce the natural recharge but gain improved water quality.
Mitigative Measures to Protect Island Lake
Alternative plan No. 11 has no impact upon lake waters in the
study area and receives an appropriate rating of zero. However, all
other alternatives under consideration have a provision to sewer the
residences, existing and proposed, in the vicinity of Island Lake, with
a connection to the Clear Creek interceptor. These alternatives would
substantially reduce a documented bacteriological health hazard in
Island Lake.
Due to the relocation of the Trident Support Site interceptor
sewer onto State Highway 303, the interceptor sewer serving Island Lake
was dropped from consideration. It is recommended that an obvious,
existing bacterial pollution problem be addressed in Alternative Plan
No. 11 through the inclusion of an interceptor sewer from the existing
residences at Island Lake to the proposed interceptor route along State
Highway 303.
V-7
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
t*ce«»eii«'CD _«_
II Category: Resource Impacts
L_J Sub-Category:
\ | Criterion: Ground Water
| x| Sub-Criter'I.:^.: Quantity of Potable Supplies
SES Project No.
Natural Resources
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the alternatives affect
the quantity (availability) of potable ground-
water in the Study Area.
RATING:
- 25
. Substantially increases
groundwater availability.
BOUNDARY: Alternative 11
Proposed sewered area
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of type of wells, depth, aquifer
penetrated and proximity to new sewer lines.
DISCUSSION:
+75
+SO
+2,
It is assumed that clay dams will be required at every
'manhole along the sewer lines that traverse high ground-
water areas to prevent draining of the areas. Restricted
use of granular backfill should be required. Without +10
these precautions the rating would be -75 but with these
features the rating of -25 was made indicating that there
will be.localized declines in the water table, particularly
where dug wells are utilized, such as Brownsville and
Meadowdale. This situation is a certainty because the
hydrologic balance of each stream ba£iin will be adversely -1
affected by exporting water extracted from the basin for
discharge outside of the basin. Deep aquifers will
generally not be affected by the project.
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
-7,
W. 0. Maddaus, Water Resources Eng.;
Reference 5
Water levels increase in
virtually all existing wells.
Water levels increase in
some existing wells.
No or negligible effect.
Water levels decline in
some existing wells.
Water levels decline in
virtually all existing wells.
Substantially reduces ground-
water availability -
numerous wells go dry.
V-8
-------
RESOURCE IMPACT MITIGATION
Mitigative Measures to Protect Quantity of Potable Water Supplies
The preceding discussion on groundwater is applicable to this
topic.
ECONOMIC IMPACT MITIGATION
There are no substantial negative economic impacts associated with
the implementation of alternative plan No. 11.
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACT MITIGATION »
There are no substantial negative social or cultural impacts
associated with the implementation of alternative plan No. 11.
REVISED PHYSICAL IMPACT MITIGATION
The following physical impacts were identified as being of sub-
stantially negative nature after Phase II study results were incorpo-
rated into the environmental assessment. The rating sheets of these
impacts, all in the marine biological environment, are intended to re-
place those on the same topic and alternative presented in the draft
EIS.
V-9
-------
Socio-Economic Systems SES Pr°Ject No-
| I Category: Physical Impacts
j"*j Sub-Category: Marine Biological Environment
(jig Criterion: Benthic Community
1] Sub-Criterion:
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING: - 15
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 7
Sinclair Inlet
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions
DISCUSSION:
+100
+75
+50
Construction and laying of the outfall pipeline will
have a limited short-term negative impact on the benthic
community. Large portions of the subtidal and shallow
intertidal habitats have been eliminated or altered +
along the Bremerton waterfront. Benthic organisms near
the proposed outfall site are limited and consist pri-
marily of pollution tolerant polychaete worms (see
Chapter 3).
+25
Mixing in Sinclair Inlet is highly variable depending
on vind factors. Flushing and dispersion is generally
fair, although in the upper reaches of Sinclair Inlet
near Gorst water exchange and circulation is sluggish.
The increased volume of wastewater, although treated
to the tertiary level, would not lead to any immediate
enhancement in the local environment.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIR Form HI 016/
Copyright 1973
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-10
-25
-SO
-7,
-10 ff
Significantly enhances ben-
thic productivity and pro-
motes stable bottom com-
munity.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
froc shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-tera degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces ben-
thic productivity and de-
grades bottom environment.
V-10
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
[xj Criterion:
j ] Sub-Criterion:
SES
NO.
I I Category
Sub-Category:
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
Bei-thic Community
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
species abundance and distribution within and
immediately above the bottom substrate.
RATING:
- 15
BOUNDARY: Alternative 8
Port Orchard
+100
+7S
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing and projected conditions.
DISCUSSION:
Water circulation within these areas will provide
adequate dilution of wastewater and lead to negligible
effects on the benthic community.
+50
+25
+10
Removal of the present wastewater input at Dyes
Inlet should provide a marked benefit to
the lower strata of the marine environment. The removal Q
of sources of organic pollution, heavy metal contaminants
and public health hazards from these restricted inlets
should provide an environmental improvement from the -20
present conditions.
Construction and laying of the outfall pipe will have a
short-term negative impact on the benthic community. -25
Disruption of the substrate, increase in turbidity,
and displacement of marine organisms, particularly
clam beds, is unavoidable during construction. Along
the eastern shore of the Port Orchard channel may occur
some short-term disruption of populations of little- -50
neck, butter, gaper and bentnose clams, mussels and
barnacles. Marginally, some pea crabs (Pinnixia sp.)
and brittles stars (Ophiodphus sp.) along with some sea
lettuce, Laminaria and eel grass will be disturbed. The
presence of adjacent benthic communities should lead
to substantial repopulation within 2 years. The poor
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
EIR Form K1016/
Copyright 1973
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
E. Chan, Environmental Analyst
Reference 22
-100i
Significantly enhances benthic
productivity and promotes
stable bottom community.
Benthic conditions improved
so that quarantine is lifted
from shellfish.
No or negligible effect.
Short-term degradation of
benthic community.
Significantly reduces benthic
productivity and degrades
bottom environment.
V-ll
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
II Category:
I I Sub-Category: |
fill Criterion: Benfhic Community
[""] Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
dispersion and flushing characteristics near Enetai, however, would not promote
an enhancement of benthic conditions in the area.
Adequate dilution and mixing at Port Orchard as calculated in Chapter III should
greatly reduce potential adverse impacts of wastewater discharge through the
outfall system. A long multiport diffuser system would promote fast mixing.
The diluted effluent thus have minor direct impact on the benthic community,
although some cumulative effects of effluent material concentrations, as
mentioned in Alternative 1, may occur. Avoidance of the central plume area by
salmonids and pelagic fish may occur as a reaction to salinity and temperature
changes.
V-12
-------
Mitigative Measures to Protect the Marine Benthic Community
Careful construction techniques can minimize the impact of out-
fall placement upon the marine benthic community. Although a specific
outfall design has not been selected, it is felt that an outfall placed
on the bottom rather than in a shallow trench would cause minimal dis-
turbance. Disruption of the intertidal benthic community from the
placement of the outfall in a covered trench cannot be avoided but
would affect only a very small shoreline area for only three to five
years.
Assessment of the effects of wastewater discharges upon the ben-
thic community is expected to be minimal. Potential concerns involve
the gradual accumulation of toxic metals in benthic organisms. This
generally is a potential effect that could be mitigated only by expen-
sive tertiary wastewater treatment processes or by selecting outfall
sites that maximize initial dilution and subsequent ,dispersion of the
effluent.
The draft EIS also listed alternatives 1, 2 and 6 with substantial
negative impacts upon the marine benthic community. The rating for
these alternatives was changed to insignificant due to the improved
effluent water quality expected as a result of changing treatment level
from secondary to tertiary.
V-13
-------
Socio-Economic Systems
I«CO*»OM*TCD _M
l\ Category:
II Sub-Category: _____
ixl Criterion: Surface Community
|J Sub-Criterion:
SES Project No.
Physical Impacts
Marine Biological Environment
DEFINITION:
The degree to which the proposed project affects
marine environment in the Surface Zone (from two
feet below water surface to six feet above the
water surface).
RATING:
- 20
BOUNDARY:
Alternative 8
Port Orchard
METHOD OF ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of existing conditions.
+10Q. Enhances and maximizes use of
surface zone for wildfowl,
fish and other organisms.
+75
+50
DISCUSSION:
Wastewater effluent entering local areas can contribute +25
nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Within small
shallow bays and inlets, nutrient enrichment can trigger
algal blooms which block light transmittance to benthic
plants, and rob dissolved oxygen from the water when
they decompose.
Adequate mixing of effluent through a well-designed
outfall will greatly dilute these effects, especially
through areas of good circulation.
+10
The poor flushing and dispersion characteristics near
Enetai may concentrate wastewater pollutants in narrow
bands along depth gradients and topographical contours.
Algae and marine life may be subject to temperature
differentials and exposure to discrete concentrations
of pollutants in the vicinity of the outfall.
-10
-25
-SO
SOURCE OF REFERENCE:
SIS Form #1016/
Copyright 1973
Z. Chan, Environmental Analyst
K. L. Chew, Marine Biologist
Reference 22
-10V>
No or negligible changes to
present system.
Introduces excess nutrients
leading to excessive enrich-
ment.
Reduces water quality leading
to simplification and reduc-
tion of marine life.
Degrades and limits severely
the surface zone for marine
organisms.
V-14
-------
Mttigative Measures to Protect the Marine Surface Community
The marine surface community could be adversely affected by large
inputs of undiluted fresh water and gradual accumulations of nutrients.
These potential adverse effects can be minimized, if not eliminated, by
selecting an outfall site that provides both excellent initial dilution
and excellent subsequent dispersion and flushing of effluent. Applica-
tion of this mitigative measure would tend to preclude the use of Dyes
Inlet, Port Orchard channel at Enetai and Sinclair Inlet as disposal
sites because of their relatively undesirable dilution and dispersion
characteristics.
Alternatives 1, 2, 6 and 7 had been listed in the draft EIS as
having substantial negative impact upon t;he marine surface community.
Due to improved wastewater treatment to tertiary level for these alter-
natives, their impacts have been changed to insignificant.
REVISED RESOURCE IMPACT MITIGATION
No revisions for alternatives 1 through 9 have been made on the
presentation of resource impact mitigation in the draft EIS.
REVISED ECONOMIC IMPACT MITIGATION
The draft EIS rated all alternatives to be substantially negative
with respect to changes in property tax rates. Current analysis indi-
cates that the impacts will no longer be substantial. However, alter-
natives 1, 2, 6 and 7, because of their higher cost, are more dependent
than the others on a substantial increase in the number of new hookups
and chargeable users. There is, therefore, a limited risk that reve-
nues will fall short of financial obligations. This potential impact
can be mitigated by an increase in either hookup or monthly user
charges, or both. Such mitigation will be necessary only if the growth
in population is significantly less than anticipated; needed rate in-
creases would be scaled to the actual need for additional funds for
operations on debt service.
REVISED SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACT MITIGATION
No revisions for alternatives 1 through 9 have been made in the
socio-cultural impact mitigation section of the draft EIS.
V-15
-------
CHAPTER VI
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
The proposed alternative plan No. 11 will have resource commit-
ments similar to those of other alternatives. Resource commitments in
the physical environment are negligible. The treatment facility site
will require on the order of five to ten acres of land, which will be
removed from consideration for other uses during the life of the treat-
ment facility. Small amounts of land will be committed to easements
for the sewerage system. Construction of the sewerage system will
temporarily destroy some flora, but this is not a permanent commitment,
and regrowth of vegetation can be arranged. With re'gard to other phys-
ical parameters, such as water quality, fauna and marine resources, the
effects of the proposed alternative plans would be, if not negligible,
at least relatively minor and reversible.
The creation and construction of a regional sewerage system for
sub-basins 9 and 10 and for the Trident Support Site will impose on
future generations the necessity for a strong commitment to the main-
tenance, expansion and continuation of the wastewater management sys-
tems now being developed. Future alternatives for wastewater collec-
tion, treatment and disposal will to a large extent be precluded by
implementation of the selected plan.
A secondaryand desirableeffect is the population concentra-
tion forced by the interceptor location. By providing service in
appropriately zoned areas designated in the General Plan, the inter-
ceptor location could stimulate development according to County plan-
ning goals. This will result in an irreversible environmental change
with respect to the applicable properties by committing them to use
for residential and commercial development purposes. By fostering
relatively high-density development in areas so designated, the pro-
ject will reduce the potential throughout the area for urban sprawl
and strip development in contravention of the General Plan. Alterna-
tive plan No. 11 will also protect the ecological resources of the
rural areas along Clear Creek by locating the Trident Support Site
interceptor sewer along highway right-of-ways and away from that
corridor.
VI-1
-------
CHAPTER VII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND
THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section develops the relationships between basically nega-
tive, short-term impacts upon the environment and the ultimate bene-
fits to be accrued from proposed alternative plan No. 11.
Physical Impacts
The negative, short-term physical impacts of the proposed project
will be more than offset by the future benefits. Negative impacts can
be reduced to: temporary (one to ten year) disruption of present types
and quantities of vegetation along pipeline routes; temporary and
localized disturbance of stream ecologies during construction; tempo-
rary (one to three year) disruption of marine benthic communities due
to outfall construction; and a decrease in aesthetic appeal of the site
selected for the treatment facility. There will also be construction
impacts, which will include some traffic impacts due to construction
workers and material hauling, construction noises andalong the inter-
ceptor routetemporary impacting of traffic where the piep-line follows
highways and streets. These impacts are common to all of the proposed
alternative plans. For alternative plan No. 11, there would also be
some very small and reversible damage to clam beds in Liberty Bay
caused by the construction of the Poulsbo interceptor sewer.
Benefits to the physical environment are common to all of the al-
ternative plans, but in varying degrees. Failure of septic tank drain
fields will no longer occur in sewered areas connected to the treatment
facility. As a consequence, existing pollution of streams and local
groundwaters, which are used extensively for potable water supply, will
diminish. Pollution of Dyes Inlet, Liberty Bay and Port Orchard channel
will, in general, be diminished, and Health Department restrictions on
shellfish harvesting in presently highly polluted areas probably could
be lifted. Health hazards within the study area would be substantially
reduced.
VII-1
-------
Adoption of alternative plan No. 11 would provide sewerage service
and wastewater treatment to wastes originating at the Trident Support
Site.
Resource Impacts
Construction of a treated effluent outfall will temporarily elimi-
nate benthic organisms in a small area, for all alternatives. For al-
ternative plan No. 11, there would be some small temporary damage to
clam beds in Liberty Bay.
Balancing these negative impacts, a substantial reduction in bac-
terial pollution of clam beds is expected, beginning with the elimina-
tion of septic tank drainage and primary level treated sewage dis-
charges. Health Department restrictions upon certain clam harvesting
areas might be lifted.
Socio-Cultural Impacts
Development of a new major wastewater interceptor and treatment
system in an area largely lacking these services provides to Kitsap
County planners and officials a unique opportunity and me-.'.hanism by
which growth may be controlled in a well planned and orderly manner.
Placement of sewer interceptors in areas zoned for residential
use will tend to fulfill the goals of the General Plan. Urban sprawl
and strip development will tend to be minimized, thereby maintaining
agricultural and open space in areas so designated in the Plan. The
routing of the Trident Support Site interceptor sewer away from the
Clear Creek corridor will protect the rural designation of that area.
Growth-Indueing Impacts
Growth-inducing impacts are secondary effects of a project which
either lead directly to growth (for example, by attracting large num-
bers of workers to an area) or which remove an obstacle to growth (for
example, the construction of a highway which opens a new area for de-
velopment) .
The growth-inducing impacts of a service facility are related to
a number of factors, including: other service facilities, labor force,
capital, transportation network, markets, etc. Here, in considering
Kitsap County, there is another, unique factor: the Trident Base.
VII-2
-------
Growth in Kitsap County between 1975 and 1995 will be induced pri-
marily by the development of the Trident Support Site. According to
the A. D. Little study, the county's population will rise from its cur-
rent 114,480 (1975) to 170,989 by 1995. An estimated 40,702 persons,
or 72% of the total increase, will be drawn into the county by the de-
velopment of Trident. Since the proposed facility can accommodate only
18,000 people in the service area (exclusive of the populations of
Paulsbo and Lemolo) in addition to the Trident Support Site flow, no
excess service capacity will become available to stimulate additional
growth (Reference 72). Instead, the facility will serve the additional
population resulting from the Trident development and will channel Tri-
dent-induced growth along interceptor lines other than the interceptor
serving the Trident Support Site. Current planning restricts access to
the Trident interceptor as well as its size.
The rapid rise in local population will hit full stride in 1983,
when the Trident site is scheduled to become operational. The pressure
on housing, schools and all other facilities and services required by a
residential population will be severe, and the area will not be attrac-
tive to newcomers other than those employed at Trident, their dependents
and those associated with public and private services that the area will
need.
The existence of the proposed project will thus not have a signif-
icant growth-inducing impact in the area; for the foreseeable future,
the entire growth capacity of the area will be strained to the limit,
and beyond, in coping with a growth stimulus already under construc-
tion. When Trident is operating at its planned level, and associated
growth has already taken place, the service capacity of the proposed
facility will be utilized at or near its limits, thereby effectively
eliminating itself as a source of future growth.
Rather than inducing growth, the proposed project will, serve to
channel growth toward its service area, as it mitigates a serious ex-
isting problem: the substandard treatment of sewage. Such an outcome
is clearly desirable because the service area conforms to planning
goals by providing service in urban and transitorial areas designated
for growth.
There will be small indirect impact attributable to the proposed
project, stemming from the slight increase in jobs (20-40 is the prelim-
inary estimate) necessary to operate the treatment system, sewer lines
and pump stations and to manage the treatment system staff. There will
thus be a minor increase in population, with attendant needs for hous-
ing, etc., generating a small amount of business activity. In the con-
text of Trident, this small increase will not measurably increase the
growth pressure in Kitsap County and is probably substantially less
than the precision of population growth estimating.
VII-3
-------
CHAPTER VIII
REFERENCES
1. The URS Company. Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities:
Draft Facilities Plan, Seattle, Washington, July 1975.
2. Horsely, John. Kitsap County Trident Coordinator, Personal Com-
munication, 13 August 1975.
3. U.S. Department of the Navy. Trident Support Site Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement, July 1974.
4. Pace Corporation. Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan for
Drainage Basin 15, rough draft, Seattle, Washington,
July 1973.
5. State of Washington Department of Conservation, Division of Water
Resources. Water Resources and Geology of the Kitsap
Peninsula and Certain Adjacent Islands, Water Supply
Bulletin No. 18, 1965.
6. USDA Soil Conservation Service and Washington Agricultural Experi-
ment Station. Soil Survey, Kitsap County, Washington,
1934.
7. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Interpretations of Soils for Land
Use Planning, Supplement to Soil Survey of Kitsap
County, Washington, January 1972.
8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Environmental Re-
sources Section. Washington Environmental Atlas, Jan-
uary 1972.
9. USDA Forest Service. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington,
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW-8,
1973.
10. Kingsbury, John. State of Washington Department of Natural Re-
sources, South Puget Sound Area. Personal Communica-
tion, 9 July 1975.
11. State Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species of
VIII-1
-------
the Continental United States, Federal Register, Vol.
40, No. 237, 1 July 1975.
12. Ingles, Lloyd G. Mammals of the Pacific States, Stanford Univer-
sity Press, Stanford, California, 1965.
13. Larrison, E.J. and Sonnenberg, K.G. Washington Birds, Their Lo-
cation and Identification, Seattle Audubon Society,
1968.
14. Yocom, Charles and Dasmann, Ray. The Pacific Coastal Wildlife
Region, Naturegraph Company, Healdsburg, California,
1965.
15. Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Am-
phibians, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachu-
setts, 1966.
16. Peterson, Roger Tory. A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton
Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1961.
17. Larrison, Earl J. Field Buide to Birds of Puget Sound, Seattle
Audubon Society, 1952.
18. Lyons, C.P. Trees, Shrubs and Flowers to Know in Washington,
J.M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., Toronto, Canada, 1956.
19. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. United
States List of Endangered Fauna, May 1974.
20. State of Washington Department of Game. Rare Mammals of Washing-
ton, 1 June 1973.
21. Lincoln, John H. Model Studies of the Port Orchard System and
Adjacent Areas, Interim Report No. 2, University of
Washington, Seattle, June 1975.
22. Kitsap County Planning Department. Basic Data and Related Sources
to Shorelines, Port Orchard, Washington, February 1973.
23. Water Resources Engineers. Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound and
Adjacent Waters, prepared for EPA, Contract No. 14-31-
001-3385, April 1975.
24. Census of Agriculture - Kitsap County, Washington. U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, September 1971.
25. Kitsap County Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan, by
the ORB Company, October 1974.
VIII-2
-------
26. Munton, John, Vice.President, Industrial Departments, Cascase
Natural Gas Company. Personal Communication, 15 July
1975.
27. Harstad Associates, Inc. Central Kitsap Study Area Comprehensive
Plan. Seattle, Washington, June 1969.
28. Linder, Paul G., Superintendent of Central Kitsap School District
No. 401. Letter of 22 July 1975.
29. Rutherford, F.C., County Assessor, Kitsap County. Assessed Valua-
tions with Levies and Taxes for 1975. Port Orchard,
Washington, 1975.
30. State of Washington Employment Security Department. Employment
and Payrolls in Washington State by County and by
Industry, No. 112, 3rd Quarter, 1974.
31. U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Manpower Pro-
file, Kitsap County, Washington, September 1972.
32. Porterfield, Robert, Planner, Kitsap County Planning Department.
Personal Communications, 11 and 15 July 1975.
33. Puget Sound Council of Governments. Data Transmittal from Jan
Pilskog, PSCG, July 1975.
34. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Preliminary Allocations of Population and
Households to Subareas Under Alternative Policy Models,
to Central Puget Sound Economic Development District,
7 May 1975.
35. Sanderson, John, Superintendent of Public Works, Kitsap County
Public Works Department. Personal Communication, 11
July 1975.
36. Williams, Richard, Environmental Planner, URS Company. Personal
Communications, 8, 10 and 14 July 1975.
37. Brincken, Glen, Assistant Manager of Customer Service in Marketing,
Puget Sound Power and Light Company. Personal Communi-
cation, 16 July 1975.
38. Benham, Shirley, M.D., Department of Public Health, Kitsap County.
Personal Communication, 11 July 1975.
39. Loop, Enzo, Kitsap County Traffic Engineer. Personal Communica-
tions, July 1975.
VIII-3
-------
40. Kitsap County, Washington. Kitsap County Planning Policies: Out-
line for the Future Growth of Kitsap County, Washing-
ton: An Element of the Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan. Approved 24 February 1970.
41. Kitsap County, Washington. Amendment to Kitsap County Planning
Policies: Outline for the Future Growth of Kitsap
County, Washington: An Element of the Kitsap County
Comprehensive Plan. Approved 24 June 1975.
42. Weigle, Joseph and Brown, Eleanor, Kitsap County Health Department.
Personal Communications, 11 July 1975.
43. Benson, Charlotte L. Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Clear
Creek Drainage, Eastern Kitsap Peninsula, University
of Washington, Office of Public Archaeology Reconnais-
sance Report No. 3, 3 February 1975.
44. Shobert, Cheryl, Office Administrator, Kitsap County Assessor's
Office. Personal Communication, 22 July 1975.
45. Savoie, Gordon, Manager of Bond Investments, Security National
Bank. Personal Communication, March 1974.
46. Hill, Ingman, Chase and Company. Comprehensive Water and Sewerage
Plans for Centra.1 Kitsap County, Seattle, Washington,
January 1970.
47- Engineering-Science, Inc. Pollutional Effects of Drydock Dis-
charges, a report to the Department of the Navy, Con-
tract No. N62474-73-C-5275, October 1973.
48. Li, Richard C.T. City cf Poulsbo Facilities Plan for Proposed
Sewerage Facilities, Seattle, Washington, June 1974.
49. Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc. A Comprehensive Sewerage System Im-
provement Plan for the City of Bremerton, Washington,
March 1974.
50. The URS Company. Environmental Impact Statement for the Hansville
Road Solid Waste Disposal Site, Seattle, Washington,
March 1974.
51. Sopper, W.E. and Kardos, L.T. Recycling Treated Municipal Waste-
water and Sludge through Forest and Cropland, Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, University Park, 1973.
52. Stetson, John, State of Washington Department of Ecology. Personal
Communication, 16 July 1975.
VIII-4
-------
53. Lincoln, John H. and Collias, Eugene E. An Oceanographic Study of
the Port Orchard System, Final Report, University of
Washington, Seattle, 1975,
54. Yearsley, John R. Application of an Ecological Model to Port
Orchard, Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet and Liberty Bay
Subsystem of Puget Sound, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region X, Surveillance and Analysis,
December 1975.
55. Peck, Craig G., et al. Mathematical Model of Three Proposed Port
Orchard System Outfall Sites, Parametrix, Inc.,
Seattle, Washington, November 1975.
56. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Analysis of Selected Impacts of Trident
Related Population Growth in Kitsap County, San Fran-
cisco, September 1975.
57. Fusco, Steve. Letter to Herb Armstrong of Roots Engineering, 28
November 1975.
58. Kitsap County, Washington. Kitsap County Planning Policies: Out-
line for the Future Growth of Kitsap County, Washing-
ton. Approved by Board of Kitsap County Commissioners,
28 July 1975.
59. Lemolo Citizen's Club. Letter of 19 December 1975 to Steve Fusco
of URS Company.
60. Sanderson, John, Superintendent of Public Works, Kitsap County.
Personal Communication, 16 December 1975.
61. The URS Company. Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities:
Facilities Plan, Draft Supplement, Seattle, Washington,
December 1975.
62. Northwest Environmental Consultants. Biological Baseline Studies
and Impact Assessment, Central Kitsap Facilities Plan,
Bainbridge Island, Washington, September 1975.
63. Armstrong, Herbert, Poulsbo City Engineer. Personal Communication,
17 December 1975.
64. Cox, Thomas, Keyport Public Works Department. Personal Communica-
tion, 18 December 1975.
65. Smith, John, Commissioner, Kitsap County Sewerage District No. 4.
Personal Communication, 18 December 1975.
VIII-5
-------
66. Fusco, Steve, URS Company. Personal Communication, 24 November
1975.
67. Vogltanz, Lawrence, Kitsap County Department of Public Works.
Personal Communication, 16 December 1975.
68. Loop, Eiizo, Kitsap County Engineering Department. Personal Com-
munication, 16 December 1975.
69. Bullard, L., Kitsap County Engineering Department. Personal Com-
munication, 23 December 1975.
70. Sullivan, Larry, Project Director, URS Company. Personal Communi-
cations, 29 December 1975.
71. Hollenbeck, Peggy, Associate Planner, Kitsap County Planning De-
partment. Personal Communication, 24 December 1975.
72. Fusco, Steve, URS Company. Personal Communication, 8 January
1976.
VIII-6
-------
APPENDIX A-2
TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT
The following section contains a computer output of the basic
information developed for alterntive plan No. 11. This section is
intended as a supplement to Appendix A-2 of the draft ET.S.
-------
**«*««**«»«« ««»»*««««««*«»«»»««««««««««««
* E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: KITSAP wASTEwATER TREAT MENT ( 1 1 ) . »
DATE: 12/31/75 PAGE: 4 <1«070)
CODE: 7&-2 REV CLIENT REP: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC.* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY CLASSIF I£S IMPACTS IN FUUR CATEGORIES:
1. PHYSICAL IMPACTS: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED PnOJECT
PHYSICALLY ENHANCES OR DEGRADES THE ENVIRONMENT IN AREAS SUCH
AS AIR OUALITY, NOISE, FAUNA AND FLORA , HYDROLOGY , TRAFFFIC, ETC.
(THIS PROJECT HAS 4 SUbCATEGOKlES CONTAINING 10 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
2. RESOURCE IMPACTS: THOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJtCT WHICH
DEMAND OR SUPPLY SEKVICES AND/OR RESOURCES* E.G. UTlLlTItS
DEMANDS* MUNICPAL SERVICE OEMANDS» TR ANSPO*T AT I ON DEMANDS.
(THIS PROJECT HAS J SUBCATEbORIES CONTAINING S> TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
5. ECONOMIC IMPACTS: ThOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJtCT *HlCh
AFFECT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE RELEVANT AREA, E.G. TAX BASE,
EMPLOYMENT, NEW BUSINESS FOK^ATION, ETC.
(THIS KKOJECT HAS 2 bUBCA TEGOKl ES COMfllNlNG 4 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
4. SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS: THOSE ASPECTS OF THE PROPOStL) PROJECT
fcHlCn AFFECT SOCIAL, COLlUKAL AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS IN THE
'RELEVANT AREA. E.G. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY, POPULATION SIZE
AND DENSITY, HISTORICAL OR ARCnEEOLOG ICAL SUES, ARCnl TECTUR AL
FEATURES, ETC.
(THIS PROJECT HAS 2 SUBCATEGORIES CONTAINING 5 TOTAL INDIVIDUAL
CRITERIA)
THESE FOUR CATEGORIES AK£ BROKEN DOWN INTO THE INDICATED NUMBEK OF
SUBCATEGORIES AND CRITERIA, SOME WITH SUB-CRITERIA, WHICH A«E ANALYZED
SEPARATELY. THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF PROJECT IMPACTS ARE SUMMA-
RIZED IN THE StCTION TITLED "ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SOMMA«Y SCORES'1,
DISPLAYED GRAPHICALLY IN "GRAPHIC DISPLAY: PROJECT ENV IRONMtNT AL
IMPACTS" AND "PROJECT ALTERNATIVES BAR GRAPH", AND DESCRIBEU IN DETAIL
IN "ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS INDEX OF CRITIERIA".
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
-------
E.I.R.S. *
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
FUK: MTSAP WASTE*A1ER TREATMENT {11) «
»««««-l>««4««««-«««««»*«««««4>«««««
DATE: 12/31/75 PAGE: 8 (18070)
CODE: 75-2 KEV CLIENT KEF: EPA-lo
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INDEX OF CRITERIA
KEY TO INDEX OF CRITERIA:
ITEM: PARTICULAR IMPACT ITEMS ANALYZED IN THIS REVIEW.
PAGE(S): LOCATION OF RELEVANT DATA IN EIR UNDER REVIEW
KEY ITEM: ASTERISKS <***) CALL ATTENTION TO ITEMS wITH KATINGS
GREATER THAN *10 OK -10 UN A SCALE OF -lou TO »100.
"UNK" INDICATES AN UNKATABLt ITEM. EIK CONTAINED INSUFFI-
CIENT DATA UN WHICH TO BASE A NUMLRICAL KATINO.
STATUS: M (MANUATORY) OK 0 (OESlKAoLE) INDICATE THt 1MPUKTA.NCE OF THE
PAKTICULAR IMPACT ntM IN THE ANLYSIS OF UVEKALL PKOJECT
IMPACTS.
WEIGHT: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF PARTICULAR ITEM KELATivE TO OTHER ITEMS
WITHIN THE SAMt CATEbUKY, Sub-C A TEGOK Y, OK C*lTE*Iu(M.
C (CATEGORY)* bC (SUb-CATEOOKY)« C* (CKlTtKlUN). SA (SUb-
CR1TEKION) INDICATE LEVtL OF ITEM BEING WtlGhTED.
BASE RATING: UNWEIGHTED NU-EKICAL KATING OF IMPACT ON A SCALE OF -100
TO +100 AbSIONED TO PAKTICULAk ITtM.
RATING SENSITIVITY: Tl-lL CnANbE IN THE OVtKAl.L KROJtCT HATING
THAT WOULD KESULT IF THIS INDIVIDUAL BASE ITEM *tKE RAISED OK
LOWERED oY 10 POINTS.
ACTUAL OVERALL PHOJECT HATING is 12.97-
IMPACT OF PARTICULAR ITEM FOK NO-PROJECT AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED. RATED AT CATEGOKY AND SUB-CATEGUKY LEVELS ONLY. FI^ST
NUMbEK IS NO-PROJECT ALTEKNATlvtt ALTERNATIVE #1 DIRECTLY BELOW
NO-PKOJECT AND ALTERNATIVE »2 BELOW »i.
ITEM ID * PAGE (5)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
1000 PP.
PHYSICAL IMPACTS
1100 PP.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITIES
'
:
:KEY
SITE"
:
{
i
!STA-
:TUS
M
M
1
WEIGHT
C 100%
!SC 100%
t
:KATING:RATNG
BASE :SENSI-:ALTER
KATING: Tl VI TY:NTVtb
: :
7.94: 3.86: 0.00
: :
: :
-1.67: 0.97: 0.00
t : :
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* 1NC.»CALIF. 1974
-------
* E.I.k.s. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SEkVICE *
* KOk: MTSAP WASTEwAIEk TkEATMENT { 1 1 ) «
DATE: 12/31/75 PAGE
CODE: 75-2 kEV CLIENT kEF
ITEM ID » PAG£
1
KEY
ITEM
*,o
««»
..*
«*«
**«
**«
J
.
STA-
TUS
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
tjt
M
M
M
1
WEIGHT
Ck 100*
Ck 100*
Ck 100%
<
SC 100*
CK 100%
CK 100%
CK 100%
Ck 100%
SX 100*
Sx 100%
5X 100%
SC 100%
Ck 100*
CR 100*
CR 100*
:
BASE
KATING
0.00
-5.00
0.00
-0.08
-15.00
b.OO
-12.00
21.67
25.00
20.00
20.00
33.50
38.00
50.00
12.50
9 (16070)
EPA-10
RATING
SENSI-
TIVITY
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.97
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
C .Oh
O.Od
O.OB
0.97
0.32
0.32
0.32
!
kATNG
ALTLk
NTVtS
0.00
0.00
t
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. iNC.tCALiF. 1974
-------
**»»«««»»««««*«««»«»««*««««»*»««««*««««««
* " E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: MT5AP WASTEwaltR TKEAl M£NT (11 ) *
DATE: 12/31/75
COOE: 75-2 *Ev
ITEM ID » PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
1531 PP.
GROUNDfcATER (JUANTITY
1532 PP.
GROUND'mATER QUALITY
1600 PP.
SOILS (FERTILITY)
2000 PP.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
2100 PP.
UTILITY SERVICE SYSTEMS
2120 PP.
ELECTRICAL
2170 PK.
WATER
2200 PP.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES (I)
2220 PP.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
2250 PP.
PARKS AND KECRLATION
2370 PP.
SANITARY SEwER SYSTEM
2400 PP.
NATURAL RESOURCES
2410 PP.
POTABLE UNDERGRND WATER
2411 PP.
GUALITY
KEY
ITEM
«.*
«*«
It It Hr
»*&
< 1
2412 PP. *
QUANTITY * ***
: i
STA-
TUS
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
1
CLlf
WEIGHT
SX 100*
SX 100*
SC 100*
C 55*
SC 100*
CK 100*
CR 100*
SC 100*
CR 100*
CR 100*
CR loo*
SC 100*
CR 100*
SX 100%
PAGE
INT KtF
BASE
RATING
-25.00
50.00
0.00
i
11.57
-0.50
-1.00
0.00
28.33
25.00
0.00
60.00
6.88
12.50
50.00
:
SX 100*:-25.00
! "i
10 (1
tPA-H
RATING
SENSI-
TIVITY
0.16
0. Ifa
O.V7
2.13
0.71
0. Jfa
0. J6
0. 71
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.71
0.18
0.09
0.09
8070)
)
RATNG
ALTER
NTVFS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
!
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC.tCALIF. 1974
-------
»****««««<»«*«*««««««»«««»«««* *«»«««««««««
* E.I.K.S.
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT KtVIEW SEKv/ICE *
* FOH: KITSAP WASTEWATEK TREATMENT ( 1 1 ) »
DATE: 12/31/75
CODE: 75-2 kEV
PAGE: 11 (18070)
CLIENT kEF: EPA-lU
!
ITEM ID * PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
2420 PP.
POTABLE SURFACE WATEk
2450 PP.
FAUNA
2451 PP.
TfikkESTklAL
2452 PP.
MAklNE
2<*bO PP.
FLOkA - CkOPS/COMMEkCI AL
3000 PP.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
3100 PP.
DIRECT EFFECTS
3120 PP.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES COSTS
3130 PP.
LOANS AND SUBSIDIES
3140 PP.
PkOPEkTY TAX
3141 PP.
CHANGES IN TAX REVENUES
3142 PP.
CHANGES IN TAX kATES
3200 PP.
INDIRECT EFFECTS !
!
3210 PP. :
PROPERTY VALUES !
i
i
4000 PP. J
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS !
1
KEY
ITEM
*«»
!
STA-
TUS
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M .
M
M
M
! i
HEIGHT
Ck 100*
Ck 100%
SX 100*
SA 100%
Ck 100*
C 28*
SC 100*
Ck 100*
Ck 100%
Ck 100%
SX 100%
SX 100%
SC 100%
CP. 100%
C 75%
BASE
kAl ING
5.00
10.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
20.42
30.83
0.00
90.00
2.50
5.00
0.00
10.00
10.00
17.92
!
RATING
SENS1-
T1VI 1 Y
0.18
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.18
1.09
0.54
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.09
0.09
0.54
0.54
1
: 2.91
t
RATNG
ALTEH
NTVtS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF- 1974
-------
« E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: MTSAP wASTt>Af£K THLATMENT<11) «
DATE: 12/31/75
CODE: 75-2 REV
ITEM ID * PAGE(S)
IMPACT ITEM NAME
4100 PP.
SOCIAL IMPACTS
4120 HP.
PLANNED LAND USE PATTERN
4l<»0 PP.
HEALTH AND SAFETY
4200 PP.
CULTUKAL/ESTMtTIC IMPACT
4i:10 PP.
AKCHEOLOGICAL/HISTOKICAL
4230 PP.
ENTEPfAlNMENT/KECH-EAT I UN
42tO PP..
EXT ESTHETIC IMPRtSSION
KEY
ITEM
«««
»**
««»
STA-
TUS
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
CLlt
!
WEIGHT
SC 100*
C« 100*
CK 100*
SC 100*
CK 100*
CK 100*
C* 100*
PAGE
:NT KEF
BASE
KATING
37.50
25.00
50.00
-1.67
0.00
5.00
-10.00
12 (
EPA-K
KATIMG
SENSI-
TIVITY
1 .f 5
0.73
0.73
1.45
0 .4-6
O.^o
0.48
18070)
)
RATNG
ALTFK
NTVES
0.00
0.00
COPYKIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSfEMSt INC.tCALIF. 1974
-------
APPENDIX A-3
SUMMARY OUTPUT
The summary computer calculations of the impacts of alternative
plans have been revised to include Phase II study information and the
development of alternative plan No. 11. This revision uses the URS
Company's public opinion survey as the basis for weighting individual
impact categories and obtaining a summary score. The procedure by
which this is accomplished is presented in Appendix A-l of the draft
EIS.
-------
»»»«»«««*»»»«« «*»«*««»» *»»
« E.I.R.b. «
* ENVIKONMENTAL IMPACT REVIE* SERVICE *
* FOK: MTSAP WASTEWAIER TRE ATMT ( ] t2 »6 ) »
DATE: 12/31/75
CODE: 75-2 REV
PAGE: 5
CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
:UN*£IO,HTED: : WEIGHTED:
: KATING : *£IGHl*: BATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 2.4 : 100* : 2.4 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 11.2 : 5b* : 6.1 :
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 18.8 : 2b* : 5.3 :
SOCIO-CULTUKAL IMPACTS : ^.2 : 7b* : 3.1 :
OVERALL.-WEIGHTED KOTING«*
PROJECT: 6.57
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: 0.00
WEIGHTING FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PKOJEC1 RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A MINOR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. rtOwtVEK TH£ CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM A
NUMBED OF PROJECTS MAY CONINE SEVEKAL MINOR IMPACTS INIG A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +iu OK -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.tCALIF. 1974
-------
* ' E.l.R.S. *
* -ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR; K1TSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (3) tt
DATE: 12/31/75
CODE: 75-2 *EV
PAGE: 5 (18063)
CLIENT nEF: tPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
JUNwEIGnTEO: : wEIOnTEu:
: RATING : *EIGMT«: RATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 9.7 : 100* : 9.7 :
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 1 1 . t> : 55* : 6.4 :
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 19.6 : 28* : 5.5
SOCIO-CULTURAL IMPACTS : 12.5 : 75* : 9.4 :
OVERALL
PROJECT: 12.00
NO PROJtCT ALIEKNATIVt: 0.00
WEIGriT-lNG FACTORS REFER TO PAGE ONE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS tttTwEtN ^10 AND -10 INDICATE A i"lNUR ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. nO^EVER TM£ CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RESULTING FKOM A
NUM&EK OF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOK IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
-------
* E.I.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIE* SERVICE »
* FOR: KITSAP wASTtwAltR TREATMENT (4) *
DATE: 12/31/75 PAGE: 5 (18064)
CODE: 75-2 REV CLItNT RtF: tPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCOPES
:UNwEIGH1ED: : WEIGHTED!
: HATING : WEI Gril*: KATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 9.7 : 100* : 9.7
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 11.6 : 55* : 6.4
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 20.<+ : 26* : 5.7
SOCIO-CULTUPAL IMPACTS : 1^.5 : 7b* : 9.4
OVERALL *t"IunlEO
PROJECT: 12.09
NU PROJc-CT ALfEHNftTlVt: 0.00
* WEIGHTING FACTUKS «tr£K TO PAGE UNE.
** OVERALL PKOJF.C1 RATINGS BtTlwEtN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A r-INOP ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOhtVER THL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS KLSULTING FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMdlNc. SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GREATER ThAN -^10 OR -10 INDICATE A
SUdSTANl 1AL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 1974
-------
**
* E.I.K.b. «
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT KEVIE* SEKVICE «
FOK: KITSAP WAbTE*A(EK TPEATMENT (i) *
DATE: 12/31/75 PAGE: 5 Utl06b)
CODE: 7b-2 KEV CLItNT KEF: LPA-10
tNVlKONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMAP.Y SCOKES
lUNwEIGHTEO: : viEIGriTEu:
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : -y.^ : 100* : 9.<+ :
^^^^.^^waB >.wVi_~v.»_^^M«v«B^«.^«>.«.....^v^v^«v_^_^^iW^_*,w^wvw^^_
KESOUKCt IMPACTS : 11.t. :
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 20.<* :
UHAL InrACTb : 12.b : 7b* :
OVERALL *
PP-OJtCT: 11.V7
NO PKUJtCT ALftKNATiVt: O.UC
WEIGHTING FACIOKS KLFEK TO PAot. ONt.
OVEKALL Pr(OJECI RATINGS dtlwttN *10 AND -10 INDICATE A MI NO* ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOwtVE* THE CUMULATIVE EFFECIS KE5UL1 INb FKUM A
NOMbEK OF fKUJt-CTS MAY COMblNt btVEKAL MlNOK iMKMClb INIO A Sl'jNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVEHALL KAllNbb GKLA ft* TriAN *10 UK -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIwL IMPACT.
COPYKIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* iNC.tCALIF. 1974
-------
* E.I.R.S. «
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT KEVIEw SERVICE. *
* FOK: K1TSAP wASftwAlE^ TK£ATMt>T (7> »
DATE: 12/31/75
CODE: 75-2 k£v
PAGE: b do06/)
CLIENT nEF: EPA-iO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCOKtS
:UN*EIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 2.4 : 100* : 2.4
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 11.2 : bb* : 6.1
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : lfc.8 : 2<}* : b.3
SOCIO-CULTU-vAL IMPACTS : 12. t« : 7b* : 9.4
OVEKALL <*
PROJECT:
NO PROJECT ALFEKNATIVE:
o.uo
WEIGHTING FACTOHS KtF EK TO
UNE .
OVERALL PKOJECI RATINGS BETwttN +10 AND -10 INDICATE A f!INUK ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. nO*EVEr< TH£ CUMULATIVE EKKECfS KESULflNb FnOM A
NUMBEK OF" PROJECTS MAT COMbiiML SEVt^AL MlNOK iMr-ACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL KAT1NGS bKt-ATEK THAN +10 OK -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* lNC.»CALIF. 1974
-------
* E.l.R.S. *
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
* FUR: K1TSAP WASTEwATER TREATMENT (8) *
DATE.: 12/31/7b PAGE: b (18068)
COOL: 7b-2 KEY CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCORES
:UNWEIGHTEO: : WEIGHTED;
: RATING : WEIGHI*: RATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 2.0 : 100* : 2.0
RESOURCE IMPACTS : 11.2 : bb* : 6.1
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 20.<* : 28* : b.7
____ i
SOC10-CULTUKAL IMPACTS : 10.0 : 7b* : 7.5
UVEHALL
PROJECT: 8.28
NO PROJECT ALTERATIVE: 0.00
WEIGHTING FACTORS RLFER TU PAbt ONE.
OVERALL PRUJECT RATINGS dtTwEtN +10 AND ~io INDICATE A MINOK FNVI-
RON^ENTAL IMPACT. MO»LVER THL CUMULATIVE CFFECTS KESULTING FROM A
NUMBER UF PROJECTS MAY COMBINE SEVERAL MINOR IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVERALL RATINGS GrcEATER THAN *10 OK -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS. INC..CALIF. 197<*
-------
«»*»««*«*»««»««««««««««»«»«»*«««»««««««««
* t~ I . R . S .
* ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT KEVIEW SERVICE *
* FOR: MTSAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT (9) *
«*»«*««««««-»«*««««««««««««o««««««««««««««
DATE: 12/31/75 PAGE: 5 U8069)
COOt: 75-2 KEV CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY SCOKES
lUNwElGHTED: : wEIGHTEu:
: KATING : WEIGHT*: KATING :
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 12.2 : 100* : 12.2 :
RESOUKCE IMPACTS : 11.6 : 55* : 6.4 :
ECONOMIC IMPACTS : 20.4 : 28* : 5.7 :
SOCIO-CULTUKAL IMPACTS : 10.0 : 75* : 7.5 :
OVERALL WhlbHTtO BA
PROJECT: 12.33
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE: o.oo
FLIGHTING FACTOKS KEFEK TO PAGE UNE.
OVERALL PROJECT RATINGS BETWEEN +10 AND -10 INDlCATii A wINOK ENVI-
RONMENTAL IMPACT. HOWEVER Tn£ CUMULATIVE EFFECTS KESULTINb FROM A
NUMBER OF PROJECTS MAY COMblNE SEVERAL MINOK IMPACTS INTO A SIGNI-
FICANT IMPACT. OVEKALL RATINGS GREATER THAN +10 OK -10 INDICATE A
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT.
COPYRIGHT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS* INC.tCALIF. 1974
-------
E.I.K.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW SERVICE *
FO«: MTSAH wAbTE*ATER TRt A TM£NT ( 1 1 ) »
DATE: 12/31/75 PAGE: s uao7o)
: 75-2 REV CLIENT KEF: EPA-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMAKY SCORES
:UNwEIGHTED: : WEIGHTED:
: KATING : wEIGHl»:
PHYSICAL IMPACTS : 7.9 : 100-6 : 7.9
f
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENT TO SOILS
This section is a supplement to Appendix B, Soils, of the draft
EIS.
A recent update of the initial soil surveys in Kitsap County
indicates that soils previously reported as Everett series should be
replaced by, as yet undifferentiated, Alderwood series. Figure B-l
has been revised to reflect this change.
B-l
-------
LEGEND
As
ALDERWOOD
LOAMY SAND
Af
ALDERWOOD FINE
SANDY LOAM
Es
EDMONDS
LOAMY SAND
Es
EDMONDS
SANDY LOAM
FINE
Is
INDIANOLA
LOAMY SAND
Ks
KITSAP
SILT LOAM
A
ALLUVIAL SOILS
(UNDIFFERENTIATED)
Mu
MUCK
Q:
I°°O
Source:
Reference 6
IllaheeO
Figure K-l. Distribution of soils in the study area
B-'
-------
APPENDIX D-6
INTERTIDAL BENTlilC SAMPLING RESULTS
As a result of Phase II studies on the marine biological environ-
ment, the following sampling results are presented as supplements to
the draft EIS:
Site B - Point Monroe, 22 July 1975
Site B - Point Monroe, 13 August 1975
Site C - North Point Orchard, 24 July 1975
Site C - North Point Orchard, 12 August 1975
Site F - Dyes Inlet, 23 July 1975
Site F - Dyes Inlet, 6 and 7 August 1975
-------
SITE 3 - POINT MONROE, 22 JULY 1975
STATIONS: LI Al Bl Rl
ALGAE PRESENT
Ceramium paoificum
Enteromorpha intestinalia P
E. linza P
Gigarbina sp.
Rhizoclonium sp.
Ulvoid
Zostera marina
Unidentified green algae
MOLLUSCA - PELECYPODA
Clinocardium nuttallii 1 3
Maooma balthiaa 1 1
M. inquinata 1
M. nasu ta
M. seota 3
Aft/a arenaria 1 1
Hytilus edulis 1 3
Protothaca otaminea 2311
Saxidomus giganteus
Tresus capax
MOLLUSCA - GASTROPODA
Colliaclla otvigatslla 3 1
Lacuna vinata
Nassarius mendicue
Thais lamollosa 1
CHUSTACEA
Balanus sp. P
r>(i;>i'c//a sp.
Corophiwn sp. 1
GammaL'idae sp. 01 1
CiiniiiKir lihic sp. II 2
Cammairidae sp. #3
Gammaridae sp. (?4
L2 A2 B2 R2
P
P
P P
P
5 2 12
2
1
114
7 11 5
4
2 4
1
P
6 1
L3 A3 B3 R3
P
P
P
P P P
P
1 1
1
4 1
1 2
2
U
3
1 2
2 4
1
1
1
1 10
L4 A4 B4 R4
P P P P
2
1
1
1
1 1
2 1
1
1 4
3 1
421
1172
1
1
3 3
-------
SITE B - POINT MONROE. 22 JULY 1975 (Continued)
STATIONS LI Al Bl Rl
Gnorimosphaeroma ovegonensia
Haptaaarpua sp.
IlemigrapsuB nudua 1 3 4g 4g
Idotea sp.
PagurtvB sp.
Pugettia produata
Tanaidacea
Upogebia pitcjetteneia 1
POLYCHAliTA
Ampharetidae
Axiothella rubroainta
Capitellidae 5 5
Cistenide3 breviaoma
Glyceridae 4 2 & 1
Nephtyldae 1 2
NereJdae 111
Onuphldae 1
Qrbiniilae
Owenidae 6
Phyllodocidae
Unidentified Polychaeta 1
Fragmented Polychaeta
CNTIURTA
Anthoi>ltiura elegantiaeima
NKHlill'l'liA
ECIIINODERMATA
IIOLOTIIUI^DIDEA
VlillTKURATA
CUORDATA
ulinoc.ottua aautioepa v
OTHER
UuJduntif led Spccimim
L2 A2 1)2 R2
1
1 5
1 2
1
2
1 1
1
1 12 2
6
2 3
L3 A3 B3 R3
lg
1
1
1
9
122
}
3 1
2 1
1 1
1
1
4 87 96 55
1
1
1
-
F
1<
1 1
I
i
LA A4 BA R4
2 2
1
1
2 2
2
1
2
2
1 1
423
1 1
1
103 2 60
a
M
0\
-------
SITE B - POINT MONROE, 13 AUGUST 1975
STATIONS:
MOLLUSCA - PELECYPODA
Aaila caatrensis
Clinoaardium nuttallii
Compeomiax eubdiaphana
Lacuna annulata
Maaoina balthica
M. itasuta
M. sp. 11
Mya arenafia
Saxidomua giganteua
Yoldia limatula
MOLLUSCA - GASTROPODA
NassariuB mendicus
MOLLUSCA-OPISTHOBRANCHIA
Armina califoimica
HermisBinda crassiformia
CRUSTACEA
Cancer orcgoncnsia
Cancer sp.
Caprella ap.
Caridea
Gammaridae sp. tfl
Gammaridae sp. i?2
Gammaridae sp. #3
Loxorhynchua anapatus
OSTRACODA
POLYCIlAliTA
Arapharetidae
AxiotfiL! I la t'ubroainvta
Capitcllidae
Cirratulidae
1 2 3 4 5 ' 6 7 8
1
1
1 2
1
2 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
I
1
1
F
1
1
1
1
1
4 2
9 3 1
11 2 1 I
2 1 1
Glyceridae
-------
SITE B - POINT MONROE, 13 AUGUST 1975 (Continued)
o
M
oo
STATIONS:, .
Lumbrineridae
Magelonidae
Maldanidae
Mesocliaetopterus taylori
Nephtyidae
Nereidae
OnuphiJae
Owen id a e
Polynoidae
Scalibregmidae
Serpulidae
Spiochaetoptents costarium
Spionidae
Terebellidae
Unidentified Polychaeta
Fragmented Polychaeta
ECHINODERMATA
Aniphiodia ocaidentalis
Eupentacta quinqitesemita
Holothuroidea
Mediaster aequalis
CN ID ARIA
Ptilosaraua gurneyi
OTHER
Hydrozoa
Ascidiacea
Styela sp.
BRYOZOA
SIPUNCULA
Species 01
Species S2
1 2
1
1
A 2
1 1
1 1
3 3
6 21
17 12
1
1
1
1
A 2
P
P
2
3
1
20
3
2
1
10
1
1
P
2
A
1
1
1
16
2
7
A
1
1
2
1
P -
P
5
1A
5
6
P
7
1
1
1
P
5
6
160
1
3
17
1
1
5
1
1
1
P
1
P
1
1
7
1
1
0
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
8
280
2
6
1
1
6
1
8
1
1
P
3
1
-------
SITE C - NORTH POINT ORCHARD, 24 JULY 1975
STATIONS:
VEGETATION PRESENT:
Ceramium californiaum
Enteromorpha aompvessa
Enteromorpha intestinalie
Enteromorpha linza
Ulva laatnoa
Zoatera marina
MOLLUSCA - PELECYPODA:
Clinocai'diwn nuttallii
Macoma balthioa
Maeoma nasuta
Mya arenaria
Protothaca staminea
Venerupis japonioa
Venerupis tennerima
MOLLUSCA - GASTROPODA:
Lacuna vinota
CRUSTACliA:
Brachyura
Caprclla sp.
Corophiwn sp.
Gammaridae sp. tfl
Gammaridae sp. #2
Gammaridae sp. #3
Henri ijraptnta nudua
Pinnixa sp.
Saleroplac granulata
Upoyebia i>wjct Untaia
LI _ CIA GIB Rl
1
3 1
8 2
6 2
1
L2 C2A C2B R2
P P
P
2123
7632
1
1
831
1
3 2
2 1
I
L3 C3A C3B R3
P
P P
P
P
P P
1 I
4 11 1
2231
111
4332
2
F
1
1616
4
-------
SITE C - NORTH POINT ORCHARD, 24 JULY 1975 (Continued)
STATIONS:
POLYC HAETA
Capitellidae
Glyceridae
Maldanidae
Nepthyidae
Nereidae
Orbinidac
Owenidae
Sabcllidae
Spioahaetopterna coatcunun
Terebellidae
NEMERTEA
Cerebratulna californienais
Tubulavia pclliaudaa
PHORONIDA
LI CIA C1B Rl
1 11
3 2
L2 C2A C2B R2
21 14 22 5
2 1
1 11
1
2
1
51
i L3
1
2
3
2
1
26
2
17
C3A
3
3
2
22
4
3
1
14
C3B
2
1
36
3
7
R3 |
1
1
1
46
3
9
._
o
S3
0
PHORONIDA 51
SITE C - NORTH POINT ORCHARD, 12 AUGUST 1975
STATIONS: 1 2
MOLLUSCA-PELECYPODA
Acila caatrensis 3
Compaomyox aubdiaphona
Macoma balthioa
M. nasuta
SoleniJae F
Xoldia limatula
MOLLUSCA-GASTROPODA
Naasarius mendicus 4
Triahotropsia concellata
345678
7 9 6 6 3 11
1
1
1 1
1
1
CRUSTACEA
Loxorhynahua criapatua
-------
SITE C - NORTH POINT ORCHARD, 12 AUGUST 1975 (Continued)
STATIONS:
POLYC1IAETA
Ampharetidae
Axiothella rubroainta
Glyceridae
Phyllochaetopterus prolifioa
Sabellidae
SpioahaetopteniB aoetarum
Terebellidae
EC1UNODERMATA
Amphiodia ocaidentalia
CN1DARIA
Ilydrozoa
gurneyi
NEMERTEA
Cerebratulue oalifornienaie
12
1
2
20
12 16 8
13 12
12 13
P P P P P P
1
CHORDATA
Stijela sp.
BRYOZ6A
' Membranipora mcmbranacea
Unidentified sp. tfl
14
P
P
SIPUNCULA
Unidentified sp. i?l
Unidentified sp. #2
Unidentified ap. tf3
-------
SITE F - DYES INLET, 23 JULY 1975
STATIONS: LI Al Bl Rl
ALGAE PRESENT
Ceramiwn californicum
Enteromorpha compressa P P
E. intestinalia P P P
E. linza
E. plitmosa _ ^ P
Graailar-iopsis sjoeatedtii
Rhizocloniwn sp.
Viva laetuoa P
MOLLUSCA - PEI.ECYPODA
Clinocardium nuttallii
Crassostrea gigaa
Maaoma balthica
M, i~ma
Mya arenaria . 1
Mytilus edulis 1
Protothaaa staminea 6 3
SaxidomuB giganteua
Venevupie japonica 2 6 10 3
MOLLUSCA - GASTROPODA
Collisella stngatella 2 1
Cvep ipatella linyulaka
Littorina planaxis 6
Nassarius mendiaua
Thais lan:ellosa
L2 A2 B2 R2
P
P P
P
P
11 1
13 3
L3 A3 B3 R3
P
P
P
P
P
2
2
911
1
1
6 12
1 1
1
2
L4 A4 B4 R4
P
P P
P
P
2
6739
1
3 8 9 14
112
1
1
7
6
2
to
NJ
-------
SITE F - DYES INLET, 23 JULY 1975 (Continued)
STATIONS: LI Al Bl Rl
CRUSTACEA
Anomura
BaTanua sp. P
Corophium sp.
Gammaridae sp. 01
Hemigrapsia oregonensis 2
Pagui'us sp.
Phyllodwus abdominalis
Scleroplax granulata
Upogebia. pugettensis
POLYC11AETA
Axiothella rubrocinta
Capitellidae
Cisterrides breviaoma
Clymenella §p.
Glyceridae ' 5
Hesionidae
Maldanidae
Nereidae 1
Nephtyidae
Owenidae
Sabellidae
Spionidae
Spioahaetopie'cU'b ooatarwn
Thai'yx sp.
ECHINODERMATA
Diindi'ita bp.v excentriauB
OTHER
Unidentified Fruginont
L2 A2 B2 R2
F
P P
1
2
L3
2
1
1
2
F
1
2
2
1
A3 B3 R3
P P
1
1
5 3
1 1
1
8
2
1 1
293
1
2 2
1
LA AA B4 RA
P
1
1
1
2 2
1
11 1 2 2
1 2
1
1
112
1
6782
2
25 2
1
G
ro
-------
SITE F - DYES INLET, 6 AND 7 AUGUST 1975
STATIONS:
MOLLUSCA-PELECYPODA
Acila caatrensis
Axinopsida sp.
Macoma balthica
MOLLUSCA-GASTROPODA
Mitrel'la sp.
Nassarius mendiaue
CRUSTACEA
Cancer magieter (Juvenile)
Caprella sp.
Corophium sp.
Gammaridae sp. ffl
Gammaridae sp. #2
Pal onion maarodactylua
Puyettla sp.
POLYC1IAETA
Ampharetidae
AxLothella r'ubrouinta
Cirratulidae
Lumbrineridae
Orbinidae
Phyllocha.etopteru.8 prolifica
Polynoidac
Scalibregraidae
£/ 1 ioiilii iij top tei'uo coo tanun
Spionidae
Tcrebellidae
.1 2 3
1
4
239
5 3
1
22 1
e
1
1
11 1 11
1 2
4
1358
5
1 1
5 97
4 5
4
2
2
13
1
1
8
1 1
5 1
1
3
1
32 2
6 7
1
5 9
2
1
2
4 8
1
5 2
10
2 6
116 107
8
1
2
1
1
12
1
3
25"
UiiJdentiHed I'olychuuLU
Fragmented Polychaeta
-------
SITE F - DYES INLET, 6 AND 7 AUGUST 1975 (Continued)
tl
S3
Ln
STATIONS:
ECHINODERMATA
Arnphiodia oooidentalie
Eupentacta quinquesemita
CNIDARIA
Hydrozoa
PkiloaarauB gurneyi
NEMERTEA
Cerebratulus californiensie
Unidentifed sp. #1
CHORDATA
Styela sp.
Cheluoaoma productum
Ascidiacea
OTHER
BRACHIOrODA
BRYOZOA
S1PUNCULA
Unidentified sp. #1
Unidentified sp. 02
Unidentified specimen
1 2
2 1
1
P
1
20
11
P
1
1
345678
26 13 10 17 14 7
P P
10 2 2 1 11
F 11
2
4 4
P
1
P
1 1
1
P = Present
F = Fragmented
j = juvenile
g = gravid
Source: Biological Baseline Studies and Impact Assessment, Central Kitsap Facilities Plan "
URS Company, Bainbridge Island, Washington, September 1975. '
-------
APPENDIX D-7
BEACH SEINE RESULTS
0
to
FISH
Ratfish (Hydrolagus oollei)
Herring (Clupea harengua pallasi)
Chum salmon (Onaorhynchus keta)
Searun cutthroat trout (Salmo clarkii clarkii)
Smelt (Hypomesus pretiususpretiosus)
Pacific cod (Gadue maaroeephalus )
Pacific tomcod (Microgadua proximua)
Thrce-apJiied stickleback (GaslevooUwr, aauleatuu)
Shiner seaperch (Cyniatogastei' aggregata)
Striped seaperch (Embiotoaa lateralis)
Pile seaperch (RhaaoaJiilus vacca)
Staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus)
Sole (family: I'lcuronccLidae)
Starry flounder (Platicthys stellatus)
INVERTEBRATES
Jellyfish (Aurelia aitrita)
Northern kelp crab (Piigettia producta)
r)iiii|.',ene.sa cruh (Canat'-r niiujiutc.p)
Rock crab (Cancer produatua)
SITE F
DYES INLET
8/11/75
Set 01
1
2
3
49
28
9
13
I _
! 38
Set 02
1
1
15
64
56
2
7
1
122
SITE B
POINT MONROE
8/13/75
Set 91
1
4
17
3
16
12
3
I
1
Set 02
6
43
2
1
1
49
95
3
5
i
SITE C
N, Port Orchqrd
8/14/75
Set 01
26
24
1
3
6
1
Set 02
10
28
8
1
Source: "Biological Baseline Studies and Impact Assessment, Central Kitsap Facilities Plan,"
URS Company, Bainbridge Island, Washington, September 1975.
-------
APPENDIX I
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT
This appendix has been revised to reflect the newest available
information from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service about the rela-
tive occurrence of various soil types.
1-1
-------
APPENDIX I
SUITABILITY OF SOILS FIR LAND DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT
The combination of climate and soils in the study area makes the
possibility of land disposal of wastewater effluent rather restrictive.
In the main, this is due to the water budget which prevails in the
area, as shown on Table 1-1 with data pertaining to Grapeview, whose
natural setting is somewhat similar to that of the study area. The
root zone water-holding capacity of the soil-vegetation groupings in
the study area falls largely in the mid-region between the two extremes
shown on Table 1-1. Thus, the amount of wastewater effluent that can
be applied to the soil for disposal by evapotranspiration is only about
seven inches per year, requiring over 8,000 acres for the projected 4.3
mgd of wastes generated in the area in the year 2000. Furthermore, the
effluent would need to be stored during the period of water surplus, in
structures with adequate capacity (nearly one billion gallons). For
this type of disposal, nearly all soils in the area except for those
with steep slopes, poor drainage and high erosion hazard can be uti-
lized.
Another possibility worthy of consideration is year-round disposal
of wastewater effluent at higher rates than can be absorbed and consump-
tively used in the water deficit period. Depending on application rates
and scheduling, a portion of the wastewater effluent, filtered through
the soil and treated by the biological, chemical and physical reactions
in the soil, accrues to the groundwater. The level of groundwater table
both perched and confinedis rather high in many parts of the study
area. In the southern extremeity of the area confined groundwater is
under artesian pressure, and in the northern parts static water depths
in some of the drilled wells exceed 100 feet. There are great varia-
tions in groundwater depth due to the rather uneven distribution of
the various layers of glacial till aquifers in different parts of the
study area. Hence, the importance of the existence of an adequate
thickness of unsaturated materials in the land disposal area should be
borne in mind in the selection of a site for land disposal of waste-
water effluents.
As far as soil properties are concerned, those without a hardpan
can generally be considered to be suitable, as long as application
rates, scheduling and irrigation method used are adapted to the exist-
ing soil and vegetation requirements. Soils that can be utilized for
land disposal of effluents include Indianola loamy sand (Is), Kitsap
silt loam (Ks) and the undifferentiated alluvial soils (A), as shown in
1-2
-------
Table 1-1. MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND
WATER BALANCE WITHIN SOIL ROOT ZONE a'
(cumulative depth of water per year)
Parameter
Precipitation, in. (cm)
Potential evapotranspira-
Soil
10
51
26.
(root
in.
.98
48
zone) water -
(25 cm)
(132)
( 67)
-holding
2 in.
51.98
26.48
capacity
(5 cm)
(132)
( 67)
c
tion, in. (cm)
Actual evapotranspiration 21.77 ( 55) 16.93 ( 43)
tion, in. (cm)
Soil moisture recharge/ 6.83 ( 17) 1.99 ( 5)
utilization, in. (cm)
Water deficit ", in. (cm)
Water surplus e, in. (cm)
4.71 ( 12)
30.21 ( 77)
9,55 ( 24)
35.04 ( 89)
a Adapted from "Water Supply Bulletin No. 18," Division of Water Re-
sources, State of Washington, 1965.
Data relate to Grapeview, Mason County, with similar natural setting
to that of the study area.
^ Water-holding capacity for a given soil is mainly a function of soil
texture, soil depth limitations, plant rooting depth, soil structure
and organic matter content. In the study area, water-holding capa-
city varies between 4 and 8 in. in most areas. Extremes are pre-
sented for ready application to all soil-vegetation combinations.
d This is the amount of water which plants could consumptively use in
addition to the amount naturally available during May, June, July,
August and most of September.
6 This is the amount of water which exceeds the ability of plants to
transpire and soils to absorb from late September through April.
1-3
-------
Figure 1-1. Existence of continuity between surface and ground waters
is not used as a limiting criterion to land application in Figure 1-1
and must be considered independently.
Soils as a Natural Resource
Soils in the study area presently support a vast variety of natu-
ral vegetation, including evergreen and deciduous forests, meadows and
pastures, as well as Christmas tree farms and a minor area of other ag-
ricultural activities (poultry and dairy farms, etc.)- The soils with
hardpans are somewhat less productive than those with friable subsoils
due to the restrictions that the former soils impose upon root penetra-
tion. Generally, most of the soils are of limited agricultural value.
Soils in the study area are classed into standard productivity or capa-
bility units, briefly described in Table 1-2.
1-4
-------
LEGEND
SUITABLE SOILS
UNSUITABLE SOILS
.Figure
!_1. Soils suitable
for high-rate water applica
tion
1-5
-------
Table 1-2. LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION OF SELECTED SOILS IN KITSAP COUNTY a
V
Soil Series
Alderwood
Alderwood
Alderwood
Alderwood
Edmonds
India no la
Kitsap
Alluvial
Muck
Rifle Peat
Surface
texture
loamy sand
fine sandy loam
loam
u n d i f f
fine sandy loam
loaray sand
silt loam
(undifferentiated)
organic
organic
Map Capability Agricultural
symbol class ^ value
As Vile
Af IVe
Al Vile
erentiat
Ef IIIw
Is Vis
Ks Hie
A
Mu IIw
Rp IIw
very poor
fair
very poor
sd at t h
potentially
high
fair to poor
generally
high
variable
potentially
high
potentially
high
Agricultural Portion of study
limitations area, %
severe erosion
hazard
moderate erosion
hazard
severe erosion
hazard
is time
moderate
erosion hazard
moderate
erosion hazard
variable
severe flooding
hazard
severe flooding
hazard
15
35
1
25
1
15
6
5
1
< 1
Adapted from USDA-SCE "Interpretation of Soils for Land Use Planning," January 1972.
USDA-SCS's standard classes and subclasses, briefly interpreted in the next two columns.
------- |