|.»PA 910/& 90-0223
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water Division
Environmental Review
February 1991
Neskowin
Regional Sanitary Authority
Wastewater Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal
Facilities
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Volume I
i
-
-------
Ewironme^l Protection "zSsiih Avenue Idaho*
Seattle WA 98101 Oregon
_ Washington
&EFK
REPLY TO
ATTNOF: WD-136
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and implementing Federal Regulations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has prepared this final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed
Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
Facilities, Tillamook County, Oregon. The Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
(NRSA) has requested a construction grant from EPA under Title II, Section 201 of the
Clean Water Act. Title V, section 511 (c)(1), of the Clean Water Act specifies that all
construction grant projects are subject to review under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
The EPA has determined that construction of the proposed wastewater
treatment facilities may have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. An EIS has therefore been prepared. Discussions relevant to collection,
siting, treatment, disinfection, and disposal options that have been considered during
the planning process are included, as well as measures that may be taken to minimize
environmental impacts. All written and oral comments on the draft EIS that were
received by the close of the comment period have been addressed in Volume 2 of this
EIS.
The EPA will announce the availability of this document in the Federal Register
on February 22,1991, initiating a 30-day review period. Address all comments to:
Fredianne Gray
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Evaluation Branch, M/S WD-136
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 553-8516
(FTS) 399-8516
Deadline for comments: March 25,1991
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Neskovin Regional Sanitary Authority
Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Cooperating Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farmers Home Administration
In Association with:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL;
Dana A. Rasmussen
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
February 11, 1991
-------
COVER SHEET
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEI8)
NESKOWIN REGIONAL SANITARY AUTHORITY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Lead Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 10
Responsible Official: Dana A. Rasmussen
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Cooperating Agency: Farmers Home Administration
Abstract of FEIS;
The action to be considered is the authorization of grant
and loan funds for the design and construction of proposed
secondary treatment facilities. These facilities include a new
collection system, treatment plant, disinfection system, holding
lagoon, and disposal facility. This FEIS discusses the no action
alternative, four collection options, four treatment options,
seven treatment plant sites (including two holding lagoon sites),
two disinfection options, and eight effluent disposal options.
Project implementation is proposed in two phases: Phase 1 would
provide capacity for approximately 1,339 residents; Phase 2 would
expand the system capacity to 2,715 residents. This FEIS
provides a detailed evaluation of Phase 1 only. The EPA
preferred alternative for Phase 1 recommends construction of a
new septic tank effluent (STE) collection system, a new contact
stabilization/extended aeration mechanical treatment plant at the
existing treatment plant site, a new ultraviolet radiation
disinfection system, and a new summertime effluent holding lagoon
at the Simpson Timber site. Treated effluent will be discharged
to Neskowin Creek from the existing outfall during winter high
stream flows and stored during the summer. The existing
conventional gravity collection system will be used in
conjunction with the new STE collection system. The impacts of
all viable component options are considered, particularly in
terms of floodplains, land use, surface and groundwater quality,
growth, public health, cost, and biological resources.
Public Review and Comment Process;
This FEIS is offered for review and comment to members of
the public, special interest groups, and public agencies. Public
hearings were held on October 27 and 28, 1990, in Neskowin,
Oregon, to solicit comments on the August 31, 1990 Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Comments received on the
DEIS are addressed in Volume 2 of this FEIS. Comments received
-------
on this FEIS will be considered in the EPA Record of Decision for
this project.
Location of FEIS:
Copies of this FEIS are available at the following
locations:
Seattle
EPA Region 10 Headquarters
1200 Sixth Avenue, 13th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
Portland
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Second Floor
Portland, OR 97204
EPA Region 10
Oregon Operations Office
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Third Floor
Portland, OR 97204
Salem
Salem Central Library
585 Liberty S.E.
Salem, OR 97301
Tillaroook County
Tillamook County Library
210 Ivy Street
Tillamook, OR 97135
Pacific City Library
34865 Brooten Road
Pacific City, OR 97135
Neskowin Regional
Sanitary Authority
P.O. Box 383
Neskowin, OR 97149
(503) 392-3226
Deadline for Comments:
March 25, 1991
Address all Comments to;
Fredianne Gray
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 553-8516
(FTS) 399-8516
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY S-l
BACKGROUND S-l
COMPONENT OPTIONS S-2
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS S-3
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1
BACKGROUND 1-1
PURPOSE AND NEED 1-3
ISSUES OF CONCERN 1-4
LEGAL, POLICY, AND REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS 1-4
Federal Laws, Policies, and Regulations 1-4
Clean Water Act 1-4
Coastal Zone Management Act 1-5
Endangered Species Act 1-6
EPA Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands Protection 1-6
Safe Drinking Water Act 1-7
Clean Air Act 1-7
National Historic Preservation Act 1-7
Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant
Agricultural Lands ., 1-7
Fish and Wildlife Protection 1-8
State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 1-8
ODEQ Minimum Standards for Groundwater Quality
Protection 1-8
ODEQ Minimum Standards for Treated Effluent
Discharge 1-9
Sewage Disposal in Underground Injection Wells . . 1-11
Subsurface Sewage Disposal 1-11
Dredge-Fill Placement 1-12
State Air Quality Implementation Plan 1-12
Local Ordinances, Policies, and Regulations 1-12
CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 2-1
INTRODUCTION 2-1
BACKGROUND 2-1
SERVICE AREA 2-2
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-4
COLLECTION OPTIONS 2-4
Vacuum Systems 2-4
Conventional Gravity Systems 2-4
Septic Tank Effluent Systems 2-8
Septic Tank Effluent Pumping Systems 2-8
Cost Comparison: Conventional Gravity vs STE Systems 2-8
Selected Option 2-8
SITE OPTIONS 2-8
Existing Treatment Plant Site 2-10
Simpson Timber Site 2-10
Pasture 2 Site 2-10
Butte Creek Site 2-10
Hawk Creek Site 2-10
iii
-------
Page
South Highway Site 2-11
Sutton Pasture Site 2-11
Selected Option 2-11
TREATMENT OPTIONS 2-11
Selected Option 2-12
SLUDGE DISPOSAL 2-13
DISINFECTION OPTIONS 2-13
Ultraviolet Disinfection 2-13
Chlorination 2-14
Selected Option 2-14
EFFLUENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS 2-14
Existing Spray Irrigation System and Holding Ponds,
Construct Additional Summer Storage Lagoon .... 2-16
Summer Storage Lagoon, Winter Discharge to Neskowin
Creek 2-16
Summer Subsurface Disposal, Winter Discharge to Neskowin
Creek 2-16
Year-Round Discharge to Neskowin Creek 2-17
Marine Outfall 2-17
South Beach 2-17
Headland 2-17
Outfall Summary 2-18
Altered Wetland Disposal 2-18
North Neskowin 2-18
Riedesel's Pasture 2-18
Option Summary 2-18
Spray Application 2-18
Deep Well Injection 2-19
Selected Option 2-19
COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE SELECTION 2-19
Phase 1 - Facilities Plan Preferred Alternative . . . 2-19
Phase 1 - EPA Preferred Alternative 2-20
COST ESTIMATES 2-20
Present Worth Analysis 2-22
User Costs 2-24
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
INTRODUCTION 3-1
Geography 3-1
Climate 3-1
Geological Units 3-1
SOILS/GEOLOGY 3-2
GROUNDWATER 3-3
Quantity 3-3
Quality 3-4
SURFACE WATER 3-4
Water Quantity 3-4
Neskowin Creek 3-5
Hawk Creek 3-7
Butte Creek 3-7
Meadow Creek 3-7
Other Surface Waters 3-8
Floodplain Management 3-8
iv
-------
Page
Water Quality 3-10
History 3-10
Fecal Coliform Bacteria 3-11
Dissolved Oxygen 3-16
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-16
Neskowin Planning Area 3-16
Vegetation 3-16
Wildlife 3-20
Aquatic Biota 3-21
Threatened and Endangered Species 3-22
Treatment Plant and Storage Lagoon Sites 3-23
Existing Treatment Facility 3-23
Simpson Timber 3-23
Adjacent to Planning Area 3-23
Marine Resources 3-23
LAND USE 3-26
Farmland Protection 3-26
Floodplain Protection 3-28
State and Local Plans and Policies 3-28
Statewide Planning Goals 3-28
Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan 3-28
Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance 3-31
Existing Land Uses in the Planning Area 3-33
Sewered Areas 3-34
Treatment Plant and Holding Lagoon Sites 3-34
Neskowin Creek Outfall 3-34
SOCIOECONOMICS 3-35
Population Trends and Policies 3-35
Existing Population 3-35
Population Projections 3-37
Public Services 3-38
Water Supply 3-38
Fire Protection 3-38
Police Protection 3-39
Schools 3-39
Solid Waste 3-40
Other Services 3-40
PUBLIC HEALTH 3-40
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-40
AIR QUALITY, NOISE, AND TRAFFIC 3-41
Air Pollution Control Requirements 3-41
Traffic and Noise 3-41
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 4-1
Soils 4-1
Groundwater 4-1
Surface Water Quality 4-2
Biological Resources 4-2
Land Use 4-4
Socioeconomics 4-4
Public Health 4-5
COLLECTION SYSTEM OPTIONS 4-5
-------
Page
Soils 4-5
Groundwater . . . . : 4-5
Surface Water 4-6
Floodplains 4-6
Biological Resources 4-7
Terrestrial Biota 4-7
Wetlands 4-7
Aquatic Resources 4-7
Threatened and Endangered Species 4-7
Land Use 4-7
Socioeconomics 4-8
Public Health 4-9
Historical and Archaeological Resources 4-9
Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic 4-9
SLUDGE DISPOSAL 4-9
EFFLUENT DISINFECTION OPTIONS 4-9
Ultraviolet Light 4-10
TREATMENT PLANT AND EFFLUENT HOLDING SITE OPTIONS . . . 4-10
Soils 4-10
Groundwater 4-10
Surface Water 4-11
Floodplains and Wetlands 4-11
Biological Resources 4-11
Existing Treatment Plant Site 4-11
Simpson Timber Site 4-12
Land Use 4-12
Existing Treatment Plant Site 4-12
Simpson Timber Site 4-12
Socioeconomics 4-12
Public Health 4-13
Historical and Archaeological Resources 4-13
Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic 4-13
EFFLUENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS 4-13
Summer Storage Lagoon; Winter Discharge to Neskowin
Creek 4-13
Soils 4-13
Groundwater 4-14
Surface Water 4-14
Biological Resources 4-15
Land Use 4-15
Socioeconomics 4-16
Quality of Life and Community Impacts 4-18
Public Health 4-19
Historical and Archaeological Resources 4-19
Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic 4-19
CHAPTER 5 - MITIGATION MEASURES 5-1
INTRODUCTION 5-1
GROUNDWATER 5-1
FLOODPLAINS 5-1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5-1
LAND USE 5-2
SOCIOECONOMICS . 5-2
vi
-------
Page
HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5-2
AIR QUALITY, NOISE, AND TRAFFIC 5-2
CHAPTER 6 - IMPACT CONCLUSIONS 6-1
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6-1
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 6-1
SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VERSUS LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY 6-1
CHAPTER 7 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 7-1
COORDINATION 7-1
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (16 USC SEC. 470 ET
SEQ.) 7-1
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (16 USC SEC. 1531 ET SEQ.) . . . 7-1
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 - FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT 7-2
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 - PROTECTION OF WETLANDS 7-2
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 7-3
SCOPING 7-3
Purpose of Scoping 7-3
Scoping Meeting 7-3
Public Hearing - Draft EIS 7-5
Final EIS 7-6
AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING COPIES OF THE FINAL EIS 7-6
Federal Agencies 7-6
State Agencies 7-6
Local Agencies 7-7
Libraries 7-7
Interest Groups 7-7
Other Concerned Businesses 7-7
Individuals 7-8
CHAPTER 8 - LIST OF PREPARERS 8-1
KEY PERSONNEL 8-1
TECHNICAL SUPPORT STAFF 8-1
EPA REVIEWERS 8-1
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION REVIEWER 8-1
CHAPTER 9 - REFERENCES 9-1
LITERATURE CITED 9-1
COORDINATION LIST 9-4
APPENDIX A - STREAM FLOW DATA
APPENDIX B - USFWS ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSULTATION
APPENDIX C - LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT
APPENDIX D - WATER QUALITY DATA
APPENDIX E - NRSA HOOK-UP DISTRIBUTION
APPENDIX F - STATE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
Vll
-------
LI8T OF TABLES
Table Page
S-l Summary of Significant Impacts Associated with
Plant Siting Alternatives S-4
S-2 Summary of Significant Impacts Associated with
Effluent Disposal Alternatives S-5
S-3 Impacts of the No Action Alternative S-6
2-1 Neskowin Sewer System Capital Cost Estimates . . 2-21
2-2 Construction Costs for 110,000 gpd Mechanical
Plant, Existing Treatment Plant Site EPA
Preferred Alternative 2-22
2-3 Present Worth Analysis Assumptions 2-23
2-4 Present Worth Comparison Summary of Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal Alternatives 2-24
2-5 Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Sewerage
Plan Facilities Addendum Phase 1 - User Fee
Analysis 2-25
2-6 Eligibility for EPA Grant Participation by
System Component 2-26
3-1 Water Quality Surveys Conducted in the Neskowin
Creek System 3-12
3-2 Population Estimates and Projections for Neskowin
Area and Tillamook County 3-36
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Vicinity Map 1-2
2-1 NRSA Service Area 2-3
2-2 Existing Collection and Treatment Facilities . . 2-5
2-3 Proposed Interceptors (Phase 1) 2-6
2-4 Proposed Interceptors (Phase 2) 2-7
2-5 Alternative Treatment Plant Sites 2-9
2-6 Alternative Effluent Disposal Sites 2-15
3-1 Streams in the NRSA Service Area 3-6
3-2 Floodplains in the Neskowin Area 3-9
3-3 The Number of Fecal Coliforms and Fecal
Streptococcus Colonies Found in Waters Sampled
in the Vicinity of Neskowin, Oregon Between
March and September, 1989 3-14
3-4 The Ratio of Fecal Coliforms and Fecal
Streptococcus Colonies Found in Waters Sampled
in the Vicinity of Neskowin, Oregon Between
March and September, 1989 ? . . . . 3-15
3-5 Wetland Locations in the Neskowin Vicinity . . . 3-18
3-6 Zoning Designations within the Neskowin Regional
Sanitary Authority Service Area 3-27
IX
-------
SUMMARY
-------
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers a
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program
under Title II of the Clean Water Act. The Neskowin Regional
Sanitary Authority (NRSA), located in Neskowin, Oregon, is
seeking funds under this program for construction of new
wastewater treatment facilities. The NRSA has also applied to
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for funding. In Oregon, the
authority to administer the EPA Construction Grants Program has
been delegated to the State of Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), with the exception of review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Under NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be
prepared by a federal agency when it has been determined that an
action that the federal agency is proposing to fund (e.g.,
construction of wastewater treatment facilities) may result in a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. This
EIS has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. FmHA
is serving as a cooperating agency with EPA.
Currently, the majority of all dwelling units in the NRSA
are served by some combination of septic tanks, drainfields,
seepage pits, and cesspools. Septic tanks with seepage pits and
cesspools are the predominant means of individual wastewater
disposal in the area, especially in the older urban area on the
dunes. In most of the older, smaller lots (primarily in the core
area), the waste disposal systems occupy all available land area
(HGE, Inc. 1988). A small package treatment plant has been
acquired by NRSA; it serves a small development within the NRSA
boundary.
The 1990 facilities plan addendum (HGE, Inc. 1990) preferred
alternative consisted of the following components:
a new septic tank effluent (STE) collection system in
combination with the existing conventional gravity
collection system;
a new 110,000 gallon per day (gpd) mechanical plant at
the Simpson Timber site;
a new ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system;
a new storage lagoon at the Simpson Timber site for
effluent storage during the summer; and
S-l
-------
a new outfall to Neskowin Creek from the Simpson Timber
site for effluent discharge during the winter. Discharge
to the creek would occur only in the winter months when
effluent flows could be diluted by stream flows by a
ratio of greater than 20:1.
The EPA preferred alternative, developed through the NEPA
process, consists of the following components:
a new STE collection system in combination with the
existing conventional gravity collection system;
a new UV disinfection system;
a new 110,000 gpd contact stabilization/extended aeration
mechanical plant at the existing treatment plant site;
a new storage lagoon at the Simpson Timber site; and
the continued use of the existing outfall to Neskowin
Creek for effluent disposal during the winter. Discharge
to the creek would occur only in the winter months when
effluent flows could be diluted by stream flows by a
ratio of greater than 20:1.
This document evaluates the no action alternative as well as
options for collection, treatment plant and holding lagoon
siting, treatment, sludge disposal, disinfection, and effluent
disposal which were presented in the Neskowin wastewater
facilities plans (Century West Engineering 1981; HGE, Inc. 1988,
1990) and which were developed by EPA as part of the NEPA review
process.
COMPONENT OPTIONS
Options for each of the major project components include the
following.
Collection: Construct a new vacuum, conventional gravity,
septic tank effluent, or septic tank effluent pumping collection
system; continue use of the existing conventional gravity system.
Treatment Plant and Holding Lagoon Siting: Utilize the
existing treatment plant, Simpson Timber, Pasture 2, Butte Creek,
Hawk Creek, South Highway, or Sutton Pasture site.
Treatment: Utilize the existing plant, upgraded (50,000
gpd) in combination with a new aerated lagoon (60,000 gpd);
utilize the existing plant, upgraded (50,000 gpd) in combination
with a new recirculating gravel filter plant (60,000 gpd);
construct a new recirculating gravel filter plant (110,000 gpd);
or construct a new contact stabilization/extended aeration
mechanical plant (110,000 gpd).
S-2
-------
Disinfection: Construct ultraviolet radiation or
chlorination facilities.
Disposal: Utilize the existing spray irrigation system and
holding ponds, add summertime lagoon storage, continue wintertime
discharge to Neskowin Creek; abandon the existing spray
irrigation system and holding ponds, add summertime lagoon
storage, continue wintertime discharge to Neskowin Creek;
construct summertime subsurface disposal fields, continue
wintertime discharge to Neskowin Creek; construct a marine
outfall for year-round discharge to the ocean; construct an
altered wetland disposal system; construct new spray application
facilities; or utilize deep-well injection.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Impacts of construction to the alternative treatment plant
and holding lagoon sites can generally be divided into effects on
upland habitat and effects on wetlands. The existing plant and
Simpson Timber sites are disturbed upland habitats providing
limited wildlife habitat. Development of the Butte Creek or
South Highway sites would require elimination of wetlands. The
Sutton Pasture and Hawk Creek sites contain small wetlands which
could be avoided. The Pasture 2 site also contains an avoidable
wetland; however, the site may be expensive and difficult to
develop (see Table S-l).
The significant impacts of the effluent disposal options,
including growth-related impacts, are summarized in Table S-2.
All alternatives potentially will impact population growth rates
in the Neskowin area. The EPA preferred effluent disposal
option, summertime lagoon storage and wintertime discharge to
Neskowin Creek, appears to offer the least degree of significant
adverse impact. There appears to be insufficient land available
for either the summertime subsurface disposal combined with
wintertime discharge to Neskowin Creek option or the spray
application option.
The impacts of selecting the No Action Alternative are
described in Table S-3. Potentially significant impacts would
occur to groundwater, surface water quality, land use,
socioeconomics, and public health if the No Action Alternative
were to be selected. These impacts would result from
contamination of groundwater by human waste and failure of
current on-site disposal systems to meet state standards.
S-3
-------
TabU t-1. Sumry of Significant Impacts Associated with Plant Siting Alternatives
to
Impact Area
Soils
Oroundwater
Surface Water
lologlcal
Resources
land Use
Soeloeeoraalct
Public Health
Historical and
Archaeological
Resources
Air Quality,
Noise, and
Traffic
Existing Sit*
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
potential
Impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
None
lutte Creek
None
None
Impacts to
100-year
floodplaln
Impacts to
wetlands
None
None
None
Potential
Impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
Operation
could cause
odor problems
for nearby
residences
Hawk Creek
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Potential
Impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
None
South Highway
None
None
None
Impacts to
wetlands
None
None
None
Potential
Impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
None
Sutton Pasture
None
None
Impacts to
100-year
floodplaln
Impacts to
wetlands
None
None
None
Potent let
Impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
Possible
odor and noise
for nearby
residences
Simpson
Timber
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Potent 1 si
Impacts to
subsurfsce
cultural
resources
Possible
odor
Capable of
Mitigation to
less Than
Pasture 2 Significant levels
None
None
None
None
Difficult
to develop
None
None
Potential
Impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
Possible
odor end noise
for nearby
residences
n/a
n/a
Yes
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
Yes
No
-------
Trill* i-2.
of Significant lapacte Aueclated with Effluent Dltpoaol Alternative*
Impact Area
Sol It
Groundwater
Surface Water
Slologlcal
ReeourcM
w
1
Ul Land Use
Socloecoratlct
Public Nealth
Nlsterle 1
Archaeological
Resources
Air Ouellty,
Traffic t Nolta
(1) Spray Irrigation
Winter Dltcharge
to Neakowln Cr./
Summer Storage
None
Potential for
nitrate loading
Nona
Potential for growth
and development
In wetlandt
Phate 1. no lapect;
Phate 2, potential
growth Indue taunt;
require* antndetnt to
County Comprehentlve
Lend Ute Plan
Potential Increase In
population leading to
Increase In crime/
police protection.
ether utility demand.
commercial development
None
Potential lapaett to
tubturfaee cultural
resource!
Potential Increete
In nolte, traffic
(2) Winter Discharge (3) Winter Dlscherge
to Neakowln Cr./ to Neskowln Cr./
Sumer Storege Subsurface Disposal
None Capacity
Insufficient
None Same aa 1
Nona Potent lei for
tncreeaed nitrate
from grounduater
(sumer)
Same et 1 Same at 1
Phata 1, no lapact; Seme at 2
Phate 2, potential
growth Inducement
Same et 1 Sana at 1
None None
Sane et 1 Sane et 1
Same at 1 Sane et 1
(4) Tear-Hound
Discharge to (5) Merino
Neskowln Cr. Outfall
None None
None None
Some at 3; Nona
degradation of
water quality In
Neskowln Creek
during the simmer
Sane aa 1; decline Sane et 1
In the habitat
quality of Netkowln
Creek for aquatic
biota during
sumer months
Phase 1. seme as 2; Same as 2
Phase 2. possible
moratorium
Same es 1 Same as 1
Exposure to poorly None
diluted effluent
Same et 1 Seme et 1
i
Seme ea 1 Sane at 1
(6) Wetland (7) Spray
Disposal Application
Potential for Sane ea 3
converaion of
prime agricultural
land
Sana ea 1 Sane at 1
Sane at 3 Sana aa 3
Sane ea 1; Sane at f
potential alteration
of wetland apecles
Phate 1. tame aa 1 Sane ea 1
Phete 2, additional
disposal lend
required, potalbl*
more tori in
Sane et 1 Sane at 1
None None
Seme at 1 Same at 1
-
Same et 1 Same et 1
(8) Deep-Well
Injection
None
Possible
contamination
of aquifer
None
Sane es 1
Same as 1
Same at 1
None
Same at 1
Same et 1
Note: All ereet of Inpeet ere capable of mitigation to lets than significant levels.
-------
Table 8-3. Impacts of tbe Mo Action Alternative
Impact Category
Impact
Soils, Biological Resources,
Historical and Archeological
Resources, and Traffic, Noise,
and Air Quality
Groundwater
Surface Water
Land Use
Socioeconomics
Public Health
No impacts would result
Continued degradation of local
groundwater from individual
septic systems
Continued degradation of local
streams and violations of the
NPDES permit requirements
Potential moratorium on new
development due to inadequate
wastewater disposal would
prevent development of planned
land uses
Potential impacts to local
economic growth if future
development is prevented
because of inadequate
wastewater disposal
Continued exposure of people
to poor quality water in
Neskowin Creek with possible
implications to public health
S-6
-------
CHAPTER 1
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been
prepared by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) as a cooperating agency.
The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate the impacts of developing
the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority's (NRSA) wastewater
collection, treatment, and disposal system; encourage public
participation in the planning process; and provide input to the
facilities planning process. The EIS emphasizes identified
issues of concern, including water quality and beneficial uses
(such as fisheries), public health (including contact
recreation), and growth impacts that might result from the
proj ect.
BACKGROUND
The NRSA has requested a construction grant from the EPA
under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. Under terms of Section
201, local facilities construction projects are eligible to
receive federal funding for up to 55 percent of the construction
costs of municipal wastewater treatment systems. Funding for up
to 75 percent can be received for innovative or alternative
techniques. An allowance for planning and design based on a
percentage of construction costs may also be granted.
Eligibility is based largely on EPA regulations and guidance
memoranda. As the lead agency for the Clean Water Act, EPA is
charged under the terms of NEPA with assessing the environmental
impacts of federally funded proposed wastewater facility
projects.
NRSA has applied to Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) for
an $800,000 loan to serve as the local match. FmHA is acting as
a cooperating agency for this EIS. The application will be acted
upon pending completion of the NEPA process.
In the summer of 1988, a draft Environmental Assessment was
prepared by ODEQ on the updated facilities plan (HGE, Inc. 1988)
and submitted to EPA. Thereafter, ODEQ received letters from
concerned citizens and special interest groups; these letters
were submitted to EPA. The EPA and ODEQ later determined that
significant impacts may result from construction and operation of
the proposed new facilities, so an EIS has been prepared.
The Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority (NRSA) encompasses
an area of about 1,250 acres. The area, located in Tillamook
County, Oregon, approximately 10 miles north of Lincoln City, has
been a summer coastal resort and vacation area since the 1930s
(Figure 1-1). In the late 1960s a small private sewage
1-1
-------
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map
1-2
-------
collection and treatment system was constructed in Neskowin and
serviced the Neskowin Lodge, restaurant, and adjoining private
holdings. At that time, all other private developments and
residences disposed of wastewater through individual subsurface
systems.
In 1972, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) received a request from the owners of the system to expand
their facilities. Prior to approving the expansion plan, ODEQ
requested a regional sewerage study. The existing facilities
were expanded in 1973.
In 1977, NRSA was fo med. The NRSA recognized the waste
disposal problems in the area and submitted a request for federal
funds to prepare a facilities plan. Since no federal funds were
available, NRSA used its own funds to finance the 1981 facilities
plan. After the facilities plan was completed, Neskowin was not
ranked high enough on the EPA's priority list to receive federal
funding for the project. The 1981 facilities plan (Century West
Engineers 1981) was updated in 1988. Additional sites for
wastewater treatment were evaluated because the site proposed in
1981 had been developed for other uses.
The EIS is a "full disclosure" document and follows specific
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, (as set forth
in 40 CFR Part 1500, 1500-1508), and EPA regulations (as set
forth in 40 CFR Part 6). It is the intent of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that alternatives be developed
and that the environmental impact of the proposed alternatives be
evaluated.
The present proposal is to fund development of an improved
system to be completed by 1996. Phase 1 treatment plant
facilities will be designed for 110,000 gallons per day and will
provide sufficient capacity for the anticipated population
(1,339) through 1996. If Phase 2 is constructed, it will be
designed for an additional capacity of 103,000 gallons/day to
serve the anticipated 2006-year population of 2,715. Total
capacity would ultimately be 213,000 gallons per day. (This
design capacity is less than projected in the 1988 facilities
plan. It reflects a reduction in flow resulting from
construction of the septic tank effluent [STE] system versus a
gravity collection system.)
PURPOSE AND NEED
As early as 1978, elevated bacterial levels in the Neskowin
area streams were noted. Several water quality surveys have been
conducted to document pollution levels, and the surveys have
determined that a significant portion of the pollution load is
from inadequately treated septic system effluent.
The majority of residences in the Neskowin area are serviced
by a combination of septic tanks and drainfields or seepage pits
or cesspools. In order for on-site sewage treatment systems to
1-3
-------
function properly, there must be a sufficient thickness of
appropriate soils between the drainfield and the groundwater.
The Neskowin area is not suited for on-site disposal due to its
sandy soils and high groundwater levels. Because septic tank
effluent percolates too rapidly through the soils to the
groundwater, it receives inadequate treatment by the soils. The
effluent thereby pollutes the groundwater which in turn
discharges contaminants into the surface waters. This problem is
exacerbated by the urban density of houses in the core area.
The polluted surface waters are of particular concern from a
public health perspective. In the summer months, the lower
reaches of Neskowin Creek are heavily used for wading and
swimming, particularly by children. The sewage-contaminated
water has a significant potential for transmitting disease to
those persons wading or swimming in the creek. In addition to
surface water concerns, there is a high potential for widespread
groundwater contamination. While the groundwater is not
presently used as a source of drinking water (the residences are
served by a community water system which uses upper Hawk Creek as
its source of supply) it should be protected as a drinking water
source for potential future uses.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Prior to and during preparation of this EIS, a number of key
issues were identified that warrant discussion and, if possible,
resolution. The issues identified below are described and
evaluated in detail in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. The issues of
particular concern to this wastewater collection, treatment, and
disposal project are:
growth inducement impacts;
range and emphasis of disposal alternatives;
impacts on public health;
impacts on groundwater;
impacts to floodplains and wetlands;
impacts on water quality of Neskowin, Hawk, and Meadow
Creeks; and
impacts on biota of Neskowin Creek.
LEGAL, POLICY. AND REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS
The following briefly discusses major federal, state and
local laws, regulations and policies that must be considered in
an environmental review of the Neskowin facilities plan and
construction grant application.
Federal Laws. Policies, and Regulations
Clean Water Act
EPA is charged with administration of the Clean Water Act,
as amended (33 USC 1251 et seq.). The act requires that all
discharges to the United States waters be issued a National
1-4
-------
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under
Section 402. In the State of Oregon, EPA has delegated authority
for the NPDES permit program to ODEQ.
Five of the eight alternatives being considered for the 20-
year facilities plan include discharge to navigable surface
waters and, therefore, the discharge must comply with an NPDES
permit. The existing permit for Neskowin's treatment plant and
outfall was issued on November 12, 1986, and expires on September
30, 1991.
Section 201 establishes a construction grant funding program
for publicly owned municipal wastewater facilities (a federal
funding of 55 percent with a maximum of 75 percent for innovative
or alternative wastewater treatment and/or disposal concepts).
In order for NRSA to receive grant funds under this section, NRSA
must conduct its planning according to strict guidelines
administered by ODEQ and approved by EPA. In order to comply
with these mandates, NRSA prepared a facilities plan in 1981, and
an updated version in 1988 for the expansion of wastewater
collection, treatment, and disposal systems based on effluent
quality limitations established by EPA and ODEQ.
Section 404 establishes a permit program, administered by
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, to regulate discharge of dredged or fill material into
waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include
adjacent wetlands. EPA is consulted and has veto power on
projects requiring Section 404 permits.
The Oregon Division of State Lands (ODSL) fill/removal law
and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 404 program are
administered cooperatively between agencies. For this project
(construction of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal
facilities), a Section 404 permit may be required for filling of
wetlands under some of the alternatives described in Chapter 2.
During the design process, COE should be consulted to determine
the need for a Section 404 permit.
Coastal Zone Management Act
The act (16 USC 1451 et seq.) establishes funding and
requirements for state coastal zone management programs. Under
EPA procedures for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Part 6), a
determination of consistency with applicable coastal zone
management programs is required of EPA activities having
significant coastal impacts. The U. S. Commerce Department has
approved the Oregon Coastal Management Program. In Oregon, the
state has designated the Department of Land Conservation and
Development to implement coastal management controls. Prior to
grant approval, the Department of Land Conservation and
Development will have to issue a statement on the proposed
project's consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act and
Oregon's Coastal Zone Management Program.
1-5
-------
Endangered Species Act
The main purpose of the Endangered Species Act, as amended
(16 USC 1536 et seg.), is to halt and reverse the trend toward
species extinction through limitations on the actions of federal
agencies. The Endangered Species Act states that each federal
agency shall
. . . ensure that any action authorized, funded or
carried out by such agencies does not jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of habitat of such species which
is determined by the Secretary to be critical, unless
such agency has been granted an exemption for such
action by the Committee.
The Endangered Species Act (Section 7) also requires that all
federal agencies consult with the Secretary to achieve these
ends. The Secretary must issue a biological opinion on how the
agency action will affect the species and how the impacts could
be avoided. The agency must consider the biological opinion
prior to taking action.
Information on threatened and endangered species in the EIS
study area is found in Chapter 3. Impacts on these species are
assessed in Chapter 4.
EPA Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands Protection
In January, 1979, EPA issued a Statement of Procedures on
floodplain and wetlands protection pursuant to Executive Order
11988 and Executive Order 11990. Under the procedures, EPA is
required to assess the impacts of its action on wetlands and
floodplains in order to avoid or, if no practicable alternative
exists, minimize adverse impacts. EPA Region 10 has determined
that Section 201 grants will not be made if such grants promote
or support development in environmentally sensitive areas such as
wetlands and floodplains unless such development cannot be
practicably avoided and when impacts from such development can be
mitigated. Potential effects of NRSA's proposed project on
floodplains and wetlands are described in Chapter 4.
By regulation, EPA is prohibited from funding projects which
will encourage development within floodplains unless a floodplain
ordinance has been adopted by local government. Provision of
collectors within the 100-year floodplain can only be
accomplished in previously developed areas or in areas
appropriately addressed in a local floodplain ordinance. No
collectors can be funded for areas of anticipated growth which
are not covered by a floodplain ordinance, or in which the
ordinance is deemed insufficient.
In addition to EPA regulations, FmHA and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulate development in
1-6
-------
floodplains. Both FmHA and FEMA policies discourage extension of
sewers into areas planned for future growth that are within the
100-year floodplain (Fraser and Steele pers. comm.). These two
agencies' policies allow sewering of existing dwellings in the
floodplain.
Floodplain locations in relation to the proposed collection,
treatment, and disposal systems are presented in the Soils
section of Chapter 3. Impacts to floodplains are discussed in
Chapter 4.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300f et seg.) requires
EPA to set standards for drinking water quality and to establish
guidelines for state regulation and enforcement of these
standards. It also gives EPA the responsibility of protecting
underground sources of drinking water. National primary drinking
water regulations were established by EPA in 1977 and secondary
drinking water regulations were established in 1979. The impacts
of the alternatives on groundwater, a potential drinking water
source, are described in Chapter 4.
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 1857 et seq.) requires
states to prepare plans to attain national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in regions where the standards are being
violated (i.e., non-attainment areas). Federal funding for any
project that directly or indirectly creates local air pollution
conditions in excess of NAAQS, or which does not conform to the
approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) may be withheld under
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. The status of air quality
planning in the Oregon coastal area and the consistency of the
Neskowin facilities plan with NAAQS and the SIP is addressed in
Chapter 3.
National Historic Preservation Act
Under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470 et
seq.), if federal agencies undertake activities affecting sites
of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural value
that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, then
the Advisory Council on Historic Conservation must be consulted
and mitigation measures must be developed. The "Historic and
Archaeological Resources" section of Chapter 4 describes the
potential effects of the alternatives on these resources.
Chapter 5, "Mitigation Measures" describes the process that will
be undertaken to comply with this act.
Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands
It is EPA's policy to consider the protection of
significant/important agricultural lands from irreversible
conversion to uses which result in its loss as an environmental
1-7
-------
or essential food production resource. In addition, the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (7 USC 4201 et seq.) requires federal
agencies to use criteria to (1) identify and take into account
the adverse effects of their programs on the preservation of
farmlands from conversion to other uses; (2) consider alternative
action, as appropriate, that could lessen such adverse impacts;
and (3) assure that their programs to the extent feasible are
compatible with state and local government and private programs
and policies to protect farmlands. Adverse effects shall be
avoided or mitigated to the extent possible.
Fish and Wildlife Protection
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.)
requires federal agencies involved in actions that will result in
the control or structural modification of any natural stream or
body of water for any purpose, to take action to protect the fish
and wildlife resources which may be affected by the action. The
responsible official shall consult with the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the appropriate state agency to ascertain the means
and measures necessary to mitigate, prevent, and compensate for
project-related losses of wildlife resources and to enhance the
resources. Reports and recommendations of wildlife agencies
should be incorporated into the environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement. Consultation procedures are
detailed in 16 USC 662 et seq.
State Lavs, Regulations, and Policies
ODEQ Minimum Standards for Groundwater Quality Protection
Chapter 340, Division 40 of the Oregon Administrative Rules
establishes mandatory minimum groundwater quality protection
requirements which apply to federal and state agencies, cities,
counties, industries, and citizens. Under the rules, high
quality groundwater is to be protected. Numerical groundwater
quality reference levels and guidance levels, obtained from the
Safe Drinking Water Act, will be used by ODEQ and the public to
evaluate the significance of specific contaminants concentrations
and will bring on necessary regulatory action. The numerical
reference levels indicate when groundwater may not be suitable
for human consumption or when aesthetic quality may be impaired.
The ODEQ will develop and conduct a comprehensive
groundwater quality protection program which will address
prevention, abatement, and control of point and non-point sources
of groundwater pollution. The rules contain provisions for
notification of the public when groundwater systems are not
suitable for human consumption because of natural or human
induced problems. The ODEQ will work with the Oregon Water
Resources Department and the Health Division to identify areas
where groundwater pollution may affect beneficial uses. The ODEQ
will also work with the Water Resources Department to
characterize aquifers of the state and to implement an ambient
groundwater quality monitoring program for significant aquifers.
1-8
-------
It is the policy of the Environmental Quality Commission to
see that groundwater problems from areawide on-site sewage
disposal systems are corrected. In order to correct these
problems, permits, special permit conditions, penalties, fines,
EQC orders, compliance schedules, and moratoriums and other
administrative authorities may be used. The ODEQ may use all
statutory authorities and administrative authorities granted to
the agency (OAR 340-40).
ODEQ Miniaum Standards for Treated Effluent Discharge
Chapter 340, Division 41 of the Oregon Administrative Rules
sets forth minimum design criteria for treatment and control of
wastes being discharged to waters of the state. New or modified
facilities must be designed in accordance with minimum criteria
set forth in these rules prior to waste discharge to any waters
of the North Coast - Lower Columbia River Basin.
In order to maintain the quality of waters in the State of
Oregon, it is the general policy of the Environmental Quality
Commission (EQC) that existing high quality waters which exceed
those levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife and recreation in and on the water shall be
maintained and protected unless the Commission chooses, after
full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and
public participation provisions of the continuing planning
process, to lower water quality for necessary and justifiable
economic or social development. The Director or his designee may
allow lower water quality on a short-term basis in order to
respond to emergencies or to otherwise protect public health and
welfare.
Point source discharge shall follow policies and guidelines
to maintain the quality of waters in the state of Oregon. It is
the general policy of the EQC to require that growth and
development be accommodated by increased efficiency and
effectiveness of waste treatment and control such that measurable
future discharged waste loads from existing sources do not exceed
presently allowed discharged loads except when the Commission may
grant exceptions.
In allowing new or increased discharged loads, the
Commission shall make the following findings:
The new or increased discharged load would not cause
water quality standards to be violated;
The new or increased discharged load would not
unacceptably threaten or impair any recognized beneficial
uses. In making this determination, the Commission may
rely upon the presumption that if the numeric criteria
established to protect specific uses are met, the
beneficial uses they were designed to protect are
protected. In making this determination the Commission
1-9
-------
may also evaluate other state and federal agency data
that would provide information on potential impacts to
beneficial uses for which the numeric criteria have not
been set.
For any new waste sources, alternatives which utilize reuse
or disposal with no discharge to public waters shall be given
highest priority for use wherever practicable. New source
discharges may be approved subject to the criteria presented
above.
Sewage wastes must be treated to obtain the following
minimum effluent quality limits:
During periods of low stream flows (approximately May 1
to October 31) treatment must result in monthly average
effluent concentrations not to exceed 20 mg/1 of
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 20 mg/1 of suspended
solids.
During periods of high stream flows (approximately
November 1 to April 30) and for direct ocean discharge a
minimum of secondary treatment or the equivalent control
would be required. All waste treatment and control
facilities must operate at maximum practicable efficiency
and effectiveness so as to minimize waste discharges to
public waters.
Effluent BOD concentrations in mg/1, divided by the
dilution factor (ratio of receiving stream flow to
effluent flow) must not exceed one (1) unless specially
approved by the Oregon State Environmental Quality
Commission.
Sewage wastes must be disinfected after treatment,
equivalent to thorough mixing with sufficient chlorine to
provide a residual of at least 1 part per million after
60 minutes of contact time unless otherwise specifically
authorized by permit.
Adequate protection must be provided to prevent bypassing
raw or inadequately treated sewage to public waters.
More stringent waste treatment and control requirements
can be imposed due to the existence of special
conditions.
These standards, along with EPA standards, have been used as
the basis for wastewater treatment process design during
facilities planning.
1-10
-------
Sewage Disposal in Underground Injection Wells
One of the disposal alternatives addressed in this EIS
involves deep-well injection. The Underground Injection Control
(UIC) program for wells located in the State of Oregon is
administered by ODEQ. Construction of injection wells requires a
permit from ODEQ under this program.
The ODEQ rules restrict the issuance of permits for
construction, maintenance or use of waste disposal wells where
any other disposal methods are available which provide better
protection of public health or water resources. The alternative
of deep injection wells was deleted from further consideration.
Subsurface Sewage Disposal
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality sets forth
the requirements for the construction and use of standard
subsurface on-site sewage disposal systems. There are no
specific guidelines for the construction and maintenance of
community septic systems.
Criteria to be met prior to approval of any standard
subsurface system include requirements for effective soil depth,
information of water table depths and groundwater elevations,
soil permeability, slopes and stream setbacks. Evaluation of
possible acceptable disposal sites and loading rates was based on
the following criteria:
The top 4 feet of the soil horizon must be aerobic and
not subject to saturation.
The best soil types are silt loams and can range from
sandy loam to clayey loam. Sandy, gravelly soils with
high permeabilities and very clayey soils with very low
permeabilities are usually not suitable.
Areas with steep slopes are typically unacceptable for
subsurface effluent disposal.
The new groundwater rule requires an evaluation of
subsurface conditions and evidence of groundwater
protection through monitoring.
ODEQ recommends that the disposal fields be set back 100
feet from Neskowin Creek. Additionally, a 50-foot
setback has been included for drainage ways and
intermittent streams.
The field sizing is based on nitrate dosing rates.
The fields are required to be laid on a checkerboard
pattern with replacement sites located between the dosing
fields. These replacement sites are to provide 100
percent standby capacity.
1-11
-------
Allowances of an additional area of 10 percent for
headers, diversion boxes, fittings, and site
irregularities were made. It is not uncommon to end up
with 50 percent of the land area not being acceptable
because of site constraints (Paeth 1990).
Dredge-Fill Placement
Two of the treatment plant site alternatives addressed in
this EIS require fill. If construction of the new treatment
plant occurs at either the Butte Creek or South Highway sites, or
if a marine outfall is constructed, a fill-removal permit will be
required from the Division of State Lands.
Ocean Outfall Permit
Under OAR 390.705, a permit would be required from the
Oregon State Parks. The permit would be necessary for either of
the ocean outfall locations.
State Air Quality Implementation Plan
The project would not contribute to violations of NAAQS and
is not located in a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide,
particulates or ozone (Lidgard pers. comm.). Therefore, it is in
conformance with the SIP as required under the Clean Air Act.
Local Ordinances, Policies, and Regulations
In 1973, the Oregon Legislature enacted a statewide land use
planning program. Since then, the state has enacted 19 mandatory
Statewide Planning Goals dealing with topics ranging from citizen
participation to management of beaches and dunes. Guidelines
(advisory) pertaining to each goal also have been developed to
help direct the local planning process.
The 19 Statewide Planning Goals are implemented at a local
level through comprehensive planning. State law requires that
each city and county have a comprehensive plan and zoning and
land division ordinances needed to enact the plan. The local
plans must comply with the Statewide Planning Goals and must be
approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC). Once a plan is approved, it is said to be
"acknowledged." Plans are updated on a three to five year
schedule. However, if needed, the jurisdiction can amend its
plan, and the amendments are subject to state review and
approval.
The most recent version of the Statewide Planning Goals were
developed and adopted in 1985. These goals are recommended as a
broad framework around which the counties formulate objectives
and policies to meet the needs of the jurisdiction.
1-12
-------
Neskowin is an unincorporated community and, therefore, is
under the jurisdiction and policies of the Tillamook County
Comprehensive Plan and land use ordinances. The Tillamook County
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged in 1984. Applicable portions
of the plan are reviewed in the "Land Use" section of Chapters 3
and 4.
1-13
-------
CHAPTER 2
-------
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses options for collection, treatment
plant siting, treatment, sludge disposal, disinfection, and
effluent disposal which were presented in the Neskowin wastewater
facilities plans (Century West Engineering 1981; HGE, Inc. 1988,
1990) and which were developed by EPA as part of the NEPA review
process. Following the discussion of the options for each
component, the EPA preferred option is identified. An EPA
preferred alternative incorporating these preferred component
options is then presented and compared with the facilities plan
preferred alternative. A cost comparison is presented, and costs
for the EPA preferred alternative are analyzed.
BACKGROUND
The 1981 and 1988 facilities plans discussed some of the
available alternatives for collection, treatment, treatment plant
siting, disinfection, sludge disposal, and effluent disposal.
Two phases of construction were proposed. Phase 1 was sized to
accommodate the existing population, primarily in the core area
but with 100 new connections. Phase 2 was designed to
accommodate population projections through the year 2006. The
1981 wastewater facilities plan recommended a combination gravity
and pressure collection system, an oxidation ditch treatment
plant, and a combination of spray application of effluent and
discharge to Neskowin Creek. The 1988 facilities plan update
revised the alternatives, presented an economic analysis of each
alternative, and recommended construction of a septic tank
effluent (STE) collection system, recirculating gravel filter
treatment plant, and polishing lagoons. Effluent discharge would
be by subsurface disposal in the summer and discharge to Neskowin
Creek in the winter.
Based on public opposition to creek discharge, an increase
in the area required for subsurface disposal, potential for other
treatment and disposal alternatives, and review of the facilities
plan update, EPA determined that additional effluent disposal
alternatives should be evaluated and incorporated into this EIS.
An addendum to the 1988 facilities plan was therefore prepared in
August 1990 (HGE, Inc. 1990). This addendum evaluated upgrading
the existing package plant, constructing a contact
stabilization/extended aeration treatment plant, abandoning the
existing polishing lagoons, and combining summer storage of
treated effluent with winter discharge to Neskowin Creek. The
facilities plan addendum preferred alternative consists of
construction of a new STE collection system, a new ultraviolet
2-1
-------
(UV) disinfection system, a new 110,000 gallon per day (gpd)
mechanical plant with effluent filtration at the Simpson Timber
site, a new summertime storage lagoon at the Simpson Timber site,
and a new Neskowin Creek outfall adjacent to the Simpson Timber
site for wintertime effluent discharge. The existing gravity
collection system would be upgraded and used in combination with
the new STE collection system.
Subsequent to release of the draft EIS, public concern was
expressed regarding the discharge into Neskowin Creek, and the
aesthetic impacts of siting the treatment plant and holding
lagoons at the Simpson Timber site. In addition, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife requested that the Neskowin Creek
outfall be maintained in its current location and not be moved
upstream to the Simpson Timber site area. An EPA preferred
alternative has been formulated which addresses these concerns to
the extent practicable. The EPA preferred alternative is
identical to development Option 4 in the draft EIS, with two
exceptions: (1) The Neskowin Creek outfall will remain in its
current location, and (2) the effluent filter will be sited at
the existing treatment plant site. The EPA preferred alternative
consists of construction of a new STE collection system, a new
ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system, a new 110,000 gallon per
day (9Pd) mechanical plant and effluent filter at the existing
treatment plant site, and a new summertime storage lagoon at the
Simpson Timber site. The existing gravity collection system
would be upgraded and used in combination with the new STE
collection system, and the existing outfall to Neskowin Creek
would be maintained for wintertime effluent discharge.
SERVICE AREA
The NRSA service area boundary is shown in Figure 2-1.
The 20-year planning period required by EPA has been divided
into two phases. Phase 1 will provide service to the core area,
the "Point," and the western portion of Proposal Rock, initially
serving a population of 1,081 people. The treatment plant,
however, will have the capacity to serve 1,339 people. In order
to equitably allocate the excess plant capacity and to prevent
concentrated growth, NRSA Ordinance 2-88 (see Appendix E)
allocated this excess capacity to various locations within the
district. The ordinance supersedes the geographical allocations
specified in the 1988 facilities plan update. The excess
capacity, allocated as part of Phase 1 treatment plant
construction, will serve 100 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) or
258 people. Many of the homes to be served by this excess
capacity, however, will only have access to hook-ups following
construction of Phase 2 collectors and interceptors.
Phase 2 will provide service to Viking Estates, Kiawanda
Beach, Hawk Creek Hill, Neskowin Heights, and the remainder of
Proposal Rock. When sewage flows to the treatment plant approach
Phase 1 capacity, a Phase 2 plant expansion will be necessary.
The expansion would increase capacity to meet projected demand
2-2
-------
VIKING ESTATES
NESKOWIN REGIONAL
SANITARY AUTHORITY
BOUNDARY
Figure 2-1. NRSA Service Area
-------
through the 20-year planning period. The Phase 2 collection
system will serve an additional 1,634 people, including the Phase
1 excess capacity allocation of 258 people. The population to be
served by both Phase 1 and Phase 2 is projected to total 2,715
people.
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the NRSA would take no further
action to construct new wastewater treatment facilities. The
existing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system
would continue to serve a small development within the NRSA,
however septic tanks, drainfields, seepage pits, and cesspools
would continue to provide wastewater treatment and disposal for
the majority of the dwellings. This alternative has been dropped
from further consideration due to its adverse public health and
environmental consequences (see Chapter 4 text for discussion).
COLLECTION OPTIONS
The Phase 1 collection system will serve 1,081 people, 213
of whom are currently served by an existing conventional gravity
system. These 213 people will continue to be served by the
existing collection system. Installation of an additional
collection system to serve the remaining 868 people would require
excavating and laying 11,500 lineal feet of pipe, reconstructing
two pump stations, and laying 1,500 feet of pressure line to the
existing system (Figure 2-2) (HGE, Inc. 1988). Interceptors
would generally follow identical routes for either the
conventional gravity, STE, or STEP systems (Figure 2-3 and 2-4) .
The following collection options are evaluated in this EIS:
Vacuum Systems;
Conventional Gravity Systems;
Septic Tank Effluent Systems; and
Septic Tank Effluent Pumping Systems.
Vaemim Systems
Vacuum systems were evaluated in the 1981 facilities plan
but were eliminated from formal evaluation because of their
history of excessive cost and poor reliability.
Conventional Gravity Systems
A conventional gravity system would require the installation
of 8-inch-diameter (minimum) lines at depths of 8 to 12 feet.
These conventional gravity lines are larger than STEP lines and
must be installed at greater depths than STEP lines. The total
estimated Phase 1 flow to the proposed treatment plant and
disposal facilities from a conventional gravity system would be
greater than the flow from an STE or STEP system. Flows for a
conventional gravity system are expected to approximate loo
gallons per capita per day (gpcd); flows for an STE or STEP
system are expected to approximate 75 gpcd.
2-4
-------
^,, ^ ^ V s < ^
' '
TREATMENT
PLANT
PRF^IIRF 1 INF
_ f*DA\/ITV 1 IMC
uMAVI 1 T LJNC
PUMP STATION
EFFLUENT IRRIGATION SITE
Figure 2-2. Existing Collection and Treatment Facilities
2-5
-------
NORTH CORE
AREA
SOUTH CORE
AREA
BREAKERS
BLVD
1000 FEET (approx)
TREATMENT
PLANT
NESKOW1N
COUNTY ROAD
PRESSURE UNE
GRAVITY UNE
PUMP STATION
Figure 2-3. Proposed Interceptors (Phase 1)
2-6
-------
EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
COUNTY ROAD
1000 FEET (approx)
LEGEND
Development Through Phase 1
Future Development
Figure 2-4. Proposed Interceptors (Phase 2)
2-7
-------
Septic Tank Effluent Systems
A septic tank effluent (STE) system would require the
installation of approximately 342 new septic tanks, resulting in
excavation in residential front or back yards. Gravity flow
would be utilized to transport the wastewater from the
residential septic tanks to one of several pump stations.
A septic tank effluent pumping system (STEP) would be
similar to an STE system, however sewage pumps would be installed
in each septic tank. Electrical power panels would also be
installed at each septic tank. STEP systems were evaluated in
the 1988 facilities plan, but were eliminated from further
consideration due to higher costs.
Cost Comparison; Conventional Gravity vs STE Systems
The following comparison of construction costs (1991 season)
for the conventional gravity system and the STE system is based
on the 1988 facilities plan cost estimates. A 15 percent
allowance for cost increases since 1988 has been added.
Conventional System = $756,860 x 1.15 = $870,389
STE System = $689,260 X 1.15 = $792,649
Utilization of the existing conventional gravity system for
existing flows and construction of a new STE collection system to
transport new flows remains the least-cost collection
alternative. Pump stations and force mains would be constructed
to complement the gravity flow portion of the system. Ultimately
the wastewater would be pumped from the pump stations to the
headworks at the treatment facility.
Selected Option
The 1990 facilities plan addendum recommends continued use
of the existing conventional gravity collection system in
combination with an STE system for the proposed new Phase 1
hookups. This combination of the existing conventional gravity
system and new STE system also constitutes the collection system
component of the EPA preferred alternative.
SITE OPTIONS
A total of seven potential treatment plant sites have been
evaluated in the 1988 facilities plan update and 1990 facilities
plan addendum. Two of these seven sites have also been evaluated
for suitability for construction of a summer storage lagoon for
treated effluent. The locations of all seven sites are shown in
Figure 2-5. The site options are as follows:
2-8
-------
Existing Wastewater
Treatment Plant Site
Simpson
Timber
Site
Figure 2-5. Alternative Treatment Plant Sites
2-9
-------
Existing Treatment Plant Site;
Simpson Timber Site;
Pasture 2 Site;
Butte Creek Site;
Hawk Creek Site;
South Highway Site; and
Button Pasture Site.
Existing Treatment Plant Site
The existing treatment plant site is the current location of
Neskowin 's package treatment facility, two limited capacity
storage ponds, spray irrigation system, and associated, small
buildings. If the existing treatment plant were operated in
conjunction with summer effluent holding and either an aerated
lagoon or recirculating gravel filter (see the section on
treatment plant options) , acquisition of a second site would be
necessary to accommodate the storage lagoon.
Simpson Timber Site
The Simpson Timber site lies to the north of Slab Creek
Road. It is estimated that 10 acres are available for
development. The 1990 facilities plan addendum designated this
site for use both as a potential treatment plant site and as an
effluent storage site.
Pasture 2 Site
The Pasture 2 site was eliminated from consideration as a
Phase 1 treatment or summer storage lagoon site due to high
costs. Its acquisition would be necessary for Phase 2 expansion
if aerated lagoon treatment were selected in conjunction with
continued operation of the existing treatment plant for Phase 1.
The site consists of 38 acres, however only the 15 acres that lie
west of Neskowin Creek and east of Highway 101 can be developed.
The site is long and narrow and development would be difficult.
Butte Creek Site
The Butte Creek site is adjacent to the Neskowin Crest
residential area, west of Highway 101. The land is undeveloped.
Of the 7 acres available, approximately four are wetlands. The
site was dropped because the high groundwater would interfere
with the operation of a recirculating gravel filter and could
require special construction (i.e. pilings) for other types of
treatment facilities.
Hawk Creek Site
The Hawk Creek site is located east of Highway 101 and is
adjacent to the Hawk Creek Golf Course. The site is undeveloped.
Approximately 1.5 acres are available. This site was eliminated
2-10
-------
from further consideration due to high construction costs (HGE,
Inc. 1990).
South Highway site
The South Highway site is located to the northeast side of
Highway 101, downhill from the existing treatment plant. The
site is a 7-acre forested wetland and has not been developed.
Buildings are located on the portion of the site bordering the
County Road. The site has been dropped because of the saturated
soils and the prevalence of wetlands.
Button Pasture Site
The Sutton Pasture site was designated as a potential option
in the 1981 facilities plan primarily because it was undeveloped.
Although most of the site has since been developed including the
area designated for the treatment plant, part of the site remains
undeveloped and has adequate space for a treatment facility. One
to two acres of the area remaining is wetland with Sitka spruce,
large red alder, dense stands of skunk cabbage, and bentgrass.
This site was dropped because of the presence of a wetland. In
addition, the underlying soil, a blue clay, would require pile
supported facilities, which would significantly increase
construction costs.
Selected Option
Although the alternative designated in the facilities plan
addendum (HGE, Inc. 1990) as the preferred alternative proposed
use of the Simpson Timber site for both the treatment plant and
the summer storage lagoon, EPA has selected the existing
treatment plant site for the location of the treatment plant and
the Simpson Timber site for the location of the storage lagoon
only (see the selected option under effluent disposal). Citizen
concerns regarding use of the Simpson Timber site and a request
by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to maintain the
Neskowin Creek outfall at its existing location led to the site
selections for the EPA preferred alternative. Additional
effluent disposal alternatives that would eliminate the need for
the storage lagoon were explored by HGE subsequent to the draft
EIS public hearings. No additional cost-effective, implementable
disposal option has been identified to date. HGE also
investigated alternative sites for the storage lagoons; however,
no cost-effective site was identified.
TREATMENT OPTIONS
Alternative treatment processes were screened according to
their ability to meet required effluent quality restrictions,
their compatibility with the physical conditions of the area, and
their long-term cost-effectiveness. Physical-chemical treatment
processes were not considered applicable for the study area
because they typically produce greater quantities of sludge than
biological treatment processes and have higher operating costs
2-11
-------
due to the costs of chemicals and monitoring. In addition,
operating procedures require highly qualified personnel.
Biological treatment process alternatives were considered in
terms of their capability to accommodate large fluctuations in
flows, meet environmental requirements, provide acceptable
discharge quality, have low capital and operation and maintenance
costs, be simple to operate and be easily expandable in the
future.
Phase 1 design flows for the proposed treatment and disposal
facilities are 110,000 gpd, based on the Phase 1 service
population of 1339 people. These flows were calculated as
follows: 213 customers are served by the existing collection
system, with flows not exceeding 120 gpcd (including an estimated
45 gpcd infiltration from existing collectors); flows for the
remaining Phase 1 service population of 1,126 people, who would
be served by a septic tank effluent system, are approximated at
75 gpcd. The flow of these systems combined totals 110,000 gpd.
The 1988 facilities plan update evaluated five alternative
biological treatment processes including extended aeration
(package plant and oxidation ditch), contact stabilization,
aerated lagoon, and recirculating gravel filter. Use of a
recirculating gravel filter was identified as the recommended
treatment alternative and was subsequently re-evaluated in the
1990 facilities plan addendum. Preliminary screening in the
facilities plan of the treatment options resulted in the
selection of four biological treatment processes for detailed
evaluation. These four options constitute the Phase 1 treatment
plant options evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement:
existing plant, upgraded (50,000 gpd), in combination
with an aerated lagoon (60,000 gpd);
existing plant, upgraded (50,000 gpd), in combination
with a recirculating gravel filter (60,000 gpd);
recirculating gravel filter (110,000 gpd); and
contact stabilization/extended aeration mechanical plant
(110,000 gpd).
Selected Option
Since there would be essentially no difference in the
environmental effects or the quality of effluent produced by any
of the above treatment plants, the criterion for selection of the
treatment plant becomes cost effectiveness. The treatment plant
type found to be the most cost-effective is the contact
stabilization/extended aeration mechanical plant (110,000 gpd)
(HGE, Inc. 1990). This treatment plant type therefore
constitutes the treatment plant component of the EPA and
facilities plan addendum preferred alternative.
2-12
-------
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
When an STE collection system is used, the septic tanks
provide pre-treatment essentially as a settling basin. The
solids are partially treated biologically by anaerobic digestion
in the septic tank. The solids (septage) must be removed from
the septic tank periodically. Septage is pumped from septic
tanks and usually treated at a sewage treatment plant or disposed
of at an approved disposal site.
Because most of the population of Neskowin resides elsewhere
during the winter months, septic tanks have historically been
pumped every five to seven years. More recently, however, many
of the beach houses have been rented during the off-season
months. As a result, septic tanks may need to be pumped more
frequently.
Maintaining the existing septic systems is currently the
homeowners' responsibility. Following completion of the project,
inspection and pumping will become the responsibility of the
NRSA. Since the NRSA will not have the facilities for septage
disposal, it is recommended that they consider entering into a
contract through a competitive bidding process for the routine
pumping and disposal of septage.
ODEQ requires septage haulers to be licensed. This
licensing program assures that the septage is disposed of only at
approved sites in an environmentally acceptable manner. Since it
is not known which septic tank pumper will be maintaining the
septic tanks, specific locations for septage disposal cannot be
identified.
Sludge will also be generated by the sewage treatment plant.
This sludge will have been aerobically digested at the treatment
plant, and is typically disposed of on agricultural lands. The
NRSA will be required to have an approved sludge management plan
as part of its NPDES waste discharge permit. Sludge would be
removed from the sewage treatment plant on approximately a
biannual basis.
DISINFECTION OPTIONS
The 1988 facilities plan update evaluated both ultraviolet
(UV) radiation and chlorination as alternative disinfection
methodologies. It was the recommendation of the facilities
planners (HGE, Inc. 1988) that UV be the preferred disinfection
mode with chlorination to be used only during periods of
maintenance and down-time for the UV units.
Ultraviolet Disinfection
The advantages to using UV disinfection are primarily
related to the effluent constituents. UV disinfected effluent
meets state and federal standards, and no residual chlorine is
discharged to the receiving waters. However, the UV systems
2-13
-------
which are available require considerable maintenance, including
cleaning and changing the bulbs, monitoring the effluent, and
determining the degree of pathogen destruction. In the event of
a failure of the UV system, a back-up system would normally
function until repair could be achieved. However, since effluent
storage lagoons are proposed to be constructed as part of the
Neskowin wastewater facilities project, effluent could be stored
until the UV system could be made functional. Construction of a
back-up system may therefore not be necessary.
Chlorination
Chlorination provides a much more proven and reliable system
for disinfection. Due to its proven effectiveness, the ease of
use, and the low associated operation and maintenance costs,
Chlorination is the most frequently used method of disinfecting
wastewaters. The discharge of residual chlorine into the
receiving waters, however, may result in impacts to the biota of
Neskowin Creek. Although much of the chlorine is used up in the
treatment process, chlorine compounds are present in effluent
disinfected using chlorine. When present in sufficient
concentrations, these compounds have been proven to be toxic to
aquatic organisms. Dechlorination prior to discharge to Neskowin
Creek would be required and would reduce these impacts. Various
processes are used for the dechlorination of wastewater.
Regardless of the process chosen, the addition of dechlorination
to the wastewater treatment system would increase the capital
cost of the system and require additional operation and
maintenance. Due to concerns expressed by state resource
agencies and the public regarding toxicity of chlorinated
effluent, this option was dismissed from further consideration.
Selected Option
Due to concerns expressed by state resource agencies and the
public regarding toxicity of chlorinated effluent, UV
disinfection is the disinfection option chosen as part of both
the EPA and the facilities plan addendum preferred alternative.
EFFLUENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Potential site locations for each fully evaluated option are
shown in Figure 2-6. Disposal options evaluated in this EIS
include the following:
Existing Spray Irrigation System and Holding Ponds,
Construct Additional Summer Storage Lagoon; Winter
Discharge to Neskowin Creek;
Summer Storage Lagoon, Winter Discharge to Neskowin
Creek;
Summer Subsurface Disposal, Winter Discharge to Neskowin
Creek;
2-14
-------
NORTH NESKOWIN
SITE
Subsurface Disposal
Arifdal Wetland
Spray Application
BREAKERS BOULEVARD
Subsurface Disposal
Existing Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Existing
Neskowin Creek
Discharge
Sutton
Pasture
"vbsurfaco Disposal
NESKOWIN VALLEY-PA
DISPOSAL SITE
Subsurface Disposal /'Simpson
Spray Application / Timber Site
Summer Storage
RIEDESEL-S PASTURE
SITE
Subsurface Disposal
Medal Wetland
Spray Application
South
Highway
Subsurface Disposal
FEET
Figure 2-6. Alternative Effluent Disposal Sites
2-15
-------
Year-Round Discharge to Neskowin Creek;
Marine Outfall;
Altered Wetland Disposal;
Spray Application; and
Deep-Well Injection.
Existing Spray Irrigation System and Holding Ponds, Construct
Additional S'm'|Tner Storage Lagoon
Use of the existing spray irrigation system and holding
ponds with construction of an additional summer storage lagoon on
the Simpson Timber site as an effluent storage and disposal
option was evaluated only in conjunction with use of the existing
treatment plant. The present worth analysis found that this
option as a whole was not the most cost-effective option. This
option has therefore been dropped from further consideration.
Summer Storage Lagoon, Winter Discharge to Neskovin Creek
Construction of a summer storage lagoon would provide for
storage of all effluent between May 1 and October 31. During the
summer months and low creek flow days in the winter, treated
effluent would be collected in the storage lagoon. Discharge of
stored and winter effluent into Neskowin Creek would occur
between November 1 and April 30. Treated, disinfected effluent
would be polished using a sand filter and discharged into
Neskowin Creek either through a new outfall located upstream of
the storage lagoon at approximately river mile 3.5 or at the
existing outfall site. Treated disinfected effluent would be
discharged into Neskowin Creek only when the stream flow to
effluent ratio is greater than 20:1. The average monthly BODS
and suspended solids concentration for the treated effluent would
not exceed 20 mg/1. Limited data available indicate that winter
flow in Neskowin Creek at the proposed discharge point is
consistently greater than 20 times the expected effluent
discharge.
Summer Subsurface Disposal, winter Discharge to Neskowin Creek
The option of summer subsurface disposal with winter
discharge to Neskowin Creek would provide for a combination of
discharge to Neskowin Creek during seasonal flows high enough to
provide sufficient effluent dilution and subsurface disposal
during the summer. All available suitable land within the NRSA
boundaries was investigated. Evaluation of soil test results,
soil types, groundwater levels, and dosing rates resulted in the
conclusion that the land identified is of insufficient acreage to
support subsurface disposal in the Neskowin area at this time.
Identification of additional potential sites is beyond the scope
of this EIS. This option is therefore dismissed.
2-16
-------
Year-Round Discharge to Neskowin Creek
Year-round discharge to Neskowin Creek has met with strong
public opposition. In addition, during the summer months and low
flow periods in Neskowin Creek, stagnation of flow may occur at
the mouth of the stream. According to modelling estimates by
Oregon State University (Klingeman 1979), it would not be
possible to continuously maintain the required greater than 20:1
dilution ratios for stream to treated waste flow with
implementation of Phase 1.
Advanced waste treatment was considered as a means for
providing greater public health protection during periods when
water contact recreation occurs in Neskowin Creek. However, due
to inadequate dilution during the summer, stagnation of flow,
inability to assure inactivation of human pathogens (particularly
viruses), inability to meet regulatory requirements, and
opposition by the public, this alternative was dropped from
further consideration.
Marine Outfall
Marine outfalls are used by some communities along the
Oregon Coast. Ocean disposal provides a year-round disposal
alternative which would meet existing standards for wastewater
treatment plant effluent. EPA concluded that the previous
facilities plans did not include sufficient data to eliminate
marine outfall alternatives. Therefore, additional analysis is
provided in this EIS, and an evaluation of two potential sites
for outfall construction is presented. (See Figure 2-6 for the
South Beach and headlands outfall site locations.)
South Beach
An outfall at South Beach would extend from the treatment
plant along existing roadway easements to a point south of
Proposal Rock. The outfall would be buried across the beach and
through the surf zone approximately 2,500 feet, and would
discharge the effluent at a water depth of approximately 30 feet.
Headland
The objective of the headland outfall alternative was to
avoid construction of the outfall pipeline in the surf zone. It
was assumed that water depths in the area of the sea stack would
be sufficient for discharge adjacent to the rock formation that
forms the sea stack. An advantage to discharging in this area is
that the turbulence around the rock would facilitate mixing of
effluent in the receiving water. However, based on the
bathymetric data available, the 2.5 fathom line is approximately
1,000 feet offshore. The outfall pipeline would need to be
buried in the bottom sediments if constructed in this location.
Therefore there is no advantage to constructing the outfall in
2-17
-------
this location. For this reason, the headland outfall alternative
was discarded without further analysis.
Outfall Summary
After completion of a present worth analysis, it was
determined that construction of an ocean outfall is not the most
cost-effective effluent disposal option and also may not be
implementable due to high user costs. This option was dropped
from further consideration.
Altered Wetland Disposal
Use of existing wetlands is limited to polishing secondary
effluent because water quality standards must be met near the
point of discharge to the wetland (EPA 1987). Two wetland sites
were identified as potential disposal sites for secondary
effluent discharge (Figure 2-6).
North Neskowin
The first site is located in North Neskowin, upslope from
the Neskowin Crest Wetland and across Highway 101 from Viking
Estates Mobile Home Park. The site is currently classified as a
disturbed wetland. The secondary-treated effluent would be
discharged into the altered wetland where the remaining suspended
solids would be filtered out and the biochemical oxygen demand
further reduced. The treated effluent would pass through the
wetland and drain into the large Neskowin Crest Wetland.
Riedesel's Pasture
The second site considered was Riedesel's Pasture, a portion
of which is classified as a disturbed wetland. Tertiary effluent
from this altered wetland would be discharged to Neskowin Creek.
Option Summary
Altered wetland disposal options were dismissed from further
investigation in the facilities plans due to time and fiscal
constraints.
Spray Application
The option of spray application was considered both as a
year-round means of effluent disposal and as a summer month
option in conjunction with winter month discharge to Neskowin
Creek. Adequately drained soils with sufficient acreage to
ensure percolation and removal of nutrients are a necessary
component of a spray irrigation system. Those sites investigated
as potential disposal sites are poorly drained with evidence of
high permanent water tables. Year-round spray application was
dropped from further consideration due to high water tables
precluding sufficient percolation and soil treatment. Surface
runoff of effluent into adjacent waters was also of concern.
2-18
-------
Operation of a spray irrigation system in the summer months would
require screening, buffers, .and fencing. The amount of land
remaining for spray irrigation would be insufficient. The
current spray irrigation system handles only a small portion of
the summer month flow.
Deep Well Injection
Deep well injection of the treated effluent was not
considered in the previous facilities plans. In coastal aquifers
the fresh water aquifer is typically underlain by salt water.
This is due to the differences in densities of fresh water and
salt water. The proposed deep-well injection alternative would
involve injecting the treated effluent either into the salt water
or the fresh water aquifer. Regulations adopted by the State of
Oregon discourage the use of injection wells as a means of
wastewater disposal, particularly in areas close to an aquifer
capable of or currently providing a public water supply. This
option was therefore dropped from further consideration.
Selected Option
Summer effluent storage and winter discharge to Neskowin
Creek was selected as the effluent disposal option for both the
facilities plan addendum preferred alternative and the EPA
preferred alternative.
COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
The 1990 facilities plan addendum (HGE, Inc. 1990) selected
five options for in-depth analysis. These five options were
presented as development options in the draft environmental
impact statement. Option 5 in the draft EIS was selected as the
facilities plan preferred alternative and consists of the
following components.
Phase 1 - Facilities Plan Preferred Alternative
Collection: Existing gravity collection system in
combination with a new septic tank effluent
system;
Treatment: Contact stabilization/extended aeration
mechanical plant (110,000 gpd);
Disinfection: Ultraviolet disinfection;
Disposal: Summer holding in a storage lagoon with
filtration and winter discharge to Neskowin
Creek; and
Site: The treatment plant and summer storage lagoon
will be located at the Simpson Timber site;
the Neskowin Creek outfall will be located
adjacent to the Simpson Timber site.
2-19
-------
Due to public opposition to locating any part of the
proposed wastewater facilities on the Simpson Timber site,
additional disposal options that would eliminate the need for the
storage lagoon were explored by HGE. No additional cost-
effective, implementable disposal option has been identified to
date. HGE also investigated alternative sites for the storage
lagoons; however, no other cost-effective site was identified.
An alternate site for the treatment plant was, however,
identified to be the existing treatment plant site.
In addition to citizen concerns relating to siting the
treatment plant and storage lagoons at the Simpson Timber site,
the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife requested that the
Neskowin Creek outfall be maintained in its current location, at
approximately river mile 0.8, downstream from the location
proposed adjacent to the Simpson Timber site.
The facilities plan addendum preferred alternative, draft
EIS development Option 5, incorporates use of the Simpson Timber
site for the treatment plant and additionally specifies the
location of the Neskowin Creek outfall to be adjacent to the
Simpson Timber site. The EPA preferred alternative specifies the
treatment plant location at the existing treatment plant site and
the outfall location at the existing outfall site. The EPA
preferred alternative is identical to development Option 4 in the
draft EIS, with the exception that the outfall site specified by
Option 4 is adjacent to the Simpson Timber site. The specific
components of the EPA preferred alternative are as follows:
Phase l - EPA Preferred Alternative
Collection: Existing gravity collection system in
combination with a new septic tank effluent
system;
Treatment: Contact stabilization/extended aeration
mechanical plant (110,000 gpd);
Disinfection: Ultraviolet disinfection;
Disposal: Summer holding in a storage lagoon with
winter discharge to Neskowin Creek; and
Site: The treatment plant will be located at the
existing treatment plant site; the summer
storage lagoon will be located at the Simpson
Timber site; the Neskowin Creek outfall will
be located at its existing site.
COST ESTIMATES
Cost estimates for the 1990 facilities plan addendum
preferred alternative and the EPA preferred alternative are
presented in Table 2-1. To the extent possible, the cost
2-20
-------
estimates have been developed using the costs presented in the
facilities plan addendum (HGE, Inc. 1990). Detailed cost
estimates for the EPA preferred alternative are presented in
Table 2-2.
Table 2-1. Neskowin Sewer System Capital
Cost Estimates (Phase 1 and 2>*
STE with
Mechanical Plant
Existing Site
EPA Preferred Alternative
STE with
Mechanical Plant
Simpson Timber Site
Facilities Plan Addendum
Preferred Alternative'
Estimated Phase 1 Cost:
Estimated Phase 2 Cost:
Estimated Project Cost:
$ 3,354,293
$ 9,374.300
$ 12,728,593
$ 3,333,500
$ 9,374,300
$ 12,707,800
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
Refer to HGE, Inc. 1990 for detailed breakdown of Phase 1 and Phase 2 capital costs.
2-21
-------
Table 2-2. Construction Costs for 110.000 gpd Mechanical Plant.
Existing Treatment Plant Site EPA Preferred Alternative
Item Cost
Phase 1
New Treatment Plant:
New Mechanical Plant * 866,000
Upgrade Existing Main Pump Station 35,000
New Fence 2,800
New Access Road, Parking, Misc. Site work 10,000
Pump Station to Pump Effluent to Holding Lagoon 35,000
6" Pressure Line, New Pump Station Holding Lagoon 125,625
Upgrade Existing Collection System 88,500
New STE Collection System; North/South Core Area 636.000
Total Cost - Plant * 1,798.925
Simmer Holding Lagoon:
Land Costs (Simpson Timber Site) $ 21.300
Holding Lagoon 555,000
Effluent Polishing Filter 45,000
Flow Measuring Facilities 15,000
U.V. Disinfection Unit 50,000
Fencing and Site Improvements 20,000
Croundwater Monitoring Wells & Testing 75.000
Total Cost - Lagoon > 781.300
Total Construction Cost $ 2,580,225
Engineering, Legal, Administative, and Contingency 9 30X 774.068
Total Cost $ 3,354,293
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
Note: Total cost to expand plant for Phase 2 same as for plant located on Simpson Timber site per
Facilities Plan Addendum Table 7 is $9,374,300.
Present Worth Analysis
Federal regulations require that a comprehensive cost
comparison of viable wastewater treatment alternatives be
undertaken. The most cost effective plan is defined as the
alternative with the lowest annual cost or the lowest present-
worth option that meets water quality standards in the absence of
overriding non-monetary costs. Present worth evaluation is the
method most commonly applied to evaluate the cost of alternative
facilities. Present worth evaluations include:
Capital costs for the construction of the wastewater
treatment facilities, including the costs of the
collection and transmission systems, effluent disposal
and sludge handling facilities, land acquisition,
engineering, legal and administrative fees, and
2-22
-------
contingencies. These capital costs are typically one
time major expenses that are often financed by bonds or
other types of loans.
Operation, maintenance, and replacement costs including
labor, materials, supplies, spare parts, chemicals,
power, and repair and periodic replacement of equipment.
Remaining value of improvements or the value of
facilities and equipment at the end of the planning
period (20 years).
Table 2-3 presents the basic assumptions used in determining
the present worth of the alternatives described above.
Table 2-3. Present Worth Analysis Assumptions
Planning Period 20 years
Service Life
Treatment Plants/Pump Stations 20 years
Pipelines/Collection Systems 50 years
Recirculating Gravel Filters 20 years
Ocean Outfalls 50 years
Interest Rate (annual percent) 8.875 %
Cost Basis (ENR Construction Cost Index) 4,735
Allowance for Administration, Engineering,
Legal, and Contingencies 30 %
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
Salvage values for facilities have been calculated using
initial cost and straight line depreciation for the service life
of the facility, as presented above. For the purpose of the
analysis, it was assumed that the Phase 2 facilities will be
required 10 years after completion of construction of Phase 1.
A present worth analysis for the facilities plan addendum
preferred alternative, draft EIS development Option 5, was
presented in HGE's 1990 facilities plan addendum. Draft EIS
development Option 4, which placed the Neskowin Creek outfall
adjacent to the Simpson Timber site, was included in that
analysis. The EPA preferred alternative is identical to draft
EIS development Option 4, with the exception that the effluent
filter is located at the site of the existing treatment plant,
and the Neskowin Creek outfall is to remain at its existing
location. HGE has revised the construction costs associated with
2-23
-------
Option 4 to more accurately reflect projected construction costs
and to incorporate use of the existing Neskowin Creek outfall
(Table 2-2). Using these revised costs, a present worth
comparison is presented for the EPA preferred alternative and for
the facilities plan addendum preferred alternative (Table 2-4).
Table 2-4. Present Worth Comparison Tiaanry of Collection, Treatment,
and Disposal Alternatives (All Costs in $1,000)
Development Alternative
Operation & Salvage
Capital Costs * Maint. (20 Yrs) - Value
Total
STE with Mechanical Plant
(existing site)
EPA Preferred Alternative
STE with Mechanical Plant
(Simpson Timber site)
Facilities Plan Addendun
Preferred Alternative
$7.469
$7,448
$382
$382
$1.541
$1,541
$6.310
$6.289
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
The facilities plan addendum preferred alternative is the
least cost alternative. Although the EPA preferred alternative
is slightly more costly, EPA believes that the benefit to the
environment which would result from construction of the EPA
preferred alternative rather than the facilities plan addendum
preferred alternative outweighs the detriment of increased cost.
Although the EPA preferred alternative is not the most cost-
effective alternative, it is the environmentally preferred
alternative.
User Costa
Costs to the individual Neskowin sewer customers have been
calculated for the EPA preferred alternative using the rate
assumptions presented in the 1990 facilities plan addendum and
subsequent Option 4 cost revision. The estimated user cost
associated with this alternative is $26.10 per month (Table 2-5)
This analysis assumes implementation of Phase 1 only.
2-24
-------
Table 2-5. Neskovin Regional Sanitary Authority Sewerage
Facilities Plan Addendum Phase l - User Fee Analysis
Project Funding - Total Estimate Cost
EPA Grant
G.O. Bond Issue
Revenue Bond Issue
FmHA Grant
HUD Grant
Annual Costs
(1) Bond Payment to Tax Base
Bond Payment to Phase I Users
O & M
Total Annual Cost
$4,059,154
2.002.971
800,000
472,183
475,000
309,000
$ 26,000/yr
66,362/yr
40.700/vr
$ 133,062/yr
User Fees (based on 425 Phase 1 users)
Monthly Tax Payment
(house value at $40,000)
Monthly Sewerage Charges
(bond payments)
Monthly Sewerage Charges
(O & M)
(1)
Total Monthly Charge
Bond Payment = 472,183 @ 6%
30 years =
$
$
$
5.10/mo
13 . 00/mo
8.00/mo
26.10/mo
92,362/yr
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
These estimates assume that the community receives EPA
funding of 55 percent for the basic project with an additional 20
percent (for a total of 75 percent) funding for the innovative
and alternative (I&A) technology portions of the project (Table
2-6). Conventional systems (e.g., ocean outfall, chlorination)
would only qualify for 55 percent EPA funding. In addition, the
cost of providing capacity for future needs (the 100 connections
or 258 people authorized by NRSA Ordinance 2-88) is not EPA grant
eligible. A reserve capacity cost ratio, reflecting the reduced
eligibility, has been estimated at 0.93. The EPA grant
percentage for the treatment and disposal portion of the project
has been reduced accordingly.
2-25
-------
Table 2-6. Eligibility for EPA Grant Participation
by System Component
Component EPA Eligible1
Treatment Plant2
Sewage Treatment Plant Site °*
Extended Aeration
w/Disposal to Surface Water 55%
w/Summer Holding 55%
Effluent Sand Filter
w/Disposal to Surface Water 55%
Marine Outfall 55%
Collection System
STE 75%
R/W Easements 0%
Acquire Existing Facilities
Sewage Treatment Plant 0%
Collection System 0%
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
1 Includes engineering and contingencies, administrative costs
proportioned based on months in use per year.
2 EPA eligible percentage will be reduced by applying a reserve
capacity cost ratio presently estimated at 0.93.
The community of Neskowin has applied for a Farmers Home
Administration Loan to provide the local share of the project.
This loan has not been approved and cannot be approved until NEPA
requirements have been satisfied. There may also be other
restrictions. Since this is a low interest loan, user costs
associated with repayment of the loan would be lower than user
costs associated with repayment of funds generated by municipal
bond sales. In addition, all estimates assume that the community
receives a HUD Block Grant of $309,000 as referenced in the
facilities plan.
The user cost estimates presented herein assume that the
NRSA receives EPA construction grant funding as discussed above,
the $309,000 HUD grant, a $475,000 FmHA grant, and that no other
grant funds are available. The remainder of the capital costs
are to be borne by the users, including repayment of the Farmers
Home Loan at 6.00 percent, and annual operation, maintenance, and
replacement costs. The loan repayment is based on the same
formula as in the facility plan; i.e., 20 percent of the costs
are paid by the portion of the NRSA not included in Phase l, with
2-26
-------
80 percent paid by the portion of the NRSA included in Phase 1.
All costs for operation and maintenance will be borne by Phase 1
users.
Phase 1 customers may see periodic increases in monthly user
fees to reflect increased operation and maintenance costs
resulting from increased flows, and increased costs for disposal
of septage. Phase 1 customers would also likely sustain
increases in the user costs as the facilities are expanded to
incorporate additional sewer connections and to include the other
developments in the Neskowin area. These increases would vary
depending on the cost for expanding collection, treatment, and
effluent disposal capacity.
It appears that alternative effluent disposal will be
required for Phase 2. A marine outfall has been identified in
this EIS as a potential Phase 2 effluent disposal option;
however, other viable options may exist. Although further
evaluation of Phase 2 effluent disposal options is beyond the
scope of this EIS, the NRSA may wish to evaluate additional
alternatives at a later date.
2-27
-------
CHAPTERS
-------
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
The facilities planning area boundary shown in Figure 2-1
coincides with the boundary of the NRSA as amended in March 1972.
The study area contains approximately 1,250 acres.
Geography
Neskowin lies at the confluence of Neskowin Creek and Hawk
Creek immediately adjacent to the Pacific Ocean in south
Tillamook County, Oregon. The elevation varies from several feet
at the ocean beach to approximately 560 feet in the foothills at
the eastern edge of the study area. The foothills are
characterized by steep slopes of up to 80 percent. The general
drainage pattern in the area is from east to west and north to
south.
Climate
The climate of the Neskowin area reflects the influence of
the Pacific Ocean with generally mild wet winters and cool dry
summers. The area receives about 70 to 120 inches of
precipitation a year predominantly in the form of rain. Nearly
85 percent of the rainfall falls between October and April.
Coastal fog belts frequently develop in early spring, summer and
late fall.
Prevailing winds are generally from the northwest in the
summer and southeast or southwest in winter. Wind velocities of
15 to 25 miles per hour are common with occasional gale velocity
winds during the winter.
Average temperature in the area ranges from 43"F in winter
to 61*F in summer. Temperature extremes have ranged from a high
of 101'F to a low of 0*F.
Geological Units
In the Neskowin area, there are four distinct geological
units; the dunes region, wetlands, valley floor, and mountainous
areas.
The dunes region abuts the Pacific Ocean on the westerly
side of the study area. This area is characterized by
unconsolidated Quaternary deposits of beach sands. Wind and wave
action are actively eroding the dune area. The core of the
existing community lies primarily in this area.
3-1
-------
The wetlands area lies due east of the beach dune barrier in
a north-south strip and consists primarily of peat deposits often
overlain with silt or clay deposits. Peat forms in this area
because of high groundwater conditions existing most of the year.
The peat material has very poor structural characteristics and is
unsuitable for direct load bearing without piles. These wetlands
also comprise the major floodplain in the area.
The valley floor area consists of narrow strips of land
along Neskowin Creek and Hawk Creek. The young alluvium deposits
are predominantly silty clays underlain with gravel and sandy
silts.
Mountainous terrain circles the community of Neskowin. It
borders the wetlands on the north and east, surrounds the valley
floor, and meets the ocean to the south. The mountainous regions
are made up of Eocene age volcanic rock. The rock type is
predominantly basalt and is typically overlain with a shallow
surface soil. Rock outcroppings are present in many areas.
SOILS/GEOLOGY
The following soil descriptions are based on U. S.
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
classifications, as described in the 1981 facilities plan (CWE
1981), and on the SCS map of the Tillamook area.
The soil horizon under the core area in Neskowin is
classified as Active Dune Land. This horizon extends from the
beach inland to the foothills east of the town. Active Dune Land
is wind-drifted sand in the form of dunes, ridges, or hummocks.
The dune sand is overlain in some areas by marshes, and merges
eastward with alluvial and colluvial deposits. Based on review
of the Clatsop Plains and Coos Bay data, the dune sand along the
Oregon coast consists typically of grey-brown, fine to medium
grained angular quartz sand with minor amounts of heavy minerals
and rock fragments. The thickness of the dune sands north and
south of Neskowin ranges from approximately 90 to 180 feet. The
thickness of the sand in the Neskowin area is unknown. Active
Dune Land typically provides poor treatment for septic tank and
absorption fields (STAF) due to rapid percolation.
The marshy areas near the coast are underlain by the dune
sand, but because of the vegetation and high water levels, thin
soil horizons have developed. The 1981 facilities plan
identifies the soil in the marshy area as Heceta series. The
Heceta series is described as poorly drained sandy soils formed
in stabilized dune sand. This soil provides poor treatment for
STAF due to wet conditions.
Further inland the marshy areas are described as containing
Hebo series soils. The Hebo series soils consist of poorly
drained silty clay loam over clay soils formed in alluvium on
3-2
-------
terraces. These soils provide poor treatment for STAF due to wet
conditions and slow percolation.
The stream-eroded valleys formed by Neskowin, Hawk, Sutton,
Meadow and Butte Creeks typically contain alluvial deposits in
the floodplains. These deposits consist of sand, gravel, silt
and clay eroded from the surrounding rock and deposited as
alluvium.
The valley containing Hawk Creek which drains into the
Neskowin area contains soils classified as the Brenner series.
The Brenner series soils are described as poorly drained,
strongly acidic alluvium soils which occupy the lowest part of
the floodplain. They provide poor treatment for STAF due to
flooding, wet conditions and slow percolation.
The soils at the Simpson Timber site are identified as Meda
gravelly loam and Hembre silt loam. Meda gravelly loam typically
is found on slopes of 3 to 20 percent. Drainage is good, runoff
is slow to medium, and permeability is moderate. The Hembre
series consists of deep, well-drained soils that range from
gently sloping to very steep mountains in the coast range.
Natural runoff is good; permeability is moderate.
GROUNDWATER
Little information regarding the hydrogeology of the
Neskowin area is available. Extensive groundwater investigations
have been performed north of Neskowin in the Clatsop Plains, and
south of Neskowin in the dunes near Coos Bay. The following
narrative is based on review of the Clatsop Plains and Coos Bay
studies, available maps and geotechnical reports, and
communication with persons familiar with the geology and
hydrogeology of the Oregon coast.
Quantity
Groundwater in the vicinity of Neskowin is confined
primarily to the alluvial and colluvial deposits located between
the surrounding ridges and the ocean, and within the creek
valleys. Small quantities of water are reportedly present in the
fractures of the surrounding bedrock, but typically not in usable
quantities. Usable quantities of water are present in the sands
and gravels which constitute the local subsurface geology.
However, previous studies have indicated the quantities of water
available are typically suited only for domestic purposes (Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 1972).
Groundwater is typically encountered at shallow depths. In
the Clatsop Plains and Coos Bay areas the water table is
typically encountered between 2 to 4 feet below grade, depending
on the season.
During the wet season (October through April), the water
table in some areas around Neskowin is found above the ground
3-3
-------
surface. The minor instances of flooding which occur are
generally due to high groundwater and tidal back-up rather than
stream flooding. A report titled Environmental Geology of the
Coastal Region of Tillamook and Clatsop Counties (Oregon
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 1972) identifies
high groundwater levels as a geologic hazard in the western
portion of the town of Neskowin.
A small number of water wells are known to exist in the
Neskowin area. Water level data from these wells indicates the
depth to static water ranges from 8 feet in the Neskowin Crest
area to 18 feet in the foothills east of town (Oregon Department
of Geology and Mineral Industries 1972). Production capacity of
these wells is generally low. A water system study completed in
1977 by HGE, Inc. recommended against wells as a potential
domestic water source for the Neskowin area (Century West
Engineering Corporation 1981). However, based on aquifer pump
tests in the Clatsop Plains area, the sand dune aquifers possess
a relatively high water yield potential (Sweet, Edwards &
Associates 1981). This potential may be partially offset by
limited groundwater flow velocities (Sweet, Edwards & Associates
1981). Discussions with U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) staff
(Bortleson, Newcomb, and Snavley pers. comm.) and Sweet, Edwards
and Associates staff (1981) indicate the characteristics of the
aquifer in the Neskowin area should be similar. However, no data
are available to confirm this.
Recharge to the groundwater system is primarily through
precipitation. Discharge from the aquifer is to streams,
ditches, marshes, and by subsurface flow to the ocean.
Quality
Groundwater quality in the Neskowin area is generally good,
but is characterized by an elevated mineral content, particularly
iron. A limited number of wells in the Clatsop Plains contain
iron concentrations in the water which exceed the Federal
Drinking Water Standards (Sweet, Edwards and Associates 1981).
Elevated iron concentrations have also been detected in the Coos
Bay area (Magaritz and Luzier 1985), and in the Florence area
(Lane Council of Governments 1982). Reportedly, elevated iron
concentrations are common in Oregon's coastal dune aquifer (Lane
Council of Governments 1982).
SURFACE WATER
Water Quantity
Surface water features within the project area consist of
streams, wetlands, and small ponds. Neskowin lies on the Oregon
coast in a region dominated by mild wet winters and relatively
cool, dry summers. Annual precipitation along the Oregon coast
area ranges from 70 to 120 inches, depending primarily on
altitude. The hydrology of the region reflects this climate,
with maximum stream flows occurring in response to prolonged
3-4
-------
winter rains and minimum flows occurring in late summer and early
fall. Streams in the region drain the coast range, where low
elevation precludes significant influences from snow accumulation
and snow melt. Major streams within the project area are
Neskowin Creek, Hawk Creek, Butte Creek, and Meadow Creek (Figure
3-1).
Neskowin Creek
/
Neskowin Creek originates 12.5 miles inland along the
western slopes of Neskowin Ridge in the Siuslaw National Forest.
The headwaters of the stream are at about 1400 feet, with the
majority of the basin lying within the Siuslaw National Forest.
Neskowin Creek is the largest creek in the project area, with a
watershed area of about 14.3 square miles upstream of the sewage
plant outfall. Except for small ranches in the valley bottom,
the basin is heavily forested. Channel characteristics are
typical of coast range streams, with the upper reaches possessing
gradients over 3 percent and high flow velocities. In the area
near the existing sewage outfall, the stream possesses a low
gradient (1 to 2 percent), an average width of 12 feet, and
fairly low velocities.
Flow Data. Neskowin Creek has never been gaged, but spot
discharge measurements have been taken since 1931 (Appendix D,
Table D-l). In the summer of 1988, a hydrologist living in
Neskowin measured flows on a regular basis and developed a stage-
discharge relationship for a point just upstream of the existing
sewage outfall (Appendix D, Table D-2). The lowest flow recorded
over the summer of 1988 was 5.0 cubic feet per second (cfs) on
September 14, a month in which precipitation was 79 percent of
normal (Appendix D, Table D-3). Summertime flows have been
recorded as low as 2 cfs (Klumph pers. comm.). Although
sufficient measurements have been obtained to gain a general
understanding of summer flows, there is not enough data to
generate statistically sound hydrographs.
No record of winter discharge measurements exist. However,
the USGS in cooperation with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) has computed calculated flood flows based
on watershed characteristics. Appendix D, Table D-4 presents the
results of these calculations.
Additional flow estimates are available from an Oregon State
University (OSU) report which estimated that an average annual
flow in Neskowin Creek is 92 cfs, with 95 percent of the flows
greater than 4.8 cfs (Klingeman 1979). Based on the measured and
estimated flows, it can be stated that the creek responds rapidly
to rainfall events and possesses a wide range of flows.
On January 30 and 31, 1991, further information on Neskowin
Creek hydrology was obtained by EPA and ODFW representatives.
Precipitation during the previous two weeks had been minimal and
no rainfall had been recorded for the week prior to January 30.
Creek flows, according to local residents, were "low.11 The study
3-5
-------
N
Hawk Creek
FEET
Figure 3-1. Streams in the NRSA Service Area
3-6
-------
team determined that creek flow was approximately 30 cubic feet
per second at the existing outfall site.
The creek was found to be tidally influenced at the existing
outfall site. For approximately 2 hours near high tide, creek
flows slowed. During these conditions, mixing of the effluent
would be impeded. It should be noted that the mid-day tides on
January 30 and January 31 were two of the highest tides of the
year. The high tide on January 31 was accompanied by strong
onshore winds. These extreme conditions, combined with low creek
flows, resulted in a severe instance of tidal back-up into
Neskowin Creek.
It should be noted that the existing sewage treatment plant
discharges to the mainstem of Neskowin Creek at approximately
river mile 0.8. There are two tributaries which drain to
Neskowin Creek below the sewage treatment plant. Sutton Creek
drains a very small coastal watershed to the south of the
mainstem and joins Neskowin Creek at approximately river mile
0.4. Hawk Creek discharges to Neskowin Creek just above the
mouth of Neskowin Creek (Figure 3-1).
Hawk Creek
Hawk Creek drains a 2.8 square mile area and flows into
Neskowin Creek east of Proposal Rock, south of the Neskowin Core
Area. Although smaller than Neskowin Creek, the Hawk Creek basin
is similar in terms of vegetation and land use. Farming and
ranching is somewhat restricted in the Hawk Creek Valley due to
the relatively narrow valley. A golf course is located on Hawk
Creek east of Highway 101. Only eight flow measurements are
available for Hawk Creek (Appendix D, Table D-5).
Butte Creek
Butte Creek drains a 1.7 square miles area north of Hawk
Creek and flows into Hawk Creek east of the core area of
Neskowin, just south of the golf course on the west side of
Highway 101. The basin is largely undeveloped, with the
exception of the golf course on the lower reach, and consists
primarily of steep forested slopes. No discharge measurements
are available.
Meadow Creek
Meadow Creek drains a 1.1 square mile area north of the
Neskowin Core Area. The upper watershed is composed primarily of
a large (260-acre) wetland system (the Neskowin Crest Wetland)
with emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested wetland habitats. The
lower quarter of the watershed is a golf course. The basin is a
low elevation catchment which flows south into Butte Creek just
before the latter drains to Hawk Creek. The majority of Meadow
Creek has been channelized through the wetland and the golf
course. No flow data are available for the creek.
3-7
-------
Other Surface Waters
Other surface water features in the area consist of small
tributary streams and open water regions associated with the
large Neskowin Crest Wetland. Many of the smaller tributary
streams are seasonal, relying solely on precipitation. During
the winter, numerous seeps and wet areas are present due to the
relatively shallow soils in the region. A number of small ponds
are located in the northern end of the Meadow Creek watershed.
It should be noted that none of the alternative treatment
plant sites (Figure 2-5) have permanent surface water features.
Small seeps may occur at the south end of the Neskowin Crest
site, and seeps and small open water areas exist at the South
Highway site. An intermittent stream flows around the east end
of the existing treatment plant. All of the proposed effluent
disposal sites either contain, or are bordered by, surface water
bodies.
The terrain within the RV campground has been graded and
cleared to create flat camp sites and accessory structures. The
northwest corner of the cleared area is drained by a small ditch,
a 24-inch culvert discharging to the perimeter ditch around the
RV resort, which then dumps into Neskowin Creek just upstream of
the South Beach Road Bridge crossing at the outfall.
Floodplain Management
Floodplains in their natural or relatively undisturbed state
provide three broad sets of natural and beneficial resources and
hence resource values: (1) water resource values including
moderation of floods, water quality maintenance and groundwater
recharge, (2) living resources values including large and diverse
populations of plants and animals; and (3) cultural resource
values including historical, archaeological, scientific,
recreational, and aesthetic sites. For this reason, potential
floodplain development and modification should be viewed with
caution and with careful assessment of the potential adverse
impacts on natural values.
The floodplains of the Neskowin Creek system and adjacent
coastal areas have been mapped (Figure 3-2) by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With the exception of the
main residential area of Neskowin, most of the area west of
Highway 101 is likely to be inundated during a 100-year flood
event. Four undeveloped lots in the Phase l proposed
development, located in the Proposal Rock subdivision, are within
the 100-year floodplain. For much of the year, the golf course,
Neskowin Crest Wetland, and low areas in the lower Hawk Creek
drainage are inundated with 1 to 4 feet of water. Neskowin Creek
flood flows upstream of the existing sewage outfall are expected
to be contained within the channel and do not impact the existing
wastewater treatment facility or dwellings in the area.
3-8
-------
KEY TO MAP
500-Ye»r Flood Boundary'
100-Year Flood Boundary
Zone Designations
100-Year Flood Boundary
Bue Flood FJcvaiionUne
wife Elevation in Feel"
Bue Flood Elevation in Feet
When Uniform within Zone'
RM7
Areai of 100-ucar thalow Oooding where deprht
re boween one (1) and tone (3) feet; bate Dood
dcvatioat are thown. but no flood hauid boon
«re determined.
ARK of 100-year flood; bale flood clcvatioaa and
Elevation Reference Mark
River Mik *MLS
Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
ZONE EXPLANATION
A* Areas of 100- Year flood; bate flood elevations and
AO ARM of 100-year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) reel; average depths
of inundation are shown, but no flood hauidfactoes
AH
A1JOO
A99
B
C
D
V«
V1.V30
RefertoTiIU
ARK of 100-year
flood bazardfacu
Are« of 100-year flood k> be protected by flood
protection cyMea under eoaMnctian; bate flood
elevation* and flood hazard factor* not determined.
Aie« betweea limiB of toe 100-year flood and SOO-
year flood; or cento arac (object to 100-year flood-
in( with nengedcpte lea than one (I) foot or where
the contrBUtins dramaie area It lea then one iouare
; or treat proteeud by teveci fiom the bate flood.
diaaini}
Areai of minimal Ooodkic. (No chadn|)
I poatible. flood baunk.
Areai of 100-year coaBtl flood wi* vdociiy (wave
aknfcbMeBoodele«ttiantandflood'
Areai of 100-year coaaal flood win velocity (wave
coon); bate flood elevation! and flood hazard fac
Zone* AAV.
[County Flood Hazard Overlay which
Certain area* not in the tftati flood heard I
nay be protected by flood uumiut flzucOnca.
iftoneAandV)
Thii map for mcnnnce pupeaei only; k doa not aeoea-
urihr «how all areu cabjea *> floodnf in me eomoBnity or
an plammeaic outside cpeckl flood hazard trcai.
ZONEAO
(DEPTH I1)
ZONEC
ZONEC
ZONEB
ZONEB
ZONEAO
(DEPTH I1)'
ZONE
ZONE
ZONEC
ZONEB
ZONEAO
(DEPTH I1;
ZONE
ZONE A
(DEPTH 1)
ZONE VII
(EL 16)
ZONEB
ZONEAO
(DEPTH I1)
ZONEC
ZONEB
ZONEAO
(DEPTH 1
Figure 3-2. Roodplains in the Neskowin Area
3-9
-------
Flooding of the creeks in the study area is an annual winter
occurrence. Flooding is due to various combinations of heavy
rainfall, steep topography, low bed rock permeability, creek
blockage, high tides, strong westerly winds, and from storms at
sea. Creek flooding can be expected throughout the November-
February period with the more severe flooding occurring during
periods of high tides and strong onshore winds. The major yearly
flooding occurs along Meadow Creek, flooding the Neskowin Golf
Course several times a year.
The flooding of January 1972 was classified as the 100-year
storm for the north coast area; the probability of a flood of
that magnitude occurring in a given year is one percent. During
the flooding of 1972, damage along Neskowin Creek was restricted
to areas below the Neskowin Forest Creek Camp with bank erosion
comprising the major damage. The majority of the lowlands in the
study area and the streets in the community were also flooded due
to a combination of high groundwater, tidal backup, and high
stream flows (Century West Engineering Corporation 1981).
The degree of salt water encroachment into the lower
portions of Neskowin Creek is not known. The low gradient of
the lower 0.5 mile of the creek makes it probable that
encroachment does occur. Tide gates are located on Butte Creek
approximately 0.67 mile upstream from Neskowin Creek to prevent
tidal flooding of the golf course and adjacent homes.
Water Quality
There are two major health concerns relevant to water
contaminated from fecal sources: ingestion and contact. Hawk
Creek is the major drinking water supply for the community.
During the spring and summer, the Neskowin Creek outlet is
commonly used by swimmers, particularly children.
History
Neskowin has a history of water quality problems and
subsequent concerns for public health. The community's water
system was declared a health hazard area by the Oregon State
Health Division in 1979. The water system was upgraded in the
early 1980s when the intake was moved upstream. There have been
no subsequent disease outbreaks related to the public drinking
water supply-
Contamination of the creeks has been attributed in part to
inadequate sewage disposal practices in the community. Much of
the community still relies on individual subsurface disposal
systems. The small treatment plant serves the motels and a small
number of newer homes near the motels. Presently, the treatment
plant consists of a package extended aeration plant (providing
secondary treatment) and two polishing ponds. During the summer,
when Neskowin Creek levels are low, water from the polishing
ponds is sprayed on forested lands north of the treatment plant.
3-10
-------
During the winter when the creek can provide adequate dilution
(greater than 20:1), the treated effluent is discharged to the
creek. However, the treatment plant has experienced difficulties
in maintaining treated effluent quality in compliance with state
and federal standards. Substandard performance of the treatment
plant has been attributed to the age of the system and general
lack of needed maintenance and repair.
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
As a coastal resort community, Neskowin experiences seasonal
fluxes in population. Although population is low during the
winter, high precipitation can saturate septic tank drainfields.
This forces effluent to the surface where it can enter streams
through overland flow. During the summer, the population in
Neskowin increases significantly. Although precipitation is low,
septic and treatment systems can become over-taxed as a result of
higher waste flows and consequently may contribute effluent to
the streams.
Fecal coliform bacteria are used in water quality studies as
an easy method of assessing the potential presence of disease-
causing viruses and pathogens that may be present in human waste.
The ratio of fecal coliforms to fecal streptococcus (FC/FS) is
sometimes used to determine whether the coliform contamination
originates from human or animal sources. Calculated ratios
greater than four are generally associated with human waste,
whereas a ratio of less than one is generally associated with
wildlife or livestock (Saxton et al. 1983). FC:FS ratios,
however, must be used with caution due to variable survival rates
of fecal streptococcus group species and methods for enumerating
fecal streptococcus bacteria (APHA 1989).
Surveys conducted by ODEQ in March, August, and September
1978 found elevated fecal coliform levels in lower Hawk Creek.
The highest counts exceeded 9,000 colonies/100 milliliters (ml)
at the Salem Street Bridge. During March 1978, total coliform
levels ranged as high as 750 colonies and fecal coliforms as high
as 200 colonies/100 ml. During September 1978, total coliforms
ranged as high as 4,600 colonies/100 ml, and fecal coliforms
ranged as high as 430 colonies/100 ml. Two sites sampled in
March and five sites sampled in September of 1979 exceeded 100
fecal coliform colonies/100 ml. (Typical Class A waters do not
exceed 50 colonies/100 ml.)
Several studies have been conducted since 1978-1979 to
determine the sources and severity of fecal contamination in the
Neskowin drainage (see Table 3-1). The problem appeared to be
even more widespread in late summer-early fall 1984. During
September and October of 1984, 7 of 8 stations tested contained
high levels of fecal coliforms (above 200 colonies/100 ml), with
the highest levels occurring on lower Hawk Creek. Water quality
surveys conducted by ODEQ during Summer 1985 indicated that
creeks in the area of several sampling stations were still
contaminated by fecal sources. Of the 16 sites sampled on
3-11
-------
August 6, 1985, two sites had fecal coliform counts in excess of
1,000 colonies/100 ml. Of the sites analyzed on August 19, 1985,
6 of 18 were in excess of 1000 colonies/100 ml sample (fecal
coliforms). Based on the ratio of fecal coliforms to fecal
streptococci, it was determined that the high fecal coliform
counts at several stations resulted from non-human sources
(wildlife or domestic animals). However, the surveys indicated
that there were at least six sampling stations in which
contamination resulted from human sources (discharges from
subsurface systems); one station located on Butte Creek just
above its confluence with Hawk Creek; three stations located on
lower Hawk Creek; one station approximately 150 feet upstream
from the Salem Street Bridge; and one station between the Salem
Street Bridge and the walkway at Neskowin Lodge. On August 19,
1985, fecal coliform levels in waters below the confluence of
Hawk and Neskowin Creeks were in excess of 3,000 colonies/100 ml
(Appendix D, Tables D-6 and D-7).
Table 3-1. Water Quality Surveys Conducted
in the Neskowin Creek System*
Date
Agency
Parameters Analyzed
Total
Coliform
Fecal
Coliform
Fecal
Strepto-
cocci
22 March 1978 DEQ
06 September 1978 DEQ
16 October 1978 DEQ
22 August 1980 CWE
15 September 1980 CWE
20 August 1984 TCHD
26 September 1984 OSHD
24 October 1984 OSHD
06 August 1985 DEQ
19 August 1985 DEQ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DEQ - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
CWE - Century West Engineering
TCHD - Tillamook County Health Department
OSHD - Oregon State Health Division
*Refer to Appendix D for historical water quality data.
Additional studies were conducted during preparation of this
EIS to determine the extent of contamination from sources which
would not be included in the expansion of the sewer collection
system. Seven stations were established on Meadow, Hawk, and
3-12
-------
Neskowin Creeks and were sampled for a number of water quality
parameters on five occasions between mid-March and mid-September
1989 (Figure 3-3); only four of the seven stations were sampled
in March 1989 (Appendix D, Table D-8). The survey dates were
selected to reflect conditions during the spring and summer
months, when Neskowin's population is greatest and stream flows
are low. Results of these surveys are recorded in Appendix D,
Tables D-8 through D-12.
The number of fecal coliforms in samples collected during
1989 was generally low to non-detectable in March and April in
Neskowin Creek. By the May 29 sampling date (the Monday
following Memorial Day weekend), the number of fecal coliforms
(Figure 3-3) and the ratio of fecal coliforms to fecal
streptococcus (Figure 3-4) increased in Neskowin Creek and lower
Hawk Creek. The highest coliform levels were found in samples
collected from Station 3 (201 colonies per 100 ml; just upstream
of the outfall) and Station 5 (171 colonies per 100 ml; just
downstream of the outfall). The fecal coliform to fecal
streptococcus ratio (FC/FS) was greater than four (indicating
possible contamination from human sources) at two sites on May
29. Samples collected from below the confluence of Hawk and
Neskowin Creeks (Station 6) and from Station 3 had FC/FS ratios
of 6.14 and 5.29, respectively.
The number of fecal coliforms and FC/FS ratio of samples
collected in July and September were higher than May values in
most areas. In general, water collected from Meadow Creek
(Stations 1 and 2) contained fewer coliforms and had lower FC/FS
ratios (indicating coliforms were probably contributed from
wildlife sources). However, on July 10, water collected from
Station 1 (at the lower boundary of the wetland) contained very
high concentrations of coliforms (greater than 1000 colonies per
100 ml) and a FC/FS ratio of 18.5. In July, the number of
coliforms and the FC/FS ratio were also very high at Station 4
(just above the Highway 101 bridge on Neskowin Creek), with
coliforms exceeding 950 colonies per 100 ml and a FC/FS ratio of
79.9 (this was the highest FC/FS ratio detected during the
study). The FC/FS ratio also exceeded 4 at Station 3 (8.00)
during July.
On September 11, waters from three sites (Station 3, 6, and
7) had FC/FS ratios in excess of 4 (6.15, 10.24, and 8.78,
respectively). The number of fecal coliforms were also very high
at Station 6 (471 colonies per 100 ml) and Station 7 (1,001
colonies per 100 ml) during September.
Based on FC/FS ratios, it is probable there are several
areas outside the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 service area that
are receiving inputs of human waste. The highest numbers of
fecal coliforms found in Neskowin Creek were at Station 4 in
July. Station 3 exceeded this level in samples collected during
May, July, and September.
3-13
-------
DC
MEAN OF REPUCATE SAMPLES: CASES M WHICH ONE
OF THE REPLICATES WAS BELOW DETECTABLE LEVELS
ARE INDICATED AS X/ND.
i 3
o
o
o
o
0
O
o
FC
FS
FC
FS
FC
FS
FC
FS
FC
FS
FC
FS
FC
FS
78
24
52
56
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1
NO
35'
4JND*
36
68
21
252
NO
ND
4.5'
4/ND*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
21
652
42
1085
116
84
86
14
171*
45
201
38
28
10
30*
48*
>1000
54
404
121
165
130
41
17
40
5
956
12
2
11
272
106
1001*
114*
471
46
49
24
80
13
48
26
KEY
FC Fecal CoGfcmi Colonies per 100 Mis
FS Fecal Streptococcus Colonies per 100 Mis
NC Not Collected
ND Not Detectable all Colony par 100 Mis
FEET
Figure 3-3. The Number of Fecal Conforms and Fecal Streptococcus Colonies Found in Waters
Sampled in the Vicinity of Neskowin, Oregon Between March and September, 1989
3-14
-------
1
NORTH
2.600
FEET
8 s a r r.
tc oc
2 %
Hawk Creek
o
o
o
o
o
o
325
0.92
-
ND
0.88
0.53
0.08
ND
1.13
ND
ND
ND
0.03
0.04
1.38
6.14
3.8
529
2.8
0.63
1852
3.34
127
2.41
8.00
79.67
0.18
2.57
8.78
1024
2.04
6.15
1.85
Figure 3-4. The Ratio of Fecal Conforms to Fecal Streptococcus Colonies Found in Waters
Sampled in the Vicinity of Neskowin, Oregon Between March and September, 1989
3-15
-------
The source of contamination at these sites has not been
identified. The existing treatment plant had ceased discharging
effluent by the March sampling date, and the polishing ponds were
drained during the third week in May- Inadequate or failing
septic systems outside the collection area boundary have been
identified by Tillamook County health authorities as potential
sources of contamination (Marshall pers. comm.). There are
several homes along Kiawanda Beach, in Neskowin Crest, and along
the Neskowin Creek drainage above the Highway 101 bridge which
use individual septic systems and could be contributing fecal
contamination to the streams. There is also a large RV park just
above Station 3 which has a new septic system and drainfield
(Riedesel pers. comm.). Specific sites which might be
contributing fecal contamination could not be identified from the
results of this study. Given this limitation, the extent to
which construction of the proposed treatment plant would
alleviate the contamination is not known.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen values were above 9 mg/1 at all stations
except Stations 1 and 2 (the marsh sites). The lowest DO values
recorded were 5.08 and 5.61 (approximately 50 percent of the
saturation value) during April at Stations 1 and 2, respectively.
Similar values were also recorded in May. During July, dissolved
oxygen values decreased slightly in the Neskowin Creek drainage,
but increased in the Neskowin Crest drainage. Neskowin Creek
values are probably affected by decreased flow and velocity of
the creek in the summer. Primary production in the Neskowin
Crest Wetland could be responsible for increases in dissolved
oxygen concentration in that system.
Currently, the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration of water
exiting the marsh system in the Neskowin Crest drainage is low
during the spring (5 to 6 mg/1) and summer months (7 to 8 mg/1).
Greater stream velocities and mixing with more highly oxygenated
waters from Butte and Hawk Creeks are presently sufficient to
increase DO concentrations in lower Hawk Creek to levels
approaching ambient DO in Neskowin Creek. BOD. was below
detectable levels (3 mg/1) at all stations during all surveys
conducted. There is little historical data regarding BOD loading
or DO concentrations in the streams.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Neskowin Planning Area
Vegetation
Wetlands. Wetlands have only relatively recently been
recognized for their importance in a variety of ecological
functions. They are important in lowering flood peaks and
reducing water velocities. By reducing velocities, they can
collect and hold runoff; they can act as sediment traps which may
3-16
-------
aid in the removal of contaminated materials or substances.
Wetlands are also effective in improving downstream water quality
by the removal of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphorus which
can cause nuisance algal growths in streambeds. Some wetlands,
especially those along the floodplains of rivers and streams, can
be valuable sites for recharge of local groundwater. Often
groundwater generated from wetlands is also important in helping
to maintain the base flow of many rivers and streams. Wetlands
can help to stabilize shorelines against erosion by absorbing and
dissipating wave energy, by binding the soil and by encouraging
deposition of suspended sediments. One of the best known
functions of wetlands are the role they play in the food chain
and the provision of wildlife habitat. The production of aquatic
and emergent plants provides both food and habitat for
invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals.
Wetlands are common throughout much of the study area,
particularly at lower elevations behind the coastal dunes (Figure
3-5). Much of the land lying between the core area of Neskowin
and Highway 101 has been classified as wetland by the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (n.d.).
The majority of the systems are palustrine as defined within the
classification system of the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Palustrine systems are those which are influenced by fresh water.
The mouths of Neskowin and Hawk Creeks are classified as
estuarine systems (i.e., those which are influenced by a mixture
of fresh and salt water). The streamside vegetation near the
mouth of both of these creeks contains saltwater-tolerant species
such as Lyngby's sedge and salt cordgrass. On Hawk Creek,
estuarine vegetation occurs upstream as far as the Salem Street
Bridge. On Neskowin Creek, the saltwater wedge appears to
influence vegetation for several hundred meters upstream of the
confluence with Hawk Creek. Further upstream on Neskowin Creek,
tidal effect is shown on the riparian (stream-side) vegetation,
however, saltwater influence is not evident from the vegetation.
The beach community is in the intertidal area of the Pacific
Ocean. The intense wave action on this open beach precludes the
establishment of any vegetation beyond various small algae
associated with the sands or within tide pool areas. Beach
habitats are included as wetland habitat under the USFWS
classification system, but are not mapped on Figure 3-5.
The banks of Neskowin Creek between the confluence with Hawk
Creek and upstream of the bridge crossing at the NRSA office have
well-established riparian vegetation. The bank is overhung with
red alder, willow, and crabapple trees whose roots form a dense
network for bank protection. Above the water line, the
vegetation includes nettles, dense sedges, willow shrub, and
skunk cabbage. Active beaver sign was present in April 1989, and
the shoreline had collapsed around old dens in several locations.
The riparian vegetation is a dense thicket which offers a visual
and physical barrier between the stream and the traffic on
adjacent Highway 101.
3-17
-------
VIKING ESTATES
NESKOWIN CREST
WETLAND
K3AWANDA BEACH
NESKOWIN REGIONAL
I SANITARY AUTHORITY
BOUNDARY
NESKOWIN CREST
BUTTE CREEK
WETLAND SITE
NORTH CORE
AREA
HAWK
CREEK
SITE
SOUTH COFU5
AREA
BREAKERS
BLVD
PfiOP
ROCK
WETLAND POND
SITE
NESKO
HBGHT
COUNTY ROAD
SOUTH HIGHWAY SITE
PASTURE WETLAND
ITE
I SUTTON PASTURE
J SITE
NORTH
1000 FEET (approx)
Figure 3-5. Wetland Locations in the Neskowin Vicinity
3-18
-------
The coniferous (needle-leaved) wetland forest habitat is
dominated by Sitka spruce in the canopy and a variable understory
of salmonberry, red elderberry, crabapple scrub, skunk cabbage,
and various sedges and rushes.
The deciduous wetland forest habitat is dominated by a
canopy of red alder with an understory of salmonberry, skunk
cabbage, slough sedge, various rushes, and willow.
Palustrine wetlands (isolated freshwater wetlands) are
common in the Neskowin area. The palustrine scrub/shrub
communities are co-dominated by crabapple and willow shrubs.
These species often grow in such dense stands that other species
are excluded. In areas where an understory is present, it
includes skunk cabbage, lady fern, slough sedge, and various
rushes.
Emergent wetlands are those with rooted, non-woody
vegetation whose leaves often rise above the water surface. The
emergent community in shallow water is best represented by the
260-acre Neskowin Crest Wetland system associated with Neskowin
Crest, north of the golf course.
The Neskowin Crest Wetland at the head of Meadow Creek is a
large, very diverse wetland community classified as palustrine
emergent, forested, and scrub/shrub by the USFWS classification.
This system is a classic wetland located behind an extensive
coastal dune system, and is a mosaic of primarily emergent
communities dominated by slough sedge, American bulrush, small-
fruited bulrush, reedcanary grass in areas, and small pockets of
cattails. The cattails do not form a predominant portion of the
coverage of the wetland, unlike many disturbed freshwater
systems. The outer margins of the wetland are characterized by
dense shrub thickets composed of crabapple, willow, hardback, and
some red alder. Sitka spruce canopy remnants are present along
the outer wetland edges. The soils within the wetland are black
peat for the first 2 to 3 inches, underlain by saturated sands to
unknown depths.
From hilltop overviews it is possible to see that Meadow
Creek has been channelized for its entire length through the
wetland. There are also large open water ponds located within
the northern portions of the wetland. Some of the open water
ponds are surrounded by mature Sitka spruce woods and large open
snags. Between mid-March and mid-April 1989, the water level
within the system had dropped several feet. It is likely that
the system may have little surface water outside of the ponds
during the late summer months.
The size, diversity, and complexity of this wetland indicate
that it provides excellent wildlife habitat, biofiltration, and
stormwater attenuation. This wetland is discussed further in the
"Land Use" section and in Chapter 4.
3-19
-------
Uplands. Vegetation of the Neskowin area is characterized
by a diversity of upland cover types as well as wetlands. The
project area lies within the Coast Range Physiographic Province,
Sitka Spruce Forested Region, as defined by Franklin and Dyrness
(1988). The principal upland vegetation communities within the
study area include coniferous forest, dunes, agricultural, and
residential.
The most mature plant community within the lowlands is
dominated by Sitka spruce. This community is not present in
great abundance in the Neskowin area due to historic logging and
clearing activities. We11-developed remnant stands are present,
however, in scattered locations.
The upland coniferous forest is dominated by Douglas fir and
some hemlock. These forests tend to be located on steep, well-
drained slopes, and the understory is composed of upland species
such as Oregon grape and sword fern. Lodgepole pines are common
along the beach margins, within the residential community, and
within some of the undisturbed dune communities. Dominant
vegetation on recently disturbed sites includes red alder and
salmonberry. Shrub communities are dominated by salmonberry and
elderberry-
The dune community within the core area of Neskowin has been
significantly altered by the construction of high density
residential structures. The canopy still exists in many areas
and is dominated by lodgepole pine. The outer, undeveloped dunes
have more typical vegetation such as St. Johnswort, beachgrass,
sandwort, and silverweed.
There is little ongoing agricultural activity within the
study area. There is, however, a wet pasture area which has been
hayed or grazed within the last several years. This area, known
as Riedesel's Pasture, is located between the base of a steep
hillside south of the RV Park and the channel of Neskowin Creek.
Approximately 33 percent of the pasture is wetland dominated by
skunk cabbage, velvetgrass, and bentgrass. The remainder of the
pasture continues to have scattered skunk cabbage; however, drier
upland grass species (e.g., Poa spp.) become more dominant closer
to the creek channel, which is located 3 to 6 feet below the
elevation of the pasture.
Landscaping species and lodgepole pine dominate the
vegetation in the oldest areas of the town. North of the core
area, the access road to the residences along Kiawanda Beach is
built upon the former margins of the Neskowin Crest Wetland
complex at the north end of the golf course. The residences are
located within former dune community.
Wildlife
Wildlife of the Neskowin area includes a wide variety of
species associated with the mix of upland, freshwater, wetland,
estuarine, and marine communities in the area.
3-20
-------
The eastern portion of the Neskowin service area abuts the
Siuslaw National Forest. The upland coniferous forest in this
area supports wildlife species characteristic of second- and
third-growth Douglas fir forest. Mixed coniferous forests in
western Oregon support between 190 and 214 wildlife species for
breeding and feeding (USFS 1985). In all, 330 species of wildlife
have been observed on the Siuslaw National Forest, including 235
species of birds, 69 species of mammals, 14 species of
amphibians, and 12 species of reptiles (USFS 1981, 1982).
The lowland areas along the coast support birds and mammals
common to wetlands, sand beaches, and dunes. Much of the bird
use along the coast is by migratory species such as shorebirds
and waterfowl. Wetlands in the project area provide habitat for
migratory waterfowl and wading birds. The scrub/shrub wetland
areas are heavily used by song birds.
Aquatic Biota
Information on the fisheries resources in Neskowin Creek and
its tributaries is limited. Fall Chinook (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), and chum salmon (O. keta),
winter-run steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykis. formally Salmo
gairdneri), and resident and sea-run cutthroat trout (Salmo
clarkil have been reported to use these creeks (Klumph pers.
comm.). There is a total of approximately 23 miles of mainstem
and tributaries which are suitable for production of anadromous
fish (Klumph pers. comm.). There are two waterfalls on the
mainstem at approximately river miles 5.5 and 6.5. Both falls
are approximately 10 feet in height. The first is passable to
steelhead trout at high flows; the second is impassable (Klumph
pers. comm.).
Adult anadromous fish enter the system between September and
March each year to spawn (Klumph pers. comm.). Chinook and coho
salmon enter the system between September and December, and chum
salmon enter between October and December. The Oregon State
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) estimates that
approximately 50 fish of each species return to spawn in the
system each year. Coho salmon use approximately 21 miles of the
creek, and Chinook and chum salmon use approximately 4.5 miles
for spawning and rearing. Chinook and chum salmon are mainstem
spawners. Coho salmon usually spawn in the tributaries or the
higher reaches of the mainstem.
Winter-run steelhead trout enter Neskowin Creek to spawn
between November and March. Steelhead were stocked in Neskowin
Creek irregularly between 1949 and 1968, but have not been
stocked since that time. ODFW estimates that the annual run
numbers between 150 and 400 fish per year. Steelhead use less
than 20 miles of the Neskowin Creek system for spawning and
rearing. Steelhead usually remain in freshwater two years before
migrating to the ocean.
3-21
-------
Both resident and sea-run cutthroat trout are found
throughout the Neskowin Creek system. Hatchery cutthroat trout
were stocked in Neskowin Creek prior to 1974. No population
estimates for cutthroat have been performed; however, ODFW
believes that the anadromous run numbers only a few hundred fish
per year. Both the anadromous and resident portions of the
population spawn between February and March. Anadromous
cutthroat can remain in freshwater two to four years prior to
outmigration to the ocean.
Since 1979, fisheries management in Neskowin Creek and its
tributaries has focused on wild fish. Fish are no longer stocked
in the creeks, and habitat protection and improvement is
emphasized. The Neskowin Creek system is closed to the taking of
all salmon species. There is presently a catch and release sport
fishery (barbless hooks) for winter steelhead. The number of
steelhead caught in the 1970s ranged from less than 50 to over
100 fish annually. Fishing for cutthroat trout is open between
May 27 and October 21. Fishing pressure is highest during the
summer months when vacation homes are occupied. The ODFW
position is that current fishing pressure is not impacting the
production of steelhead or cutthroat trout (Klumph pers. comm).
On January 30 and 31, 1991, EPA and ODFW representatives
examined Neskowin Creek from the Simpson Timber site to its
mouth. Examination of the creek's fishery resource potential
disclosed poor spawning habitat (gravel patches) downstream of
the existing outfall, an adequate spawning riffle in the vicinity
of the outfall, and an abundance of superior spawning habitat
upstream of the outfall. Rearing habitat is good to excellent
throughout the area examined. Three steelhead redds were noted;
the closest redd was found 0.2 mile upstream of the existing
outfall.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The USFWS has indicated that there are no known listed or
proposed endangered or threatened species occurring within the
area of the proposed sewage treatment facilities or disposal
sites (Appendix B).
The USFS has identified the following federally-listed
threatened and endangered species as occurring within the Siuslaw
National Forest: bald eagle, Aleutian Canada goose, the northern
spotted owl, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, and Oregon
silverspot butterfly. Sensitive species include the snowy plover
and the big-eared bat.
In addition, nine sensitive plant species occur in the
forest: pink sandverbena (Abronia umbellata), Saddle Mountain
bittercress (Cardamine pattersonii), trout-lily (Ervthronium
eleqans), Queen-of-the-forest (Filipendula occidentalis), march
clubmoss (Lycopodium inundatum), Adder's-tongue fQphioglossum
vulqatum), loose-flowered bluegrass (Poa laxifloral, withered
3-22
-------
bluegrass (Poa marcida), and hairy-stemmed checkmallow (Sidalcea
hirtioes) (U. S. Forest Service 1986).
According to Lowe (pers. comm.), bald eagle nests have been
recorded at Cascade Head and in the Neskowin Creek drainage;
brown pelicans roost on Haystack Rock (off Pacific City) and on
Nestucca sand spit, but not on the Neskowin Creek delta.
Aleutian Canada geese are known to winter at Haystack Rock and
may possibly use the golf course during migration.
All marine mammal species are protected under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Although several species are
reported to inhabit the Oregon coast, they do not regularly use
the waters off Neskowin Creek or the immediate area.
Treatment Plant and Storage Lagoon Sites
A total of seven potential treatment plant sites have been
evaluated in the 1988 facilities plan update and 1990 facilities
plan addendum. Two of these seven sites have also been evaluated
for suitability for construction of a summer storage lagoon for
treated effluent. Of these seven sites, five were eliminated
from further consideration (see Chapter 2 discussion).
Biological resources at the viable sites, the existing treatment
plant site and the Simpson Timber site, are discussed below.
Existing Treatment Facility
The existing treatment facility is located on a hillside
vegetated with a well-established young red alder canopy and
salmonberry and red elderberry understory on the site perimeter.
The area is dense thicket with little ground flora except
swordfern. No particularly sensitive communities are present on
this 20-acre site; however, several extensive wetland communities
are present immediately downslope at the base of the hill.
Simpson Timber
This site is north of Slab Creek Road adjacent to Neskowin
Creek at river mile 3.5. Drainage from the site is to the
southwest. The slope of the site precludes standing water; there
are no wetlands found on this 9-acre site. A band of alder and
blackberry border an intermittent stream along the western edge
of the site. The field is sparsely planted with trees and
appears to no longer be actively cultivated. The ground flora is
dominated by grasses and a mixture of foxglove, yellow clover,
common daisy, and dock.
Adjacent to Planning Area
Marine Resources
Ocean currents along the Oregon coast flow to the south
during the summer months due to the influences of the California
Current and northeasterly winds (USFWS 1978). Because of the
3-23
-------
directional trend of the coast and wind patterns, surface flow
tends to be offshore during the summer, causing upwelling of
cooler, nutrient-rich deep water to the surface near the coast.
During upwelling events, nutrients are recycled to the euphotic
(lighted) zone and increase the productivity of coastal surface
waters. The waters along the Oregon coast are reported to be
among some of the most productive coastal waters in the world for
phytoplankton production (USFWS 1978). Waters along the northern
Oregon coast also can be influenced by the Columbia River plume
during the summer when northerly winds push the plume southward.
During the winter, the Davidson Current pushes surface waters in
the near-coastal zone northward, and upwelling events subside.
However, bottom waters maintain a southerly flow throughout the
year.
In the vicinity of Neskowin, the continental shelf is
approximately 17 miles wide and nearly 660 feet deep. The near
shore bathymetry is characterized by a relatively smooth slope
with depth increasing to approximately 175 feet at 3 miles
offshore. The coast north of Neskowin Creek is primarily
unprotected beach 8 miles north to Cape Kiawanda. To the south
of the mouth of Neskowin Creek the coast is composed of
approximately 0.5 mile of unprotected beach with approximately
4.5 miles of exposed rocky headlands around Cascade Head to the
mouth of the Salmon River.
Benthos. There has been no study of the benthic fauna in
coastal waters near the mouth of Neskowin Creek. However, the
geologic and hydrographic characteristics of the coast and
continental shelf in this vicinity are typical of most of the
Oregon coast, and benthic communities should be very similar to
those described for other areas. Studies conducted off the coast
of Newport, Oregon (approximately 30 miles south of Neskowin
Creek) indicated that the benthic community structure was
regulated by depth and sedimentary characteristics (Carey 1972).
As depth increases, bottom substrates contain greater amounts of
fine sediments and organics. At the upper tidal elevations (in
the surf zone), organisms are primarily filter-feeders and must
have the ability to burrow to protect themselves from being
dislodged by wave action. Typically, fauna in this zone are
dominated by mollusks, ghost shrimp (Callianassa spp.), and some
burrowing snails. Offshore, the textural characteristic of the
bottom progressively changes from coarse sand to fine sediments
with a relatively high organic content. Consequently, benthic
community structure tends to change from communities dominated by
filter-feeders to communities dominated by detrital-based
feeders. The number of organisms and species present also
increase further offshore on the shelf.
Typically, the razor clam (Siliqua patula) is the most
common, large, benthic invertebrate in the surf zone along
unprotected sandy beaches on the Oregon coast. Although no
surveys have been conducted, it is assumed that the razor clam is
also the dominant taxa in the surf zone near Neskowin (Gaumer
pers. comm.). There is no commercial fishery for shellfish in
3-24
-------
the area, and very little recreational clamming is thought to
occur in the vicinity of Neskowin Creek (Gaumer pers. comm.).
Ghost shrimp may be taken occasionally to be used for bait.
Further offshore, it is likely that epibenthic communities
would be dominated by brittle stars (ophiuroids) at approximately
the 330-foot isobath, shrimps (pandalids) at approximately 500-
to 660-foot depth, and sea urchins (echinoids) at approximately
the 660-foot isobath (Carey 1972). Polychaetes would likely be
the dominant infaunal communities, particularly in areas of finer
substrates. See Pearcy (1972), McCauley (1972), and Carey (1972)
for a more complete listing and discussion of species found in
Oregon coastal waters.
Rocky headlands have quite different species composition in
the surf zone. Typical fauna along the rocky headlands include
mollusks (mussels, snails, whelks, limpets, chitons, scallops,
sea slugs, and octopus), crustaceans (barnacles, crabs, isopods
and shrimp), and other invertebrates such as polychaetes, sea
urchins, starfish, sea anemones, sea squirts, and sponges.
Plants and algae would include surfgrasses, sea lettuce, sea
palm, sea staghorn, rock weed, and bull kelp.
Fish. Common fishes occurring in the surf zone along the
Oregon coast include surfperch (Embiotocidae), flatfishes
(Pleuronectidae) and skates (Raja spp.). Nearshore littoral
fish would most likely include northern anchovy (Encrraulis
mordax), smelt fHvpomesus pretiosus), Pacific herring (Clupea
harenous), sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific hake (Merluccius
productus). and salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.).
There are no major inshore commercial fisheries near
Neskowin. Occasionally sport fishermen may fish for surfperch or
collect smelt when they spawn on the beaches.
Marine Mammals. Several species of marine mammals inhabit
or are transients along the waters of the Oregon coast. There
are three major species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) found
in Oregon waters (Brown 1986). Harbor seals fPhoca vitulina
richardsii and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias iubatus) are present
in Oregon coastal areas year-round. California sea lions
(Zalophus californianus) are present along the coast from mid-
August to early June, but return to their breeding grounds in
California during the early summer period. Occasionally,
northern elephant seals (Mirounga anoustirostris) and northern
fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) have been found hauled out
(resting on shore) along the coast. Sightings of fur seals have
been sporadic; however, a few elephant seals tend to congregate
at the same location on Shell Island (approximately 130 miles
south of Neskowin Creek) each year (Stein pers. comm.).
There are no major pinniped haul-out sites in the immediate
vicinity of Neskowin Creek; however, there are haul-out sites
located approximately 4 miles north of Neskowin Creek near the
mouth of the Nestucca River, and approximately 2 miles south of
3-25
-------
Neskowin in Hart and Sea Lion Coves on Cascade Head (Brown 1986).
The haul-out site at the Nestucca River and in Hart Cove are
primarily used by harbor seals, whereas the site in Sea Lion Cove
is used primarily by California and Steller sea lions.
Several cetacean species (whales and dolphins) inhabit or
are transient in coastal Oregon waters (Pearcy 1972). However,
only two species commonly venture nearshore: the harbor porpoise
fPhocoena phocoenal, and the gray whale fEschrichtius robustusl.
The harbor porpoise inhabits Oregon waters year-round. Gray
whales are only present in Oregon waters during their yearly
migrations. Several other cetacean species have been found
stranded or have been spotted along the Oregon coast
occasionally. Most of the strandings or sightings were white-
sided (Laaenorhvnchus obilauidens) and Dall porpoises
(Phocoenoides dalli).
Marine Birds. The avifauna of the central Oregon coast is
diverse and highly transient. Typical resident fauna along the
Oregon coast include loons, grebes, cormorants, sandpipers,
plovers, gulls, terns, ducks, and Canadian geese. Migratory
species which are present during only part of the year include
shearwaters, petrels, auklets, murrelets, several duck species,
Canadian geese, Aleutian Canadian geese, and California brown
pelicans. Two of the migratory species, the California brown
pelican and Aleutian Canadian goose are on the federal list of
rare, threatened, and endangered species and are discussed in
greater detail below.
Special Habitats. All the islands in the vicinity of
Neskowin, including Proposal Rock, are included in the Oregon
Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Proposal Rock is located at
the mouth of Neskowin Creek.
LAND USE
Tillamook County, the State of Oregon, and the federal
government have jurisdiction over lands within the Neskowin area.
The Siuslaw National Forest is located east and south of
Neskowin. The State of Oregon has jurisdiction over river
bottoms, beaches and dunes, as well as coastal zone management.
In addition, Kiawanda State Park and the Neskowin State Wayside
are found within the service area. Tillamook County has
jurisdiction over land use planning since Neskowin is an
unincorporated community. The following sections present
information about land use planning as it relates to this
proposed project.
Farmland Protection
No substantial farmland exists within Neskowin. There are,
however, two types of zones within Neskowin (Figure 3-6) which
exist to preserve rural residential and small farm uses. These
zones restrict lot sizes to 10 and 20 acres for farm and forest
use (see "Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance," below). These
3-26
-------
NESKOWIN REGIONAL
SANITARY AUTHORITY
1 BOUNDARY
ZONE DESIGNATIONS
F Forest
SFW-20 Small Farm and Woodlot-20 ac.
SFW-10 Small Farm and Woodtot-10 ac.
RR Rural Res.
Low Den. Urban Res.
High Den. Urban Res.
Neighbor. Commer.
Rec. Mgmt
Flood Hazard Overlay
Shore Overlay
Estuary Conservation 1
NESKOWIN CREST
WETLAND
BUTTE CREEK
SITE
HAWK CREEK
SITE
J EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
SITE
SOUTH HIGHWAY SITE
SUTTON
PASTURE
SITE
NORTH
1000 FEET (approx)
Figure 3-6. Zoning Designations within the Neskowin Regional Sanitary
Authority Service Area
3-27
-------
zones are based primarily on the underlying soil types. There
are no prime, unique, or locally important farmlands in the study
area.
Floodplain Protection
Tillamook County's Land Use Ordinance addresses flood
hazards. This ordinance places certain restrictions and controls
on activities within Flood Hazard Zones (100-year flood areas on
Figure 3-3). New and replacement sanitary sewage systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters
into the systems and discharge from the systems into the
floodwaters.
State and Local Plans and Policies
Statewide Planning Goals
In 1973, the Oregon Legislature enacted a statewide land use
planning program which is directed by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC). LCDC works in coordination with
the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The
Land Use Board of Appeals is a special court set up by the state
which has jurisdiction over land use issues. The state has
enacted 19 mandatory statewide planning goals. LCDC developed
guidelines pertaining to each goal, but these are advisory and
are only suggested courses of action.
The Statewide Planning Goals are implemented at a local
level through local comprehensive planning. State law requires
each city and county to have a comprehensive plan and the zoning
and land division ordinances needed to enact the plan. The local
plans must follow the statewide planning goals and must be
approved by LCDC. Once a plan is approved, it is said to be
"acknowledged." Plans are updated on a three to five year
schedule. If needed, plans can be amended by the County, and the
amendments are subject to DLCD review and approval.
The most recent version of the Statewide Planning Goals was
developed and adopted by LCDC in 1985 to represent concerns of
the citizens of the state. These goals are recommended as a
broad framework around which the counties formulate objectives
and policies to meet the needs of the County. Neskowin is an
unincorporated community and therefore is under the jurisdiction
and policies of the Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan and
ordinances.
Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan
The Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan provides overall
guidance for the County's land use, economic development, and
resource management. The County's plan is divided into two main
parts. The first part is an inventory which describes the
County's resources and features. The inventory must address all
of the topics specified in the applicable statewide goals. The
3-28
-------
second part is the policy element. The policy element presents
the County's long-term objectives and policies by which it
intends to achieve those objectives. The County has adopted the
policy element of its plan by ordinance, thus making the policies
legally binding. County policies which are applicable to this
EIS will be discussed later in this section.
Goal elements contained in the comprehensive plan that
specifically pertain to Neskowin are:
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and
Natural Resources;
Goal 11 - Public Services and Utilities;
Goal 14 - Urbanization;
Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources;
Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands;
Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes; and
Goal 19 - Ocean Resources.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural
Resources. Tillamook County's Goal 5 element describes the
existing conditions of open space, scenic and historic areas, and
natural resources. Natural resources include mineral and
aggregate resources, ecologically sensitive areas, water
resources, wetlands, federal and state Wild and Scenic Rivers,
and historic areas.
Oregon's coastal counties have found that Goals 16, 17, and
18 are more pertinent to their counties than Goal 5. They have
found that overlap exists between resources protected under Goal
5 and the coastal goals (Goals 16 through 18). For example, the
Neskowin Crest Wetland is listed as a significant wetland under
Goal 5, but the plan refers to Goal 17 for guidance because the
wetland is located in the coastal zone. No other Goal 5
resources were found to exist in the NRSA area, and therefore,
Goal 5 will not be discussed in the land use portions of
Chapter 4.
Goal 11 - Public Services and Utilities. Goal 11 describes
the existing conditions of the public services and utilities of
communities under County jurisdiction (including Neskowin) and
states the present and anticipated future needs of the
communities. The primary concern with respect to expansion of
sewage treatment facilities is the inducement of growth in rural
areas (which .may include the conversion of resource land to non-
resource land) and the monetary cost to the community. Two
sanitary districts exist in the County which study and regulate
sewage treatment in the unincorporated areas. One of these
districts is the NRSA.
3-29
-------
Goal 14 - Urbanization. Urbanization is integrally related
to Goal 11; both deal with the planning and accommodation of
community growth. According to the comprehensive plan, Neskowin,
although unincorporated, is considered to be functionally urban.
Functionally urban means the land is suitable, necessary, and
intended for urban use. "Unplanned urban development can and has
unnecessarily degraded resource values by creating conflicts that
make continued resource use difficult" and can result in the
overburdening of public services and utilities (Tillamook County
1984). Sewage facilities are the most critical of the public
services needed for the management of development densities.
Overburdening of these facilities can lead to contamination of
ground and surface water. Unplanned urban development can also
result in low density sprawling development or patches of high
density development combined with undeveloped land. These types
of development cost more to the community for the necessary
services, including sewer, than for well-planned communities.
The comprehensive plan specifically states that there is a need
for sewer expansion in Neskowin due to the extent of the growth
and the condition of the existing sewer system.
Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources. According to the
comprehensive plan, estuarine resources should be preserved
wherever possible. There are small estuarine areas that occur
within the district in Neskowin and Sutton Creeks.
Uncontrolled release of pollutants into ocean, river or
estuarine waters is prohibited by state and federal
law. Controlled release of treated industrial,
domestic and agricultural wastes into ocean, river or
estuarine waters shall be permitted only if no
practicable alternatives exist. In this case, waste
disposal into the ocean or rivers is preferred over
estuarine waste disposal (Tillamook County 1984).
Utilities, including sewer, are allowed within the estuary zones.
Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands. Coastal shorelands in the
Neskowin area are those west of Highway 101, and are under County
jurisdiction. Shoreland boundaries were established through an
inventory of all areas within the "coastal shoreline planning
area," which is the land west of the Oregon Coastal Highway.
Coastal shorelands are characterized as follows: areas having
significant shoreland and wetland biological habitat (categorized
as either "significant wildlife habitat" or "major marsh"), areas
necessary for water-dependent and water-related uses, areas of
exceptional aesthetic or scenic quality, and coastal headlands
(which are identified in the comprehensive plan Goal 17). The
primary areas defined within Neskowin are the wetlands at the
head of Neskowin Crest, Cascade Head, and Proposal Rock. The
Neskowin Crest Wetland (also referred to as the Meadow Creek
Wetland), located in a low-lying area on the landward side of the
coastal dunes, is considered a "major marsh" because of its large
size, the variety of wetland types within the area, and the
3-30
-------
scarcity of this type of emergent wetland within Tillamook
County. Cascade Head and Proposal Rock are considered
significant primarily for their scenic value. Cascade Head is
also a designated research area.
Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes. Beach and dune systems are
sensitive to human activities as well as the natural forces of
wind, rain, and ocean waves. Neskowin's beaches and dunes are
particularly vulnerable due to the amount of shoreline
development. Most dune areas along the Oregon coast that support
high density development are within urban growth boundaries and
are served by public sewers. Neskowin is an exception.
Goal 19 - Ocean Resources. The requirements of Goal 19
apply to all units of government in Oregon. Goal 19, unlike the
other 18 goals, does not include any specific comprehensive plan
requirements. As a result, Tillamook County has not prepared a
Goal 19 element for their comprehensive plan. However, Goal 19
requires that "...actions affecting the nearshore ocean and the
continental shelf areas be based upon a sound understanding of
the resources and potential impacts" (Oregon Land Conservation
and Development Commission 1985). Examples of actions of local
government which might affect ocean resources include disposal of
sewage effluent.
Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance
The County's plan is implemented through zoning and land-
division (subdivision) ordinances. These ordinances must be
consistent with the County's comprehensive plan. Zones have been
established which provide a means for the regulation of growth
and development in all areas of the County. The Tillamook County
Zoning map accompanies the Ordinance which displays the County's
zoning designations. The following zones occur within the
community of Neskowin (Figure 3-6):
Forest Zone (F) - This zone occurs in the eastern portion
of the town outside of the NRSA boundary. Its purpose is
to retain forest land for forest use, to encourage forest
management, and to protect forest land from the
encroachment of non-compatible land uses. Facilities for
sewage disposal are permitted within this zone as a
conditional use.
Small Farm and Woodlot 20-Acre Zone (SFW-20) - The
purpose of this zone is to promote farm and forest use on
lands that have some resource value but have limiting
factors making them unsuitable for farm or forest zones.
Within Neskowin, SFW-20 is in the eastern portion of the
town between the Rural Residential and Forest zones.
Small Farm and Woodlot 10-Acre Zone (SFW-10) - This zone
occurs within the northwestern portion of Neskowin
between the SFW-20 and the Rural Residential zones. This
zone provides small farm and large scale rural
3-31
-------
residential use and also provides a buffer between non-
resource and farm or forest uses.
Rural Residential Zone (RR) - This zone allows small
acreage homesites in areas not suited for forest or farm
use. It can be used for residential purposes without
constraining the adjacent resource-production zones.
Low Density Urban Residential Zone (R-l) - This zone is
designated for low-density single-family residential land
use. It is intended for areas with limitations such as
geologic and flood hazards, shoreline erosion, and
aesthetic or resource values of nearby natural features.
High Density Urban Residential Zone (R-3) - This zone
permits a mix of dwelling types and other compatible land
uses. It is intended for densely developed areas or
areas suitable for high-density urban development.
Neighborhood Commercial Zone (C-l) - This zone is
intended to allow moderate commercial activity to serve
neighborhood, rural, and tourist areas. Typical uses are
goods and services for households with few impacts to
neighborhoods.
Recreation Management Zone (RM) - These zones are
designated for public and private parks and day-use
facilities. This type of zone is intended to accommodate
recreational development while preserving the area's
natural values.
Utilities Facilities Overlay Zone (UFO) - These areas are
applied as an overlay upon existing zoning and are
developed to accommodate foreseeable utilities siting
needs of the county.
Planned Development Overlay Zone (PD) - This zone is
applied as an overlay upon existing zoning and is
intended to allow more flexibility of site design than
the existing zoning would allow.
Shorelands Overlay Zone (SHO) - This zone is one of the
methods used by counties and cities to implement Goal 17-
The purpose of the zone is to provide for development,
restoration, conservation, or protection of coastal
shorelands in a manner which is compatible with the
resources and benefits of coastal shorelands and adjacent
coastal water bodies.
Flood Hazard Overlay Zone (FHO) - This zone is applied as
an overlay zone based on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) official map where the boundaries are
designated as A, M, and/or E. The purpose of this zone
is to promote public health, safety, and welfare and to
minimize public and private losses or damages from
3-32
-------
flooding. Provisions for this zone are based on FEMA
requirements for flood insurance.
Water supply or treatment facilities or sewage treatment
plants are permitted with a conditional use permit in the Forest,
Low Density Urban Residential, High Density Urban Residential,
Neighborhood Commercial, Rural Residential, and Recreation
Management zones.
Specific Coastal Shorelands. Two categories of coastal
shorelands are governed by the Shorelands Overlay Zone (SHO).
The County's Coastal Shorelands Element identifies significant
shoreland and wetland biological habitat and exceptional
aesthetic or scenic resources pursuant to the Statewide Planning
Goals. The Neskowin Crest Wetland and Proposal Rock are subject
to the requirements of this zone.
Significant shoreland and wetland biological habitats such
as the Neskowin Crest Wetland, are addressed in Section 3.090
(4)(b)(1) and (2) of the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance as
follows:
Only low intensity uses and developments such as hiking
trails, platforms for wildlife viewing, or similar types
of educational, scientific, or recreational uses may be
permitted providing that such uses and developments will
not act as a barrier to or result in major disturbances
or displacement of fish or wildlife species. Maintenance
of existing drainageways and drainage structures is
permitted.
In significant wetland biological habitats no development
is allowed except for the placement of a floating or pile
supported dock or a boat ramp using less than 50 cubic
yards of fill to allow boat access to a coastal lake
providing that such developments are placed to minimize
impacts on wetland habitats. Where dwellings are
permitted in the underlying zone, the density of allowed
development shall be determined by the size of the entire
parcel providing the allowed development will not result
in a major impact to adjacent significant wetland habitat
(Ordinance 33, Article III, Section 3.090).
Existing Land Uses in the Planning Area
The community of Neskowin is primarily a residential,
beachfront town. Much of the community is oriented toward summer
tourism and recreation, with golf courses, beach-related
activities, summer homes, and motel-condominium complexes. Other
land uses occurring in the area are forest, service-oriented
commercial, and rural residential. No industrial uses exist in
the area. Neskowin, although unincorporated, is urban according
to the Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan.
3-33
-------
Tillamook County does not designate future land uses in its
comprehensive plan. Future land uses and allowances for growth
were taken into consideration during the process of zoning the
area (Brunson pers. comm.). Current zoning information was
obtained from the Tillamook County Planning Department.
Sewered Areas
Zoning designations for areas to be sewered include:
Phase 1, North and South Core Areas: Areas to be sewered
are zoned Low or High Density Urban Residential (R-l or
R-3); and
Phase 2 (Neskowin Heights, Viking Estates, Kiawanda
Beach) Areas: Areas are zoned Low Density Urban
Residential (R-l) or Rural Residential (RR).
Treatment Plant and Holding Lagoon Sites
A total of seven potential treatment plant sites have been
evaluated in the 1988 facilities plan update and 1990 facilities
plan addendum. Two of these seven sites have also been evaluated
for suitability for construction of a summer storage lagoon for
treated effluent. Of these seven sites, five were eliminated
from further consideration (see Chapter 2 discussion). Existing
land uses and zoning designations at the viable sites, the
existing treatment plant site and the Simpson Timber site, are
discussed below.
Existing Treatment Plant: Two ponds, a package treatment
facility, and several small buildings are located at the
existing treatment plant site. This site is zoned Low
Density Urban Residential (R-l).
Simpson Timber: This site is located on the north side
of Slab Creek Road, outside of both the Community Growth
and NRSA boundaries. The site was formerly a Christmas
tree farm and is zoned Forest. Of the 42.5 acres, it is
estimated that 9 acres are suitable for development.
Neskowin Creek Outfall
During the winter months effluent is currently being
discharged to Neskowin Creek. The outfall is located just north
of the South Beach Road bridge along the east bank. The Neskowin
Creek RV Resort, the entrance to the Proposal Rock subdivision,
and Highway 101 are adjacent to the existing outfall. The area
east of the South Beach Road bridge is zoned Neighborhood
Commercial (C-l). West of the bridge, land is zoned Low Density
Urban Residential (R-l). The actual outfall is in Neskowin Creek
which is zoned Estuary Conservation 1. The outfall is within the
Shorelands Overlay Zone.
3-34
-------
SOCIOECONOMIC8
Population Trends and Policies
To satisfy EPA requirements and to plan for each phase of
the proposed project, the facilities plan projects the population
within NRSA's boundary. Population projections prepared as part
of the facilities plan are used to determine the potential
wastewater flows which provide the basis for sizing the
wastewater treatment facility. Further, projections used by EPA
must be consistent with land use plans acknowledged by LCDC.
Grants from state and federal sources for facility development
are dependent on these projections. Since the wastewater
facilities plan must address facility needs over a 20-year
period, assumptions must be made concerning future population
conditions and growth rates. Proper planning requires that sound
analytical methods be employed so that projections are as
reliable as possible.
Existing Population
Current population counts for the Neskowin Area are not
available, and certain characteristics of the area make
population difficult to estimate.
Neskowin is a resort area located on the coast; the majority
of the population resides in Neskowin during the summer season
only, with the year-round resident population consisting of a
fraction of the summertime population. Censuses typically count
populations based on primary places of residence but in order to
plan for potential wastewater flows, facility planners need to
account for seasonal population peaks.
Neskowin's boundary is not precisely defined because it is
not an incorporated city. The lack of a city boundary increases
the difficulty of preparing and comparing projections. The NRSA
boundary, which is not consistent with the Neskowin Community
Growth Boundary, was used in the wastewater facilities plan
update to define the Neskowin area.
To estimate the 1986 population within the NRSA boundary for
the facilities plan, houses were counted and water customers'
billing records were reviewed to estimate the number of persons
per household. An average of 2.54 persons per household was
applied to the total number of households to estimate the total
population. This average number of persons per household is
consistent with averages used by the Tillamook County Planning
Department and Portland State University Center for Population
Research and Census for the Neskowin Census District (HGE, Inc.
1988).
As shown in Table 3-2, the summer population totaled 1,470
persons in 1986. The winter population was estimated by the
facilities planners to total 285 persons (HGE, Inc. 1988).
3-35
-------
Table 3-Z. Population Estimates and Projections for Neskouin Area and Tillawx* County (1980-2006)
U)
1
U
o\
Projection
Neskowln Area
Facilities Plan1
Straight Line2
Tillamook County
Cohort -Component Model3
Ave. Annual
Growth
1980 1986 1995* 1996* 2000* 2006 Rate
N/A 1,470 M/A 1,998 N/A 2,715 4.2
N/A 1,470 --- 1,970 --- 2,640 3.4
21,164 21,300 23,600 N/A 24.400 N/A 1.0
N/A Not Available
* Projected
1
HGE, Inc. 1988
i? Jones ft Stokes Associates 1989
Center for Population Research and Census 1989
-------
Population Projections
As discussed previously, the facilities planners projected the
future population living within the NRSA boundary. They assumed
increased flows as a result of interceptor/collection line
expansion and some additional increased flows resulting from
"fill-in" of existing (Phase 1) sewered areas. No other
projections for the NRSA area are available. For comparison,
past growth trends in Neskowin are extrapolated and population
projections for Tillamook County prepared by the Portland State
University Center for Population and Research and Census are
discussed below.
Neskovin. Between 1977 and 1986, the summertime population
in the Neskowin area grew from 1,124 persons to 1,470 persons;
the average annual summertime population growth rate was 3.4
percent. During the same period, the year-round population grew
from 200 persons to 280 persons, representing a 4.4 percent
average annual growth rate (HGE, Inc. 1988).
Growth in the Neskowin area has occurred primarily because
of the area's desirability as a location for second homes and
retirement homes. But growth, particularly in the older section
of Neskowin, called the core area, has been constrained by the
lack of services. Growth in the core area is limited by vacant
lots sized too small for individual wastewater treatment systems,
and by the lack of alternative wastewater treatment facilities
(Marshall pers. comm.).
The other areas of Neskowin generally have lot sizes large
enough for individual wastewater treatment facilities, but due to
the unsuitable nature of the local soils for most septic tanks
and absorption fields, and the potential for contaminating
groundwater resources, the County has required that any
development in these areas utilize state-of-the-art individual
wastewater treatment systems. These systems are the most
effective in avoiding aquifer contamination but are expensive.
The cost of these systems may have helped produce growth rates
lower than would have occurred had less expensive systems been
available for use in the area (Marshall pers. comm.).
The facility planners projected the population within the
NRSA boundary up to the year 2006. The projection methodology
incorporated a house count and a vacant lot survey, to which the
average number of persons per household was then applied. In
addition, the projections were adjusted for the character of
various areas.
If Neskowin were to continue to grow at its 1977 to 1986
growth rate of 3.4 percent (lower than the rate projected by the
facilities planners), the population would total 1,970 persons by
1996, and 2,640 persons by 2006. As shown in Table 3-2, the
facilities plan projected the population residing in NRSA to
increase from 1,470 persons in 1986 to 1,998 persons in 1996 and
3-37
-------
to 2,715 persons in 2006 (HGE, Inc. 1988). The average annual
growth rate projected is 4.2 percent.
Tillamook County- Population projections for Tillamook
County were made using a cohort-component model. The model
projects the number of births and deaths in the County with
adjustments made for predicted migrations in and out of the
County (Weinberg pers. comm.). The estimate represents the full-
time resident population, and should not be compared directly to
projections made for Neskowin (shown in Table 3-2) which include
the summertime population.
The population in Tillamook County grew at an average annual
rate of 1.2 percent from 1977 to 1987 (Weinberg pers. comm.).
This growth was concentrated in coastal areas within the County;
other areas have experienced no growth or population declines
(Affolter pers. comm.).
The average annual growth rate projected for Tillamook
County from 1986 to 2000 is 1.0 percent.
Public Services
Water Supply
Water is supplied by the Neskowin Regional Water District.
Water is diverted from Hawk Creek and treated at a facility
located at the northeast end of the Hawk Creek Golf Course (about
0.75 miles from Highway 101). Water is treated with a
coagulation-filtration process followed by chlorine disinfection.
The district is operated and managed by one full-time employee,
two part-time employees, and a five-member volunteer board
(Holzworth pers. comm.).
The district has the capacity to deliver 325,000 gallons of
water per day, and has 600,000 gallons of water (a 2 to 3 day
supply) stored in a reservoir. The average water use in the
Neskowin district is 80,000 gallons per day in the winter, and
150,000 gallons per day in the summer. During certain weekends,
such as the 4th of July, the average water use is 300,000 gallons
per day (Holzworth pers. comm.).
The rate structure consists of a $10.50 charge per month for
the first 2,000 gallons of water used, and $1.75 charge for each
1,000 additional gallons used (Holzworth pers. comm.).
Fire Protection
Fire protection service in Neskowin is provided by the
Nestucca Rural Fire Protection District, a volunteer fire
service. The district has six stations (each containing an
engine, a tanker, and a rescue vehicle), and 85 volunteers.
During an emergency, available volunteers are dispatched (Clausen
pers. comm.). The fire district encompasses 96 square miles
including the Neskowin Area. Neskowin is served by one station
3-38
-------
and 12 volunteers (Clausen pers. comm.). The fire protection
district has the authority to levy taxes in order to purchase
equipment.
Police Protection
Law enforcement service is provided by the Tillamook County
Sheriff's Department. One officer patrols the south county which
has an area of 35 by 20 miles and is bisected by Highway 101.
The South County Area includes Neskowin. Typical calls from
Neskowin include noise complaints and, in the winter, burglaries.
The level of law enforcement service in Neskowin is currently
adequate, although if the population in Neskowin were to double
Neskowin would probably need a full-time officer (Watters pers.
comm.).
The Sheriff's Department is financed through the Tillamook
County general fund, which receives revenue from a general tax
assessed on property owners.
Schools
The Neskowin area is within the Cloverdale Elementary School
District, which also serves Cloverdale and Pacific City. The
district consists of the Cloverdale Elementary School, a
kindergarten through eighth grade elementary school located
approximately 2 miles south of Cloverdale on Highway 101.
The school has a maximum capacity of 230 students.
Currently, the district (and the school) enrollment totals 190
students. Approximately 35 of the students attending the
Cloverdale Elementary school are from the Neskowin area
(Anderson pers. comm.).
Students from the Neskowin area are bussed about 10 miles to
the school. The existing bus system can accommodate about 18
more elementary school students from Neskowin; if more students
were to enroll, additional bus lines would be required (Anderson
pers. comm.).
Neskowin Area students in grades 9 through 12 attend
Nestucca Union High School, which is also located in Cloverdale.
The school has a maximum capacity of 400 students (Tillamook
County 1984). About 145 students attend the high school,
including 15 students from the Neskowin area (Anderson pers.
comm.).
The public schools are financed by the general property tax
assessed by the County (Anderson pers. comm.).
In addition to the public schools serving the Neskowin Area,
the Neskowin planning area contains a private school called
Neskowin Valley School. This school is located east of Neskowin
on Slab Creek Road, adjacent to Neskowin. School enrollment
3-39
-------
totals 70 students, of which about one third are from Neskowin
(Anderson pers. comm.).
Solid Waste
Solid waste pick-up is privately provided by the Nestucca
Valley Sanitary District. This company provides service to about
95 percent of residents and businesses in Neskowin. The fee for
weekly service is $12.78 a month (Dye pers. comm.).
The residents who choose not to use the service transport
their own trash about 10 miles to a transfer station located in
Pacific City.
Other Services
Other services are provided by the Neskowin Community
Association. This is a volunteer organization which collects $15
per year per family in membership dues. Services funded by the
community association include extra police protection on big
weekends, beach clean-up, surf rescue gear, fireworks purchases,
and public information (Sifford pers. comm.).
PUBLIC HEALTH
During the 1970s, the community's water systems and sources
were implicated in numerous disease outbreaks in the area. In
the summer of 1979, the Oregon State Health Division declared
Neskowin a health hazard area. The water supply had to be boiled
prior to consumption. In late 1979, construction began to
upgrade the community's water system. The work was completed in
late 1980 (Century West Engineers 1981). Planning for a
community sewage system began shortly after the water system was
completed in 1980. Information about water quality problems in
the Neskowin area is covered under the "Water Quantity and
Quality" section above.
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Two surveys have been completed in the study area. The
first, completed in 1979, noted that "It is well documented that
there was an archaeological site at the mouth of Neskowin Creek.
The destruction of this site during construction of Neskowin
Lodge prevented a full delineation of the site's extent.
Further, residential development of Neskowin makes detection of
archaeological material difficult." The archaeologist also noted
"the area west of Highway 101 was flooded . . . It is in a low
area unlikely to contain sites." The second survey, completed in
1988 "Didn't find evidence of archaeological material" (Harris
1988, Appendix F).
A buried forest exists along the coast south of Neskowin
Creek towards Cascade Head (Snavley pers. comm.). The areal
extent of the buried forest is currently unknown. The forest is
estimated to be approximately 1,750 years old. The forest is
3-40
-------
thought to be evidence of land subsidence due to tectonic
activity, evidence of a historic rise in sea level, or both
(Snavley pers. comm.). Although no known investigative work has
been performed in the area of the buried forest, it is considered
unlikely this would constitute an area of archaeological
importance. However, it could be considered to be of geologic
importance.
AIR QUALITY. NOISE. AND TRAFFIC
Air Pollution Control Requirements
Section 316 of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to withhold
grants for wastewater treatment facilities if the State of Oregon
is not implementing its State Implementation Plan for air quality
and the proposed project is located in a non-attainment area
(Lidgard pers. comm.). Section 176(c) of the Act requires that
federal funds be withheld for any project which does not conform
to the SIP. The proposed project is in conformance with the SIP.
Traffic and Noise
Traffic in the Neskowin area varies according to the season
of the year. Thus, during the summer there is more traffic on
Highway 101 than in the fall and winter. At times, traffic
movement on Highway 101 is slowed by the high number of
recreational vehicles. Noise in the project area is primarily
caused by traffic, wind, and ocean surf.
3-41
-------
CHAPTER 4
-------
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
If EPA were to elect to not issue a construction grant for
the NRSA project, the NRSA would be forced to either find other
funding sources or to forego project construction. As other
sources of funds are unlikely to be found, and local residents
are unlikely to be able to bear the full cost of the project, no
sewage treatment system would be built under the No Action
Alternative. As a result it is probable that most new
development would have to depend on state and county approval of
on-site systems. Some residences in the core area might need to
be abandoned (Century West Engineers Corporation 1981) and the
existing treatment plant would continue to experience periods
during which it could not meet its NPDES permit conditions.
If the project were not built, potential impacts of the
remaining alternatives on historical and archaeological
resources, air quality, traffic, and noise would not occur.
Adverse effects on soils, groundwater quality, surface water
quality, biological resources, land use, socioeconomics, and
public health would likely occur under the No Action Alternative.
These are addressed in detail below.
Soils
The soils within the study area are rated predominantly
severe for subsurface waste disposal systems by the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service using the present ODEQ subsurface disposal
regulations. This is due to steep slopes, shallow top soils,
soil percolation that is either too slow or too rapid, high
groundwater, and flooding. Based on this, the study area is not
considered suitable for continued use of individual subsurface
sewage disposal systems at urban densities under the current
regulations (Century West Engineering Corporation 1981).
Groundwater
Selection of the No Action Alternative would result in
continuation of the groundwater quality problems currently
occurring in the Neskowin area. Evidence of contamination by
effluent disposal has been detected in the lower reaches of the
creeks. Available data indicates the source of the human waste
contamination of surface water to be in part poorly functioning
septic systems, which are discharging into the groundwater. Some
of the groundwater then discharges into the local creeks (e.g.,
Neskowin Creek).
4-1
-------
Individual subsurface disposal does not provide adequate
treatment due to the nature of underlying soils, limited
drainfield area, and seasonally high groundwater. The State of
Oregon has a policy of protecting groundwater supplies of
potential drinking water from contamination by municipal and
industrial wastes. Thus, the No Action Alternative would be
inconsistent with state policy on groundwater protection.
Surface Water Quality
Surface water quality in Neskowin area streams would be
expected to continue to be contaminated if the NRSA were
prevented from taking action to upgrade the existing treatment
and collection facilities. This would result from discharge of
groundwater contaminated by cesspools, seepage pits, and failing
individual on-site septic systems throughout the area. In
addition, the existing plant could impact water quality.
Historically, Neskowin area streams have been plagued with
water quality problems, particularly high fecal contamination in
the Hawk Creek - Butte Creek - Meadow Creek system, and at the
mouth of Neskowin Creek below its confluence with Hawk Creek.
The elevated coliform levels have forced the restriction of human
contact with the water and forced a modification of the drinking
water supply intake (Marshall 1989).
Aesthetic quality of the lower Hawk Creek area would be
adversely affected due to increased loading of BOD and nutrients
to the area streams as Neskowin's population increases.
The existing treatment plant has had difficulty maintaining
effluent quality above minimum requirements established by the
NPDES permit, and has been cited several times for violations.
If the facility is not upgraded as a result of selection of the
No Action Alternative, it is likely that the plant would continue
to have difficulty in meeting effluent limitations established by
the NPDES permit. Thus, the No Action Alternative is expected to
continue to contribute to adverse effects on surface water
quality, including violations of water quality standards and
established permit conditions.
Biological Resources
Although nutrient loading from contamination by human waste
would have minor effects on plant growth in terrestrial, wetland,
and aquatic communities, these effects would likely be less than
significant as they would not substantially change community
structure or ecosystem productivity- Impacts of contamination to
water supplies by failing septic systems that are of concern for
public health are of little concern from the perspective of the
health and ecology of fish and wildlife species.
As anadromous salmonids migrate to the sea, they are
believed to imprint to the chemical characteristics of their
natal stream. When they return as adults, their homing behavior
4-2
-------
is directed by the chemical character of the freshwater. The
effect of discharge of secondary-treated effluent to streams on
the imprinting and homing ability of salmonids is unknown (Allen
pers. comm.).
The Neskowin treatment plant does not presently discharge
effluent throughout the year. Discharges to Neskowin Creek occur
approximately from November 1 through May 14. The timing of
smolt outmigration varies for different species and locations;
however, most fish migrate between March and June. There are
several factors which are thought to trigger downstream migratory
behavior, the most prominent of which is an increase in stream
flow. This suggests that outmigrants would be passing through
the area influenced by the effluent at periods of relatively high
stream flow. At high stream flows, the effluent would be roost
effectively diluted, and would probably not significantly alter
the chemical status of the stream. It is generally accepted that
the addition of dilute chemicals such as sewage treatment plant
effluent do not impact a salmonid's ability to imprint and home
on its rearing stream.
A number of bioassays was conducted by METRO in Seattle to
determine the potential impact upon salmonid resources as a
result of sewage treatment plant effluent (STPE) discharge.
These bioassays were both acute (96 hour) and continuous flow
with concentrations of effluent as high as 40 percent.
Buckley (1983) held coho salmon fingerlings (average weight
6 grams) for 96 hours in a variety of concentrations of
dechlorinated STPE as high as 40 percent. No mortalities were
recorded during these tests. In a follow-up study, Buckley et
al. (1984) held coho fingerlings 25 days in continuous flow
bioassays with concentrations of dechlorinated STPE as high as 50
percent. As in the first bioassay, no mortalities resulted.
In order to determine the effect of prolonged exposure to
ammonia, Buckley et al. (1979) exposed coho fingerlings for 91
days to either river water, one of three concentrations of
ammonium chloride in river water and to 30 percent unchlorinated
secondary-treated domestic sewage all in continuous flow
unrecycled bioassays. Blood ammonia and urea concentrations were
not significantly different after 91 days regardless of
concentration of the ambient ammonia.
Ten static acute (96 hour) bioassays were carried out on
chlorinated secondary effluent from METRO'S Renton Treatment
Plant. Using Duwamish/Green River water as the diluent, Buckley
and Matsuda (1973) found that 50 percent mortality of the test
fish (coho salmon fingerlings) occurred in 24 and 96 hours with
concentrations of effluent of 33 percent and 29 percent effluent,
respectively. Residual chlorine was determined to be the
principal toxicant to fish with an average 24- and 96-hour TL50
concentration of 0.23 and 0.20 mg/1, respectively.
4-3
-------
The conclusions of the studies conducted by METRO is that
unchlorinated effluent in concentrations as high as 50 percent
(one part river water to one part effluent or 1:1 dilution) is
not toxic to coho fingerlings. The anticipated concentration of
effluent discharged into Neskowin Creek will be 20:1 or 20 times
more dilute than that shown to have no effect on fingerling
survival.
Since the plant is at or near capacity, and thus no new
hookup could be anticipated, the timing, quantity and character
of effluent discharge would remain the same under the No Action
Alternative. Therefore, treatment plant discharges under the No
Action Alternative should not change the present homing success
of anadromous salmonids returning to Neskowin Creek.
Land Use
Selection of the No Action Alternative could result in
adverse impacts on land uses in the Neskowin area. State
standards for individual on-site wastewater treatment systems
have changed to the point where most systems now present in the
Neskowin Core Area are no longer acceptable. Impacts to the pace
of development could occur if ODEQ issued a moratorium on new
septic systems in the area since it is likely that ODEQ would
issue an order banning any new hook-ups to the system.
Socioeconomics
If the proposed project is not implemented, Neskowin would
continue to grow, but probably at a slower rate than with the
proposed project because many parcels could not be developed due
to inadequate space for an acceptable septic system. There
would, however, be less control on the location and the timing of
the growth because the proposed project would provide some
control over where growth would occur through provision of sewer
services.
Under the No Action Alternative, growth in the core area
would be slowed because vacant lots within this area are too
small for individual wastewater treatment systems. The state or
county could require major changes in existing wastewater
treatment systems as real estate transactions occur in an effort
to bring properties into conformance with state standards, and
that would adversely affect real estate values. If this
occurred, new development in the area could decrease or cease.
Decreased or reduced levels of development could cause
significant adverse secondary impacts to the local economy.
The community's character would remain unchanged for a
longer period of time under the No Action Alternative, and the
lower population growth rates would generate fewer impacts on
public services compared to impacts under the project
alternatives. The quality of life, however, would be adversely
affected by the knowledge that contact recreation in the lower
Neskowin Creek area is unhealthy.
4-4
-------
Public Health
Selection of the No Action Alternative would mean a
continuation, and probably an increase, in potential public
health problems related to contact recreation. The impact of
continually degrading water quality could include exposure of
swimmers to waters with higher concentrations of fecal
contamination. The No Action Alternative, however, would not
adversely impact the drinking water system because it collects
water from the upper watershed of Hawk Creek.
Under the No Action Alternative, public health benefits from
removing wastewater contamination of surface waters would not
occur. Streams used by the public could continue to be
contaminated and human use of these streams could be restricted.
Thus, a significant adverse effect on public health is expected
with the No Action Alternative.
COLLECTION SYSTEM OPTIONS
Collection system options presented in Chapter 2 include
vacuum, conventional gravity, STE, and STEP- Although the
technique for getting sewage to the treatment plant differs
between the alternatives, the layout of the collection system and
its effects on the natural and human environment are expected to
be comparable. The following impacts are primarily direct
impacts related to construction. The indirect impacts related to
growth are discussed under the analysis of Effluent Disposal
Options, below.
Soils
The proposed collection system would not be located in areas
containing prime or unique agricultural lands. Minor
displacement of surface soils would result from installation of
the collection system. STE systems require adequate excavation
to assure proper slope for flow to the plant. This can require
excavations up to 12 feet. In all cases, construction is
expected to have minor impacts that would include disruption of
soil strata in the interceptor right-of-way, some compaction of
soil by heavy construction equipment in the right-of way, and
minor erosion of exposed soils by wind and surface runoff. In
most cases, construction would occur in existing road right-of-
ways. Thus, the impacts of construction on soils are expected to
be less than significant.
Operation and maintenance of the collection system is
expected to have no significant impact on soils.
Groundvater
No adverse impacts to the groundwater are anticipated to
occur due to the installation and operation of the proposed
sewage collection system. Disruption of soil strata may have
4-5
-------
minor effects on groundwater flow in localized areas, but these
effects are expected to be minor, as there is no evidence of
significant barriers to groundwater movement in the area above
bedrock. The collection system would improve the quality of the
groundwater by reducing or eliminating the discharge of untreated
effluent to the groundwater.
Operation of the collection system could potentially impact
the groundwater adversely only if the system failed. This could
cause untreated effluent to discharge directly into the
groundwater. Because the probability of such a failure is small,
no significant groundwater quality problems are anticipated.
Surface Water
Any collection system that alleviates groundwater
contamination by individual subsurface disposal systems
ultimately would improve surface water quality. Installation of
the collection system will eliminate septic system seeps into
road-side ditches, thereby also reducing contaminated flows to
surface waters. Development of the collection system will not
eliminate surface water quality degradation in the area but will
contribute to decreasing the degradation.
Construction of the collection system may result in
temporary adverse impacts on surface water quality as a result of
erosion of disturbed soils or construction within or near
streambeds. These impacts, however, are expected to be less than
significant.
Floodplains
The Point area and the Proposal Rock subdivision are located
in the 100-year floodplain (Figure 3-2). Only four undeveloped
lots to be served by Phase 1 in the Proposal Rock subdivision are
in the 100-year floodplain. During Phase 2, collection lines are
proposed to be installed in areas within the 100-year floodplain:
parts of Kiawanda Beach, portions of Neskowin Heights, Proposal
Rock, and in the subdivision just downriver from the Neskowin
Creek RV Resort. Currently there are existing dwellings in these
three areas, and future growth is planned.
By regulation, EPA is prohibited from funding projects which
will encourage development within floodplains unless a floodplain
ordinance has been adopted by local government. Provision of
collectors within the 100-year floodplain can only be
accomplished in previously developed areas or in areas
appropriately addressed in a local floodplain ordinance. No
collectors can be funded for areas of anticipated growth which
are not covered by a floodplain ordinance, or in which the
ordinance is deemed insufficient.
Impacts resulting from the extension of collector sewer
lines into floodplains would be significant.
4-6
-------
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Biota
Construction of the collection system would generally result
in little disturbance of terrestrial habitat in the right-of-way.
The pipeline route for the collection system would generally
follow existing roadways throughout the area to be sewered.
If construction were to occur off existing roads in a few
cases, it would entail removal of vegetation. This could add
incrementally to disruption of wildlife use of adjacent areas by
noise and construction activity. Most of the upland within the
NRSA service area is already extensively modified by human use.
Vegetation typical of disturbed habitat is likely to recolonize
the right-of-way once construction has ended. In forested
easements, recovery could take many years. Grassland habitat and
landscaped areas, however, are likely to recover rapidly.
Disruption of wildlife in adjacent habitats is expected to be
short-term, limited primarily to the period of construction.
Thus, impacts of the collection system on terrestrial biota are
expected to be less than significant.
Wetlands
The pipeline route for the collection system would generally
follow existing roadways throughout the area to be sewered.
There are no wetlands on the routes and therefore no direct
impacts. Indirect impacts are discussed below under Effluent
Disposal Options.
Aquatic Resources
With the exception of a few stream crossings along existing
roadways, construction of the sewage collection system is
expected to have no effect on aquatic resources. Temporary
disturbance of riparian habitat and aquatic biota are possible at
stream crossings. An interceptor constructed across Neskowin
Creek could cause a temporary barrier to fish migration and a
temporary increase in erosion and bottom disturbance. This
impact could be significant depending on the timing of these
events with critical events in the life histories of fish and
other aquatic species in Neskowin Creek.
Threatened and Endangered Species
There are no designated threatened or endangered species
known to occur in the project area that could be affected by
collection system construction (Appendix B).
Land Use
During Phase 1, septic tanks and sewer lines would be
installed, constructed, and operated in the core area of
Neskowin, the lodge, a portion of Proposal Rock, and the Point
4-7
-------
areas. Land use impacts associated with construction of the
collection system primarily would occur in residential
neighborhoods and in an easement along Highway 101.
Short-term impacts associated with this collection system
would consist of excavating and laying 11,500 lineal feet of
pipe, constructing two pump stations, and laying 1,500 feet of
pressure line (HGE, Inc. 1988). Impacts from construction of the
STE system would include excavating and laying gravity sewer
lines from homes to lines in the street and to the treatment
plant and excavating and installing approximately 342 septic
tanks, mainly in front or back yards. Construction activities
would result in temporary loss of use of land for customary
purposes. For example, during excavation and installation of the
septic tanks and any sewer lines, use of front or back yards
would be disrupted.
During Phase 2, septic tanks and sewer lines would be
installed and operated in the following areas: Viking Estates,
Kiawanda Beach, Hawk Creek Hills, South Beach, Neskowin Heights,
and the rest of the Proposal Rock subdivision. Available
additional capacity would be allocated to commercial, "standby
residential," and an unrestricted excess capacity pool. Short-
term impacts associated with construction and operation would be
similar to those described above.
Where possible, sewer lines to the treatment plant would be
constructed within easements of the existing road. Therefore,
land use impacts are expected to be minimal. Use of road
shoulders most likely would be interrupted temporarily during
construction. In areas that are platted but in which roads have
not been built (primarily during Phase 2), construction will
temporarily disrupt current use. No long-term impacts should
occur.
Areas to be served by Phase 1 and 2 of the collection system
are zoned either Rural Residential (RR), Low Density Urban
Residential (R-l), High Density Urban Residential (R-3), or
Neighborhood Commercial (C-l). The majority of the areas are
zoned R-l. Public utility lines for public services (water,
sewer, telephone) are permitted in all three zones. Therefore,
Phases 1 and 2 of the collection system are consistent with the
zoning ordinance.
The potential indirect or long-term land use impacts
associated with the project as a whole are discussed under of the
"Effluent Disposal Options" section below. The direct impacts of
the collection system alternatives would be short-term and are
not considered to be significant.
Socioeconomics
The potential long-term or indirect collection system
impacts to population and public services in Neskowin are
inseparable from impacts of other components of the project. Use
4-8
-------
of the local work force to build the collection system and other
components of the project could have a beneficial economic
impact. Discussion of these impacts is incorporated in the
"Effluent Disposal Options" section.
Public Health
The collection system is not expected to directly negatively
impact public health. Implications for public health of
operation of the wastewater treatment and disposal system are
discussed below in the "Effluent Disposal Options" section.
Historical and Archaeological Resources
No impacts to historical and archaeological resources are
expected to occur because the land to be impacted has been
disturbed previously. Furthermore, no historical resources are
known to occur in the project area (Powers 1988). NRSA
determined a site of an Indian village had existed in the project
area but had been disrupted by construction of Neskowin Lodge
(Harris 1988; Appendix F).
Air Quality. Noise, and Traffic
Air quality, noise, and traffic could be adversely impacted
during construction of the collection system in the north and
south core areas. In addition, construction most likely would
occur during the dry months when Neskowin's population is the
highest. Traffic would have to be rerouted in the north and
south core areas during construction. Adverse impacts on air
quality, traffic, and noise would be temporary.
Operation of the collection system is not expected to cause
any adverse noise, or traffic impacts. Air quality, however,
could be adversely impacted. Without proper venting, odors from
an STE system could be significant.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Both septage from septic tank pumping and sludge generated
at the sewage treatment plant will require disposal. Both
activities are strictly regulated by ODEQ; no adverse impacts are
expected from disposal activities. Traffic generated by septic
tank pumping will increase slightly, but no significant impacts
to traffic, air quality, or noise are anticipated.
EFFLUENT DISINFECTION OPTIONS
Effluent disinfection is of particular concern with respect
to surface water quality, aquatic biota, and public health.
There are no impacts expected with respect to soils, groundwater,
terrestrial biota, land use, socioeconomics, historical and
archaeological resources, air quality, traffic, and noise.
4-9
-------
Ultraviolet Light
Ultraviolet radiation has been selected as the EPA preferred
option for effluent disinfection. When properly designed and
operated, UV is effective in inactivating pathogens, including
viruses. Use of this method would not impact water quality or
aquatic biota. The NPDES permit requires that disinfection
systems must treat waters such that fecal coliform levels in the
effluent are below 200 colonies per 100 ml on a monthly basis.
This requirement can be met when ultraviolet equipment is
functioning properly. Ultraviolet light systems, however,
require frequent monitoring and maintenance to ensure proper
functioning. Under the EPA preferred alternative, if the
ultraviolet system fails, treated effluent would be pumped to a
holding lagoon for storage until the system could be repaired.
No adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic biota, or
public health are anticipated with the installation and proper
operation of an ultraviolet disinfection system.
TREATMENT PLANT AND EFFLUENT HOLDING SITE OPTIONS
The facilities plan proposes seven alternative sites for
location of the treatment plant. Five of the seven sites were
dropped from further consideration (see Chapter 2). Impacts
resulting from construction at the remaining two viable sites,
the existing treatment plant site and the Simpson Timber site,
are discussed below. Indirect impacts related to growth are
discussed under the socioeconomic analysis of the Effluent
Disposal Options section, below.
The effects of choosing either of the two site options on
soils, groundwater, surface water, socioeconomics, public health,
air quality, noise, and traffic are expected to be similar.
Impacts on biological resources and land use, however, would vary
because of site specific differences in resources and land use.
Soils
Neither of the proposed sites for the treatment plant
contain prime or unique agricultural land. Soil movement would
occur as a result of treatment plant and holding lagoon
construction. The impact is expected to be minor, but would
depend on the topography of the selected site and the design of
the treatment plant. In all cases, construction is expected to
have minor impacts that would include disruption of soil strata
on the site, some compaction of soil by heavy construction
equipment, and minor erosion of exposed soils by wind and surface
runoff during the construction period. These impacts are
expected to be less than significant.
Groundwater
No adverse impacts to the groundwater are anticipated due to
the physical location of the proposed treatment plant or holding
4-10
-------
lagoon. Facility construction will similarly have no adverse
impact.
Surface Water
Treatment plant or holding lagoon site selection should have
no impact on water quality or aquatic biota as construction would
not occur in streams. Temporary increases in sedimentation could
occur if exposed soil were subjected to erosion by wind or
runoff. These effects would be short-term and are expected to be
less than significant if appropriate erosion control measures are
taken during construction and revegetation occurs around the
plant.
Floodplains and Wetlands
Neither the existing treatment plant site nor the Simpson
Timber site is located in a floodplain. In addition, no wetlands
are found on either site. Therefore, no direct impacts to
floodplains or wetlands are expected to occur from construction
at either site.
Biological Resources
Construction and operation of the treatment plant or holding
lagoon should not impact aquatic biota because the plant would
not be constructed in streams. Minor sediment increases in
nearby streams could occur if soil were exposed during
construction to erosion by wind or surface runoff. These
effects, however, are expected to be short-term and attenuated by
the distance of the facilities from stream courses.
The USFWS has indicated that there are no known threatened
or endangered species within the project vicinity. No impacts
are anticipated.
There are differences between the two viable treatment plant
sites. These differences are described in detail below.
Existing Treatment Plant site
Some of the habitat near the existing plant has been cleared
and now supports typical pioneer plant species such as fireweed
and salmonberry. Other areas are forested with young alder and
an understory of salmonberry and blackberry. Songbirds, deer,
small mammals, and reptiles all are likely to use the site.
Expansion of the existing treatment plant would permanently
remove approximately 3 acres of wildlife habitat from the
surrounding forest and shrub community. Significant wildlife use
of the site is not expected, and expansion of the treatment plant
site is not expected to have a significant impact on wildlife.
Construction would temporarily disturb wildlife in the vicinity.
There are no wetlands at the existing treatment plant site.
There are, however, several wetland communities downslope of the
4-11
-------
site which could be impacted due to poor construction techniques
or increased runoff from the developed site.
Simpson Timber Site
The Simpson Timber site was formerly a Christmas tree farm.
No wetlands are located on the tree farm. A band of alder and
blackberry borders an intermittent stream along the western
boundary of the site. The field is sparsely planted; the ground
flora is dominated by grasses and a mixture of foxglove, yellow
clover, common daisy, and dock. The open space provides forage
for deer, raccoon, and mink and nesting sites for songbirds.
Land Use
Direct impacts to existing land uses for each of the
treatment plant sites would be similar. Direct impacts most
likely would include short-term disturbances to the land for
construction of roads, buildings, and treatment works. Long-term
land use impacts would result from construction at the Simpson
Timber site. Construction would result in an irretrievable and
irreversible commitment of the site to use as a treatment plant
or storage lagoon site.
Existing Treatment Plant Site
Currently, all of this site is developed as the existing
wastewater treatment plant.
The existing treatment plant site is zoned Low Density Urban
Residential (R-l). Wastewater treatment facilities are permitted
in this zone with a conditional use permit.
Use of the existing treatment plant site for the Phase 1
treatment plant would be consistent with the County Comprehensive
Plan and policies (see Appendix C).
Simpson Timber Site
The Simpson Timber site is zoned Forest and is located
outside of the NRSA and Neskowin Community Growth boundaries.
Wastewater facilities are permitted in the Forest zone with a
conditional use permit. Use of this site would be consistent
with the Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan and policies (see
Appendix C).
The site is sparsely forested and will have to be cleared.
However, since the nearest residence is located over 0.5 miles
from the site, no impacts to adjacent land uses should occur.
Socioeconomics
Construction and operation of a new, expanded wastewater
treatment plant in Neskowin is expected to induce some population
4-12
-------
growth. Impacts are discussed below in the "Effluent Disposal
Options" section of this chapter.
Public Health
There are no impacts to public health associated with the
treatment plant or holding lagoon sites. Operation of the
wastewater system would have a direct, positive impact on public
health and is discussed in the "Effluent Disposal Options"
section of this chapter.
Historical and Archaeological Resources
No historical or archaeological resources are known to exist
at either site. NRSA determined that the single known
archaeologic site had been disrupted during construction of
Neskowin Lodge (Harris 1988; Appendix F) . However, significant
impacts could potentially occur to unidentified subsurface
cultural resources.
Air Quality. Noise, and Traffic
During construction of the treatment plant and holding
lagoon, noise and air pollution associated with the use of heavy
equipment would create temporary nuisance conditions. However,
since the treatment plant site is not adjacent to residential
areas and construction would be short-term, these impacts are not
cons ider ed s ign i f icant .
During operation of the treatment plant, adverse impacts to
the residential neighborhood near the Simpson Timber site could
occur. Air quality and noise impacts at this site could occur
because winds could carry odor and noise. These impacts are
considered potentially significant.
EFFLUENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Eight effluent disposal options were presented in Chapter 2
of this EIS. Of those eight options, seven were eliminated from
further consideration. The following is a discussion of impacts
associated with summertime treated effluent holding and
wintertime treated effluent discharge to Neskowin Creek.
r Storage Lagoon; Winter Discharge to Neskovin Creek
Soils
Soils will be excavated and the site reshaped during
construction of the holding lagoon. Erosion will be controlled
during construction; planting of exposed and disturbed soils will
be undertaken as soon as construction is completed.
4-13
-------
Groundwater
One of the discharge points for groundwater in the Neskowin
area is Neskowin Creek. The water ultimately discharges into the
ocean. The available data does not indicate that recharge of the
aquifer occurs from Neskowin Creek. If, as suspected, Neskowin
Creek does not contribute to recharge of the aquifer, then
discharge of treated effluent into Neskowin Creek during the
winter should not cause any adverse impacts to the groundwater.
Surface Water
Expected maximum effluent volumes for Phase 1 and Phase 2
are 0.2 and 0.5 cfs, respectively. These volumes are small
relative to expected winter stream flows which are expected to
easily exceed 10 cfs. Flows of 1531 cfs are expected for
frequent winter (2-year) storm events (Table D-4). Thus,
effluent volume is not expected to significantly alter stream
flow in Neskowin Creek during the winter.
Effluent standards have been established by the ODEQ for
fecal coliforms and biochemical oxygen demand. The standards
require that effluent discharges will not contribute greater than
20 colonies/100 ml and 1 mg/1 BOD to receiving waters (after
dilution). Effluents from the proposed sewage treatment plant
with a minimum of 20:1 dilution (minimum flow 4 cfs for Phase 1)
will meet those standards.
Assuming the ambient BOD of the creek is less than 1 mg/1,
the BOD in the creek below the plant will be no greater than 1.9
mg/1. With low flows of 4 cfs, the creek flow velocity would be
about 0.5 feet per second (fps). A parcel of water passing the
treatment plant (3.3 or 0.5 miles from the ocean, depending on
the location of the outfall) would enter the ocean in
approximately 1.5 to 8 hours. Because of the relatively low
value for BOD and the short travel distance to the ocean, the
impact of this discharge on the DO concentration of the creek
will not be significant.
Storm surges occasionally may impede stream flow for a short
period of time in the lower reach of Neskowin Creek. Flow
impedance, however, is not expected to result in violations of
receiving water quality because of the large volume of dilution
and small volumes of effluent flow expected. The analyses
described above assume maximum effluent flows and minimum
dilution of 20:1. Furthermore, storm surges are not expected to
be a significant barrier to stream discharge during low tides or
heavy rain storm events. Considerable subsurface flow is
expected through beach sands at the mouth of Neskowin Creek.
Nutrient concentrations in the effluent after 20:1 dilution
are expected to be at 1.0 mg/1 for nitrate, 0.15 mg/1 for
ammonia, and 0.35 mg/1 for phosphate. These values for nitrogen
and ammonia are comparable to background levels in Neskowin Creek
during winter (Chapter 3). Phosphate concentration would be
4-14
-------
elevated above background levels at a minimum of 20:1 dilution,
but the limited potential for photosynthesis in winter is
unlikely to result in changes in primary productivity as a result
of phosphorous enrichment.
The maximum effluent volumes in Phase 2 are expected to be
6-fold higher than the present maximum allowable discharge. The
concentration of nutrients and other constituents in the
effluent, however, are expected to be no greater than under the
existing discharge, and improvement of plant operation may reduce
concentrations.
Biological Resources
Terrestrial. This option would not cause long-term impacts
to wildlife populations nor would the community structure change
as long as the vegetation community is not permanently altered
due to elevation of the groundwater table, saturation of the
soil, or ponding of effluent. Thus, impacts on wildlife are
expected to be less than significant.
Aquatic Biota. Generally, impacts on aquatic biota are
those associated with change in water quality or stream
hydrology. For Phase 1, these impacts are expected to be less
than significant and similar to the No Action Alternative (see
discussion of Biological Resources on p. 4-2).
In order to minimize potential fisheries impacts, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife has requested that the Neskowin
Creek outfall remain at its present location rather than be moved
upstream adjacent to the Simpson Timber site.
Land Use
Direct and indirect land use impacts could occur as a result
of installing sewers in Neskowin. Direct beneficial impacts
include sewering homes on small lots that may not be large enough
for septic systems, and sewering areas with soils unsuitable for
septic systems on small lots. Secondary impacts could continue
in the local economy from maintained or increased tourism. Once
sewered, the development of any vacant lots in the core area or a
portion of Proposal Rock subdivision could occur. These areas
are zoned for residential development and can accommodate further
development.
Sewering associated with Phase 2 could allow for expanded
development of other areas within the sanitary district, such as
Viking Estates, Kiawanda Beach, Hawk Creek Hills, South Beach,
Neskowin Heights, and the rest of the Proposal Rock subdivision.
In a January 22, 1991 letter to EPA, the director of the
Tillamook County Department of Community Development stated that
the proposed project is consistent with Tillamook County's
Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances (see Appendix C).
4-15
-------
Socioeconomics
Population. Phase 1 sewering is designed to meet the needs
of the residential and commercial properties within the core
area, the "Point," and a portion of Proposal Rock Subdivision.
In 1986, it was estimated that Phase 1 connections would total
425 equivalent dwelling units (EDU), or 1,081 persons (HGE, Inc.
1988) .
Phase 2 sewering is designed to meet the needs of the rest
of the sanitary district. It was estimated that Phase 2
connections would serve 1,634 people (258 to be accommodated by
the excess plant capacity in Phase 1 (per NRSA Ordinance No. 2-
88), and 1,376 to be accommodated by the added plant capacity in
Phase 2) (see Appendix E).
The combined population served for Phases 1 and 2 is
therefore 2,715 persons. Since Phase 2 is predicated upon Phase
1, and since the suitability of the area for on-site septic
systems is severely limited, the project taken as a whole might
be said to be growth inducing. Limited growth is likely to occur
without the project, as discussed under the "No Action"
alternative. Growth will be dictated by land use decisions made
for the area. The degree to which the proposed project is growth
inducing depends on the economy, the governing land use decision,
and on the financial situations of individuals and cannot be
precisely determined.
The direct impact of Phase 1 on population is not considered
a potentially significant impact because secondary impacts
associated with population growth, including impacts on public
services, traffic levels, and community characteristics, which
are described below, would not result in a substantial decline in
services. In the worst case, the 46 undeveloped lots in the core
area, Proposal Rock and the Kanoff area, could be developed
adding an additional 116 people. The timing of this increased
development is unknown.
The facilities plan projects a higher long-term population
growth rate (4.2 percent) within the NRSA boundary than either
the historic growth rate (3.4 percent) or projected county growth
rates (1.0 percent); however, certain local population
characteristics suggest that the higher growth rate with the
proposed project is appropriate. Most of the growth in the
County has occurred along the coast, and if population growth
rates were separately estimated for coastal areas, these areas
would have higher growth rates.
Historically, growth in Neskowin has been constrained by the
lack of an adequate wastewater treatment system. Construction of
the proposed Phase 2 project would remove constraints which have
slowed development, and could lead to higher growth rates. The
impacts of Phase 2 project implementation could be significant as
they relate to growth.
4-16
-------
Population growth can have indirect impacts on the community
by increasing the demand for public services and by altering the
characteristics of the community. The following sections discuss
these impacts.
Water Supply. In Phase 1 the district has rights to enough
water to meet the potential demand of the population which would
occur with full build-out of all land within the district
boundaries zoned for development (Holzworth pers. comm.). The
impact of the proposed project on the supply of water is less
than significant.
However, ultimate Phase 2 growth cannot be accommodated
without expanding water treatment operations. If the current
population in the district were to double (consistent with the
population projected in 2006 or about 2,715 persons), then the
water district would have to expand its treatment facilities and
its reservoir (Holzworth pers. comm.).
The water district is already planning in anticipation of
future growth. The district presently has the capacity to meet
the anticipated demand through the year 2006. To finance the
construction of new facilities, the water district has
established a development fund. This fund consists of hook-up
fees totalling $800 per house and more for motels (with the fee
dependent on various factors including size), which are invested
until needed. It is anticipated that the district would have
adequate funding by 1996 to finance any needed expansion
(Holzworth pers. comm.). The indirect impacts from the
population growth induced by the proposed project on the capacity
of the water treatment plant is considered less than significant.
Fire Protection. If the summer population of the Neskowin
Area were to increase to about 2,700 persons (a level close to
what has been predicted for Phase 2 of the wastewater facilities
plan), the ability to provide fire service would not be affected
(depending upon the design of the water system). However, an
increase in the permanent population of Neskowin would probably
be accompanied by increases in medical emergency calls and would
require the purchase of more medical and rescue equipment
(Clausen pers. comm.). Impacts to fire protection services are
considered less than significant.
Police Protection. The level of law enforcement service in
Neskowin is currently adequate, although if the current
population in Neskowin were to double Neskowin would probably
need a full-time officer (Watters pers. comm.). Police
protection is financed through the County's general fund. New
development would generate additional tax revenue for the County
but the revenues would go into the general fund and may not be
used in Neskowin for additional police protection. However, it
is likely that the County would at least partially finance a
full-time officer, if needed (Watters pers. comm.). The impacts
of this alternative on police service are less than significant.
4-17
-------
Schools. The number of school age persons per residence
living within the NRSA boundary is low because of the
predominance of vacation and retirement homes. Currently the
winter population of 309 within the NRSA boundary generates an
estimated 35 elementary school aged students. The population
growth occurring during Phase 1 would be minimal since the area
to be served is already developed. The Cloverdale Elementary
School District and the bus lines have capacity to accommodate 40
and 18 more students, respectively. The indirect impacts of the
proposed project would be less than significant.
Assuming a similar trend would occur during Phase 2 (i.e.,
3.4 percent annual year-round population growth), the winter
population would increase to approximately 563 or an additional
29 elementary school aged children. This would exceed the
present capacity of the Elementary school and the bus lines to
accommodate these students. Additional capacity would be
required between 1996 and 2006.
Similarly, using existing generation rates, the number of
high school students potentially generated by the proposed
project would be about two students through 1996. For Phase 2,
an additional 12 students would be anticipated. The indirect
impacts of the proposed project on the Nestucca Union High School
would be less than significant.
Solid Waste. The Nestucca Valley Sanitary District has an
existing surplus capacity adequate to provide service to Neskowin
at its projected Phase 2 build-out population of about 2,700
persons (Dye pers. comin.) The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on the provision of solid waste
service because of this excess capacity.
Other Services. As Neskowin's population increases, the
need for services provided by the Neskowin Community Association,
such as beach clean-up, would also increase. Since membership in
the association is voluntary, the Neskowin Community Association
would experience adverse impacts if the demand for its services
were to grow faster than its membership base. However, since the
community association is voluntary, these impacts cannot be
mitigated unless its membership increases.
Quality of Life and Community Impacts
The Neskowin Community Association, which was contacted to
discuss the community's concerns about potential impacts from the
proposed project, surveyed its members in December, 1988 to
determine member preferences regarding growth. Of the 50 persons
who responded to a question regarding the nature of preferred
growth, 36 said that they want to maintain the quiet, residential
and family-oriented character of the Neskowin area and do not
want commercial development. Ten persons prefer controlled
commercial development, and four persons want no growth or
commercial development (Sifford pers. comm.).
4-18
-------
As population grows, the incidence of crime may also
increase. However, it is likely that new population would be
similar in character to the existing population, since much of
the population growth would be comprised of retired people or
people buying second homes. These population groups are not
usually associated with high crime rates.
As the population grows, vacant lots would be developed,
changing the visual appearance of the area. In many cases, where
some vacant lots and open space areas now exist, homes would be
built.
Higher population levels would also increase the use of
local beaches and other park and recreational facilities. Each
of the above changes could be significant if improper planning is
conducted.
Public Health
Public health benefits would occur due to the reduction in
wastewater contamination of streams used by the public. No
adverse impacts to public health are expected to occur from the
proposed project. However, other pollution sources in the
watersheds affect water quality (Marshall pers. comm.). While
completion of this project will reduce water quality degradation
and potential impacts to public health, these problems will not
be totally eliminated. If the public health issue surrounding
water quality is resolved, indirect benefits to the local economy
could occur from an increase in tourism.
Both the facilities plan addendum preferred alternative and
the EPA preferred alternative propose to disinfect the treated
effluent with ultraviolet light. Viable pathogens, including
viruses that are implicated in public health concerns, are not
expected to occur in the discharge if the system is properly
operated and maintained.
Historical and Archaeological Resources
There are no known historical or archaeological resources in
the proposed effluent disposal areas. Consultation with ODOT
State Historic Preservation Office concluded "the proposed
project would not have an impact on Historic Sites" (Powers
1988). NRSA determined a site of an Indian village had existed
in the project area but had been disrupted by construction of
Neskowin Lodge. There is a potential for impacts to unidentified
subsurface cultural resources, which could be significant.
Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic
During construction of the effluent disposal sites, traffic,
noise, and dust associated with use of heavy machinery would
occur. Minimal impacts to air quality, noise or traffic should
occur since the existing outfall would continue to be used and
the holding lagoon site is not adjacent to any residential area.
4-19
-------
Population growth induced by provision of the wastewater
treatment facilities is expected to generate increased traffic
and associated vehicle noise. Construction of additional homes
is also expected to result in additional production of smoke from
fireplaces and wood-burning stoves.
Installation of wastewater treatment systems in communities
often serves as a catalyst to development. The "worst case"
scenario for inducing growth in the Neskowin area is the addition
of 643 dwelling units at an average of 2.54 persons per unit.
The worst case scenario of an additional 1,634 persons could
generate 6,568 daily trips (Institute of Transportation Engineers
1987). These additional trips would have incremental adverse
impacts on traffic, air quality, and noise. However, it is
unlikely that these impacts would be significant because the
added number of dwelling units (643) would be distributed through
the service area. Furthermore, tourism traffic between points
north and south along Highway 101 outweighs local traffic during
the summer months.
4-20
-------
CHAPTERS
-------
CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION MEASURES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes measures available to reduce
significant impacts identified in Chapter 4 to less-than-
significant levels.
GROUNDWATER
To minimize the potential for groundwater contamination, the
holding lagoon will have an impervious liner. Groundwater
monitoring wells should be installed to monitor for leakage.
FLOODPLAINS
In order to avoid impacts to floodplains, treatment plant
siting will not occur within the 100-year floodplain. In
addition, to avoid future impacts to the 100-year floodplain, the
NRSA, as an EPA and FmHA grant and loan condition, will not
provide sewer service for any new development located within the
100-year floodplain as mapped on the latest Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM). Non-floodplain alternatives are present within the
NRSA service area. The following properties, identified by Real
Estate Tax Lot numbers are exempt from this restriction: 500,
700, 800, and 1,000. These properties have been identified by
EPA as being the only vacant properties in the 100-year
floodplain that are proposed to be sewered by Phase 1
construction. The lots are located within existing developed
areas and impacts created by the development of these lots are
felt to be minimal. Development of these four properties must be
in conformance with the Tillamook County Zoning Code Flood Hazard
Overlay.
The NRSA, as a grant and loan condition, will be required to
adopt by ordinance a Floodplain Management Program that
implements this mitigation requirement and the requirements of
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Construction of interceptor/collector lines could create
temporary barriers to fish migration. NRSA, in consultation with
ODFW, could require construction to be timed to avoid fish
migration time periods.
As requested by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
to minimize potential fisheries impacts, the Neskowin Creek
outfall will remain at its current site.
5-1
-------
LAND USE
To ensure consistency of Phase 1 of the project with local
land use plans, the NRSA would have to apply to Tillamook County
for a conditional use approval for the Simpson Timber site. To
mitigate potential impacts to less-than-significant levels, the
conditional use approval would need to be obtained prior to any
development approvals by the NRSA.
Since some of the expansion for Phase 2 would occur within
floodplains, EPA and FmHA will impose grant and loan conditions
regarding sewer hook-ups. These are discussed above under
"Floodplains."
SOCIOECONOMIC8
Implementation of Phase 1 will provide sewage collection and
treatment for existing homes, with some extra capacity allocated
for Phase 2. Direct impacts as a result of Phase 1 do not
require mitigation. Indirect impacts of Phase 1 and direct
impacts of Phase 2 will provide collection facilities and
expanded treatment capabilities which have the potential for
growth into areas of environmental sensitivity (e.g., floodplains
and wetlands). Refer to the discussions in Chapter 4 under
"Effluent Storage and Disposal Options". Needs for increased
water supply, school capacity, and recreation facilities will
result indirectly from implementation of the proposed action.
With growth, pressures for public services and on the quality of
life will increase. In order to mitigate these indirect impacts,
the NRSA could scale down the treatment plant capacities proposed
for Phases 1 and/or 2, or the areas to be sewered in Phase 2.
NSRA can also equitably allocate the excess capacity of the
Phase 1 plant so that no single subdivision within the district
can monopolize the remaining capacity.
HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Although no cultural resources are known to occur within the
NRSA, some potential of encountering subsurface resources exists
under many of the alternatives except No Action. Monitoring
during construction has been suggested by NRSA. If any suspected
cultural resources are uncovered during project construction, all
work in the immediate area should be stopped and a qualified
archeologist should be consulted for recommendations. These
recommendations should be implemented in consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer, and will be grant or loan
conditions.
AIR QUALITY, NOISE, AND TRAFFIC
Collection of the septic tank effluent through a gravity
system can lead to odors escaping along the collection lines. In
order to prevent adverse odor conditions along the collection
5-2
-------
routes, manholes can be sealed and vents extended to the tops of
utility poles.
5-3
-------
CHAPTER 6
-------
CHAPTER 6
IMPACT CONCLUSIONS
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
All identified significant impacts of the EPA preferred
alternative can be mitigated to less than significant levels.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The permanent changes occurring to the Simpson Timber site
as a result of construction of a holding lagoon would be
irreversible. Other irreversible commitments of resources
include impacts of development provided for in the project
design. These changes include the loss of natural vegetation at
the site and the associated loss of wildlife habitat. These
changes are described in the "Summary" section of this EIS.
Other commitments of resources include the economic, energy, and
material resources used to construct, operate, and maintain the
facilities.
SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The long-term productivity and usefulness of waters in the
Neskowin area would be enhanced by the project. Only minor
losses to the long-term productivity of the Neskowin area would
occur as a result of the project. These include the loss of some
natural areas as the treatment plant site and other currently
vacant areas within the NRSA develop. These areas are not highly
productive from a regional standpoint, and the development of
these sites would not significantly detract from the long-term
productivity of the area.
6-1
-------
CHAPTER?
-------
CHAPTER 7
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
This EIS has been prepared concurrently with environmental
review and consultation required by federal environmental law
other than NEPA, as required by 40 CFR 1502.25 and 40 CFR 6.301,
6.302, and 6.303. Compliance with specific environmental review
and consultation requirements is described below.
COORDINATION
Numerous agencies and individuals were contacted during
preparation of this EIS and contributed to the information or
analyses it contains. A list of these contacts is included in
Chapter 9, "References."
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (16 OSC SEC. 470 ET SEP.)
Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
if an EPA undertaking affects any property with historic,
archeological, architectural, or cultural value, the responsible
official must identify these properties and request a
determination of eligibility from the Department of Interior or
their representatives.
The following activities occurred as part of this
consultation:
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requested
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) State Historic
Preservation Office to provide listing of historic or
archeological sites in the project area;
ODOT responded that the proposed project would not have
an impact on historic sites. In addition, they
identified a potential Indian village site and suggested
verification by a professional archeologist; and
NRSA determined a site had existed but had been disrupted
by construction of Neskowin Lodge; they recommended
monitoring during construction.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (16 USC SEC. 1531 ET 8EO.1
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires
federal agencies, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical
habitat of these species.
7-1
-------
The following activities have occurred as part of the
Section 7 consultation process for this EIS:
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requested
the USFWS to provide information regarding listed species
and species proposed for listing in the vicinity of the
NRSA.
The USFWS responded and indicated that no listed species
or species proposed for listing were known to be present
in the vicinity of the project (Appendix B).
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 - FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
As discussed in Chapter 1, "Introduction," EO 11988 requires
federal agencies to prepare floodplain assessments for proposals
located within, or affecting floodplains. If an agency proposes
to conduct an action within a floodplain, it must consider
alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible
development in the floodplain. If the only practicable
alternative involves siting in a floodplain, the agency must
minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain and propose
mitigation to minimize direct and indirect impacts to
floodplains. EPA and FmHA will provide grant, loan, and permit
conditions to limit or preclude construction adversely affecting
floodplains.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 - PROTECTION OF WETLANDS
EO 11990 requires federal agencies to prepare wetlands
assessments for proposals located within or affecting wetlands.
Agencies must avoid undertaking new construction located in
wetlands unless no practicable alternative is available and the
proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize
harm to wetlands.
Based on the "Biological Resources" section of Chapter 4,
the following wetland findings are made:
The Neskowin Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan
preferred alternative and the EPA preferred alternative
will not directly result in new construction located in
wetlands. However, all other sites in the project area
contain some wetlands; and
The alternatives may also indirectly result in
construction or accommodate growth in wetlands.
Secondary impacts could potentially include the loss of
additional acreage of wetlands and associated values such
as flood storage, stormwater filtration, and wildlife
habitat. EPA and FmHA can provide grant, loan, and
permit conditions to limit or preclude such construction.
7-2
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
EPA has implemented a public involvement program for this
EIS. Public involvement activities include scoping, public
information meetings, and opportunities to comment on the Draft
and Final EISs.
SCOPING
Purpose of Scoping
CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) for implementation of
NEPA require
... an early and open process for determining the
scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the
significant issues related to a proposed action. This
process shall be termed scoping.
The purposes of the EIS scoping processes were to identify the
significant issues for study and to determine the scope of the
research for each issue.
Scoping is designed to explore issues for environmental
assessment, to ensure that important considerations are not
overlooked, and to discover concerns that might otherwise go
unrecognized. By scoping, EPA endeavored to make the EIS more
meaningful and useful to federal decision makers and to those
affected by proposals or alternatives.
Scoping Meeting
On December 23, 1988, EPA issued public notice of intent to
prepare an EIS in anticipation of awarding a construction grant
for developing the NRSA's wastewater treatment facility in
Neskowin, Oregon.
EPA held a public scoping meeting for the Neskowin
wastewater facilities plan EIS at the Neskowin Fire Hall in
Neskowin, Oregon on Friday evening, January 27, 1989. The
meeting provided the opportunity for citizens, interest groups,
and public agencies to comment on the scope of the EIS and to ask
questions about the EIS process and the facilities plan.
The public scoping meeting was well attended by local
residents. Also in attendance were personnel from ODEQ, the
Tillamook County Health Department, the NRSA board, and the
engineering consultants to the NRSA.
After the EIS process was described by EPA and ODEQ staff,
the meeting was opened to public comment. Oral and written
testimony were provided by many of those present. The following
is a brief summary of the various concerns raised by commentors.
7-3
-------
The range of alternative disposal methods that would be
addressed in the EIS and the relative emphasis that would
be given to the proposed action as identified in the
facilities plan (several commentors);
High potential for groundwater contamination;
Adverse effects on real estate transactions if measures
are not taken soon to solve problems with substandard
septic systems in the core area;
Public health risks associated with children swimming at
the mouth of Neskowin Creek (several commentors);
Proper maintenance and operation of existing treatment
facility and its efficacy in solving existing problems;
Potential effects of expanded sewer system on land use
and community growth (several commentors);
The availability of sufficient data on groundwater to
assess impact; and
Quality and characteristics of the effluent.
In addition, several individuals had questions regarding the
EIS process and how information is obtained, evaluated, and
reported. Questions were also asked regarding the facilities
plan, the granting process, and related activities of the NRSA.
In response to EPA and ODEQ solicitation of input on
disposal alternatives, several commentors objected strongly to
ocean disposal. Several of those attending also doubted whether
wetland disposal would be a good idea.
The announced closing of the formal public scoping period
was February 10, 1989. At the close of the comment period, 16
letters were received from the public and agencies, and two
additional comment letters were received shortly thereafter.
Based on an analysis of the results of the written and oral
comments received, it appears that the following are considered
to be the major issues of concern:
growth-inducement impacts;
disposal alternatives (range and emphasis);
impacts on public health;
impacts on dune aquifer;
impacts on water quality of Neskowin, Hawk, and Meadow
Creeks;
7-4
-------
impacts on biota of Neskowin Creek; and
technical basis of the updated facilities plan.
Based on a review of comment letters and other information
available to date, EPA determined that wetland and marine
disposal alternatives would be incorporated in the EIS analysis,
but wetland disposal would be examined primarily at a conceptual
level in the draft. Furthermore, EPA determined that additional
water quality sampling would be conducted during preparation of
the EIS to assess the contribution of "upstream" sources of
pollutants to water quality problems in the Neskowin area. These
upstream sources include wetlands (and associated wildlife) at
the head of Meadow Creek and farms in the Neskowin Creek valley
upstream of the sewer district boundary. EPA also determined
that additional soils sampling and analysis would occur on
potential subsurface effluent disposal sites.
A review of the facilities plan, conducted as part of the
overall scoping process, suggested that the following issues be
examined in the EIS:
Development of design flows should be assessed carefully,
as questions arise over the assumptions made regarding
the Infiltration and Inflow rates for such a small
system.
Marine disposal appears to have been dismissed in the
facilities plan without sufficient data to justify
dismissal, therefore, the EIS should examine this option
in more detail.
public Hearing Draft EIS
On August 31, 1990, EPA issued the draft EIS for the
Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Wastewater Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal Facilities. EPA held public hearings on
the draft on Saturday evening, October 27, 1990, and Sunday
afternoon, October 28, 1990, in Neskowin, Oregon, to provide an
opportunity for citizens, interest groups, and public agencies to
comment.
The public hearings were well attended by local residents.
Also in attendance were personnel from Farmers Home
Administration, ODEQ, the Tillamook County Health Department, the
Tillamook County Department of Community Development, the NRSA
board, and HGE, Inc., the engineering consultants to the NRSA.
After opening remarks by agency staff and an HGE, Inc.
representative, the meeting was opened to public comment. Oral
and written testimony were provided by many of those present. In
addition, written testimony was accepted at the EPA Regional
Office in Seattle, Washington, through October 29, 1990. All
testimony received has been reprinted in full in volume 2 of this
7-5
-------
EIS. EPA's response to each of the issues raised in the
testimony is also presented.
Final EIS
A 30-day review period follows publication of this EIS.
After the close of the review period on March 25, 1991, EPA will
issue a Record of Decision (ROD) for this project. Comments
received on this FEIS will be considered in issuing this ROD.
AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING COPIES OF THE FINAL EIS
Federal Agencies
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
- Environmental and Inspection Section
- Portland District Office
U. S. Department of Agriculture
- Farmers Home Administration
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
- Centers for Disease Control
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U. S. Department of the Interior
- Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Transportation
- Federal Highway Administration
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Office of Federal Activities
- Oregon Operations Office
- EIS Filing Section
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Division of Ecological Services
- Regional Office
U. S. Forest Service
- Suislaw National Forest
National Marine Fisheries Service
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
State Agencies
Governor of Oregon
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Department
Oregon State Department of Economic Development
Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon State Department of Health
- Drinking Water
Oregon State Department of Parks & Recreation
- State Historic Preservation Office
Oregon State Department of Water Resources
Oregon State Division of Intergovernmental Relations
Oregon State Highway Division
Oregon State University, Department of Zoology
University of Oregon, Department of Geology
7-6
-------
Local Agencies
Department of Community Development
Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
Netarts-Oceanside Sanitary District
Tillamook County Department of Community Development
Tillamook County Sanitation Department
Libraries
Pacific City Library
Salem Central Library
Tillamook County Library
Interest Groups
1000 Friends of Oregon
Community Action Team
The National Audubon Society
The Nature Conservancy
Oregon Environmental Council
Oregon Parks Foundation, Inc.
Oregon Shores Coalition
Oregon Trout
Oregon Wetlands Conservancy
Pacific Northwest Natural Resources
Other Concerned Businesses
Coldwell Banker, N. Kirk Taylor
GBD Architects, Stephen W. Domreis, AIA
HGE, Inc. Engineers & Planners
Meyer, Habernigg, & Wyse, Roger L. Meyer
N.R.H.A., Rick Soved, Chairman
Neskowin Beach Realty
Neskowin Marketplace, Helen Atwill
Stoel, Rivers, Boley, Jones, & Grey
The Doctor's Clinic, William E. Drips, Jr., M.D.
The Proctor & Gamble Co., St. Bernard Plant, Peter S.
Mclndoe
7-7
-------
Individuals
Anderson, John W. P.E., Ph.D.
Applegate, Lester
Ayers, Ray
Elaine, Jaime
Blum, Jeanine
Booth, Brian
Boyden, Allen, M.D.
Boyden, Marjorie
Buck, Fred L.
Conk1in, Robert B.
Connors, Edward C.
Corliss, John F.
Craig, D. H.
Crandall, Ann
Gulp, R. D.
Dawson, Mr. & Mrs.
de Rham, Margaret W. H.
DeArmond, Ron
Dougherty, Philip
Duncan, David J-
Duncan, Dr. Alice
Eaton, Sidney L.
Eltz, Michele
Poor, Ann
Foster, Janet M.
Frank, Douglas
Franklin, H. P.
Fuller, M.
Fuller, Marian
Gallop, Betty
Gerr i sh, Deborah
Gill, M. P.
Graber, Robert
Graber, Robert J.
Green, George
Hadley, Mr. & Mrs. Wayne
Haga, Lee R.
Hale, Bill
Hamilton, Linda Nelson
Hammel, Lloyd
Hammel, Sharon
Hansen, Neil B.
Harmon, Jean F.
Harris, Evelyn
Harrison, Mr. & Mrs. Eugene
Hiatt, Bill
Hirsch, Frederic S.
Hirsch, Harold
Kite, Martha
Holcomb, Idris
Ho1sworth, Garry
Holzworth, Jill
Johnson, Veronica
Joyce, David
Joyce, Kacey
Joyce, Katharine
King, Don
Kinnamau, Anne
Kosterlitz, Dr. Richard H.
Kovack, Laurie
Kovak, L. A.
LaRiviere, John
Marsh, Loyal F. Ph.D., P.C.
Martin, Kerri
Martin, William
Mason, Robert
McCallum, Mrs.
Mclndoe, Judith
Mclndoe, Mary Anne
McMenamin, Bob
McMinimee, L. C.
McNamara, Kevin
Meaney, Peter & Ruth
Meihoff, Walter M.D.
Merchant, Carolyn M.
Needham, W. H.
Nelson, W. Byron
Oyala, Pam
Patten, George F. Jr.
Patten, Skip
Patten, Stuart E.
Patton, Alice L.
Pfeiffer, Steve
Powelel, Audrey
Prince, Ken & Laura
Quirin, Rhoda
Riche, John
Riedesel, P. J.
Roberts, Bette
Robnett, Tony
Rueter, Patty
Saxton, Lynne
Schlicting, Hal
Schlicting, Theodore
Seeley, Becky Wiese
Sherman, Leslie
Sifford, Alex
Smith, David B.
Smith, Gregory T. Ph.D., P.C.
Smith, Karen
Smith, Owen T.
Smith, William
Staats, Donald R.
Steelhammer, Jan
Stephens, Sue
Stoll, Baree
7-8
-------
Stoll, Robert Atty.
Stow, Phyllis Jean
Taylor, Victoria
Thompson, George M.
Thompson, Margaret
Thompson, Margot Voorhies
Trowbridge, Elizabeth
Vickers, Linda
Walton, Jeff
Warner, Murel
Weise, Norman C.
Wilson, Homer L.
Wood, Karen
7-9
-------
CHAPTERS
-------
CHAPTER 8
LIST OF PREPARERS
KEY PERSONNEL
Staff Role
A. Herson Principal in Charge
D. DesVoigne Project Manager
H. Van Veldhuizen Former Project Manager
G. Grette Water Resource Task Leader
J. Ives Terrestrial Biota Task Leader
A. Herson Land Use Task Leader
R. Trott Socioeconomics Task Leader
H. Glines Technical Editor
T. Huse (Montgomery Egrs.) . Cost Estimates
P. Newton (SCS) Engineering Task Leader
R. Alvord (SCS) Hydrogeology Task Leader
TECHNICAL SUPPORT STAFF
S. Cassatt Wetland Ecology
R. Denman Hydrology
M. Rudman Socioeconomics
M. Rittmann Land Use
R. Oestman Marine Biota and Fisheries
J. Grathwol Technical Editor
C. Staedter Graphics
G. Helland (SCS) ...... Geologist
K. Beattie (SCS) Technical Editor
EPA REVIEWERS
G. Opatz Environmental Engineer
N. Sievertson Environmental Engineer
F. Gray Environmental Protection
Specialist
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION REVIEWER
D. Fraser State Environmental
Coordinator
8-1
-------
CHAPTER 9
-------
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, G. H. and D. R. Couch. [In press]. Evolving management
techniques at the Arcata wastewater salmonid aquaculture
project. In Northwest Fish Culture Conference 1988
Proceedings.
APHA. 1989. Standard methods for examination of water and
wastewater. 17th edition. American Public Health
Association.
Brown, R. F. 1986. Assessment of pinniped populations in
Oregon. Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine
Mammal Laboratory (NMFS) Seattle, WA.
Carey, A. G. Jr., 1972. Ecological observations on benthic
invertebrates from the Central Oregon Continental Shelf in
A. T. Pruter and D. L. Alverson (eds.) The Columbia River
Estuary and adjacent waters: bioenvironmental studies.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Century West Engineering Corporation. 1981. Neskowin area
wastewater facilities plan and environmental impact
assessment, May 1981. Bend, OR. Prepared for Neskowin
Regional Sanitary Authority.
Cowardin, L. M. V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
ECO Northwest, Brown and Caldwell, and Government Finance
Associates. 1989. Assessment of funding for sewerage and
drinking water facilities in the State of Oregon. Prep, for
Oregon Departments of Environmental Quality and Human
Resources.
FEMA. 1986. A unified national program for floodplain
management. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Publication FEMA 100/March 1986.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989.
Federal manual for identifying and delineating
juristictional wetlands. USEOC, USEPA, USFWS, SCS.
Washington, DC. Cooperative Technical Publication.
9-1
-------
Fetter, C. W. 1988. Applied hydrogeology. 2nd edition.
Merrill Publishing Company.
Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of
Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press,
Corvallis, OR.
Harris, D. 1988. Letter to Ken Vigil, ODEQ. Neskowin Regional
Sanitary Authority. June 30, 1988.
HGE, Inc. 1990. Wastewater facilities plan addendum, August
1990. Portland, OR. Prep, for Neskowin Regional Sanitary
Authority.
HGE, Inc. 1988. Wastewater facilities plan update, January
1988. Portland, OR. Prep, for Neskowin Regional Sanitary
Authority.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1987. Trip generation.
4th edition. Washington, DC.
Klingman, P- C. 1979. A resource survey of river energy and
low-head hydroelectric power potential in Oregon. Water
Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR. WRRI-61: Appendix 1, North Coast Basin.
Lane Council of Governments. 1982. North Florence dunal aquifer
study, June 1982. Eugene, OR.
Magaritz, M. and J. E. Luzier. 1985. Water-rock interactions
and seawater-freshwater mixing effects in the coastal dunes
aquifer, Coos Bay, OR. Geochemical et Cosmachimica Acta
49:2515-2525.
McCauley, J. E. 1972. A preliminary checklist of selected
groups of invertebrates from otter-trawl and dredge
collections off Oregon in A. T. Pruter and D. L. Alverson
(eds.) The Columbia River Estuary and adjacent waters:
bioenvironmental studies. University of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1985. Bacterial
water quality in Neskowin area streams under dry weather
conditions. Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 1972.
Environmental geology of the coastal region of Tillamook and
Clatsop Counties, OR. Bulletin 74.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. 1988.
Oregon's coastal management program: a citizen's guide.
Salem, OR.
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. 1985.
Oregon's statewide planning goals. Salem, OR.
9-2
-------
Pearcy, W. G. 1972. Distribution of ecology and oceanic animals
off Oregon. A. T. Pruter and D. L. Alverson (eds.). The
Columbia River Estuary and adjacent waters:
bioenvironmental studies. University of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.
Powers, D. W. 1988. Letter to Kenneth Vigil regarding sewerage
project: Neskowin-Tillamook County. Oregon Department of
Transportation State Historic Preservation Office, June 8,
1988.
Robart, G. P. 1989. Letter to Ann Uhrich, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, regarding Neskowin Creek sewage effluent
discharge EIS scoping comments. Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife. February 14, 1989.
Saxton, K. E., L. F- Elliott, R. I. Papendick, M. D. Jawson, and
D. H. Fortier. 1983. Effects of animal grazing on water
quality of nonpoint runoff in the Pacific Northwest. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA-600/S2-83-07).
Snavley, P. D. and H. E. Vokes. 1949. Geology of the coastal
area between Cape Kiwanda and Cape Foulweather, OR. U. S.
Geological Survey Map 97.
Sweet, Edwards and Associates. 1981. Clatsop Plains ground
water protection plan - ground water evaluation report and
summary report and environmental assessment, December 1981.
Tillamook County. 1984. Tillamook County comprehensive plan.
Tillamook, OR.
Tillamook County. 1986. Tillamook County land use ordinance.
Tillamook, OR.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Design manual -
onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Office of
Water Program Operations. Washington, DC.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Report on the use
of wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment and disposal.
(EPA 430/09-88-005). Office of Water, Office of Municipal
Control. Washington, DC. Prepared for Senator Quentin N.
Burdick, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. An ecological
characterization of the Pacific Northwest Coastal Region.
Volume II characterization atlas-regional synopsis.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services. N.D. National wetland
inventory. U. S. Department of Interior.
9-3
-------
U. S. Forest Service. 1986. Draft environmental impact
statement proposed land and resource management plan,
Suislaw National Forest.
U. S. Forest Service. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish
habitats in forests in Western Oregon and Washington.
U. S. Forest Service. 1982. Wildlife habitats and species
management relationships program, Oregon coast range.
Volume 1, introduction-Suislaw National Forest.
U. S. Forest Service. 1981. Wildlife habitats and species
management relationships program, Oregon coast range.
Volume II, amphibians and reptiles, 57 pp; Volume III,
birds, 581 pp; Volume IV, mammals, 157 pp.
COORDINATION LIST
Affolter, Vic. Director of Community Development and Planning.
Tillamook County, Tillamook, OR. July 17, 1989 - telephone
conversation.
Allen, George, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus. Humboldt State
University, Arcata, CA. July 14, 1989 - telephone
conversation.
Anderson, Gary. Superintendent. Cloverdale Elementary School
District, Cloverdale, OR. June 26 and 27, 1989 - telephone
conversations.
Basich, Larry. Engineer. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Bothell, WA. April 19, 1989 - telephone conversation.*
Bizeau, Tom. Planner. Tillamook County Community Development
Department, Tillamook, OR. October 26 and 27, 1989 -
telephone conversations.
Bortleson, G. U. S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA. June 1989 -
personal communication.
Brunson, Ed. Coastal Planner. Tillamook County Planning
Department, Tillamook, OR. June 23, 26, and 29, 1989 -
telephone conversations; July 5, 1989 - meeting at County
Planning Department.
Cameron, Sue. County Health Officer. Tillamook County,
Tillamook, OR. July 21, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Clausen, Jim. Fire Chief. Nestucca Rural Fire Protection
District, Nestucca, OR. June 26, 1989 - telephone
conversation.
Dye, Eleanor. Nestucca Valley Sanitary District, Nestucca, OR.
June 26, 1989 - telephone conversation.
9-4
-------
Gaumer, Tom. Biologist. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
March 21, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Fraser, Dan. Farmers Home Administration, Portland, OR. October
27, 1989 - telphone conversation.
Harris, David. Retired Hydrologist. U. S. Geological Survey.
March 14, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Heath, Mary. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality,
Regional Office, Tillamook, OR. July 13, 1989 - telephone
conversation.
HoIzworth, Guy. Superintendent. Neskowin Regional Water
District, Neskowin, OR. June 26 and July 12, 1989 -
telephone conversations.
Jacobsen, Sally. Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 2,
Tillamook, OR. June 20, 1989.
Kittell, Christopher. Attorney. Albright & Kittell, P.E.,
Tillamook, OR. July 17, 1989 - memo and telephone
conversation.
Klumph, Rick. Area Biologist. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Newport, OR. Multiple contacts.
Korbett, Ted. Sanitary Sewer Review Board, Neskowin, OR. July
23, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Legoo, Barbara. Planning Technician. Tillamook County Planning
Department, Tillamook, OR. June 21, 1989.
Lidgard, Mike. Air Quality Division, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. July 26, 1989 -
telephone conversation.
Lowe, Roy. Wildlife Biologist. U. S. Department of Fish and
Wildlife. March 22, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Marshall, Doug. County Sanitarian. Tillamook County, Tillamook,
OR. February 7, 1989 - letter to EPA Region 10; July 19 and
November 30, 1989 - telephone conversations.
Meaney, Pete J. Chairman. Neskowin Regional Water District,
Neskowin, OR. June 26, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Monro, Gordon. Project Engineer. HGE, Inc., Portland, OR.
August 11, 1988 -letter to Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality; June 23, 1989 - letter; April 19,
June 22 and July 17, 1989 - telephone conversations.
Nabeta, Marguerite. Oregon Department of Transportation, Parks
and Recreation Division, Salem, OR. June 20, 1989.
9-5
-------
Newcomb, R. Retired. U. S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR.
June 1989 - personal communication.
Osborne, Ed. Treatment Plant Manager. Neskowin Sanitary
Authority, Neskowin, OR. July 12, 1989 - telephone
conversation.
Paeth, Robert. Soils Engineer. Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. January 1990 -
meeting.
Riedesel, Ed. Manager. Neskowin Creek RV Park, Neskowin, OR.
July 12, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Robart, Greg. Staff Biologist. Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. March 13, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Shewey, Allen. Engineer. HGE, Inc., Portland, OR. June 22,
1989 - telephone conversation.
Sifford, Alex. President. Neskowin Community Association,
Neskowin, OR. June 29, 1989 - telephone conversation; July
11, 1989 - letter.
Snavley, P. D. U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. June
1989 - personal communication.
Steele, Chuck. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Bothell, WA.
October 27, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Stein, Janet. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine
Mammal Branch. March 24, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Vigil, Ken. Engineer. Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, Portland, OR. April 19 and July 13, 1989 -
telephone conversations.
Walton, Jeff. Realtor. Neskowin Beach Realty, Neskowin, OR.
July 14, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Watters, Don. Lieutenant. Tillamook County Sheriff's
Department, Tillamook, OR. June 27, 1989 - telephone
conversation.
Weinberg, Howard. Estimates Program Manager. Center for
Population Research and Census, Portland State University,
Portland, OR. June 29, 1989 - telephone conversation.
Willard, Linda. Planner. Tillamook County Department of
Community Development, Tillamook, OR. June 26, July 19, and
November 29, 1989 - telephone conversations.
Wittpenn, Nancy. Coastal Planner. Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development, Salem, OR. July 14, 1989 -
telephone conversation.
9-6
-------
APPENDIX A
STREAM FLOW DATA
-------
OREGON STATE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Creek Location
Hauk Highway Crossing. 5S. 11U, Sec. 25, NEH
Hawk 300- Above Highway Crossing, Sec. 25, SEK
Hawk SE%, SUH, Sec. 25
Hawk SEK. SWU, Sec. 25
Hawk SW1. Sec. 25
Neskowin 6S, 10U, Sec. 15, NUK (Headwaters)
Neskowin 5S, 11U, Sec. 36. SEK (Near Mouth)
Neskowin SEK. Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Neskowin NWK. Sec. 15 (Headwaters)
Neskowin SEK, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Neskowin SEK. Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Neskowin Highway Bridge Crossing
Neskowin 6S. 10W, Sec. 6, NE K. SE VI
Neskowin 6S, 10U, Sec. 6. NE H, SE I
Neskowin SE*, SEK. Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Neskowin SEK, SEK. Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Neskowin SEK. SEW, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Neskowin SEK, SEK, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Neskowin SEK, SEK. Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Date
08-28-31
09-09-34
09-11-36
09-04-35
09-11-37
08-29-31
08-29-31
09-09-34
09-09-34
09-11-36
09-16-37
08-15-52
08-09-73
09-06-73
05-15-73
08-20-74
10-05-74
05-28-75
07-02-75
Flow (cfs)
0.40
0.30
0.50
0.40
0.90
0.20
2.00
2.60
0.50
2.50
5.40
10.60
7.44
5.49
21.50
16.3
5.37
21.6
14.3
Direct and Indirect Impacts:
Disruption of Traffic: Construction of the sewer system will provide some rerouting of traffic in local
areas. This is not considered as a major problem.
Damage to Historical or Recreational Areas: None is anticipated or forseen at this time. The areas
proposed for construction activities have been substantially disturbed during prior development work.
Disturbance to Sensitive Ecosystems: None.
Damage and Pollution of Surface Waters due to Erosion during Construction: None.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
ENDANGERED
SPECIES CONSULTATION
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Portland Field Office
727 NE 24th Avenue
Portland, OR 97232
July 26. 1988
1-7-88-SP-125
Kenneth M. Vigil
Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland. Oregon 97204-1390
Dear Mr- Vigil:
This is in response to your letter dated June 9, 1988, and received
by us on June 10, 1988, requesting Information on listed and
proposed endangered and threatened species which may be present within the
area of the sewage conveyance system, treatment plant, and disposal
facility proposed by Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority in Neskowin,
Tillamook County, Oregon.
Your request and this response are made pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
To the best of our present knowledge there are no listed or proposed species
occurring within the area of the proposed project. Should a species become
officially listed or proposed before completion of your project,
The Environmental Protection Agency will be required to reevaluate
its responsibilities under the Act.
We appreciate your concern for endangered species.
Sincerely,
RECE!VED
Russell D. Peterson v'J~
Field Supervisor
OREGON OPERATIONS
EPA-REGION 10
cc: Rl FWE-SE
PFO-ES
ODFW (Nongame), Portland
ODFW, fiilamook
ONHP
EPA, Portland, OR
B-l
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Portland Field Office
727 NE 24th Avenue
Portland, OR 97232
November 9, 1989
1-7-90-SP-9
Gerald Opatz
Environmental Review Section
Enviornmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
This is in response to your letter dated October 24, 1989, and received by us
on October 27, 1989, requesting information on listed and proposed endangered
and threatened species which may be present within the area of the proposed
Neskowin wastewater treatment facility.
Your request and this response are made pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (15 USC 1531 et. seq.).
We have received no new information since our July 26, 1988 letter regarding
threatened and endangered species in the project area. To the best of our
present knowledge there are no listed or proposed species occurring within the
area of the proposed project. Should a species become officially listed or
proposed before completion of your project, the Environmental Protection
Agency will be required to reevaluate its responsibilities under the Act.
We appreciate your concern for endangered species and look forward to
continued coordination with EPA.
Sincerely,
Peterson
Field Supervisor
cc: ODFW (Nongame)
ONHP
B-2
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Portland Field Station
2600 S.E. 98th Avenue, Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97266
September 28, 1990
Re: 1-7-90-SP-9R.dh
Gerald Opatz
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
This regards the area of the proposed Neskowin wastewater treatment facility.
Our agency has no new information at this time regarding the presence of
threatened and endangered species in the area. However, we also suggest that
you contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon Department of
Agriculture and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for information
regarding threatened, endangered, and sensitive species which may be in the
area.
ncerely,
Peterson
Supervisor
v
cc?
PFO-ES
NMFS
Dr. Kosterlitz; 3935 S.W. Marins Lane, Portland, Oregon 97201
B-3
pruned on unbleached, recycled paper
-------
NEIL GOLDSCHMIDT
GOVERNOR
Department of Fish and Wildlife
COLUMBIA REGION
TILLAMDOK DISTRICT OFFICE
4909 THIRD STREET, TILLAMOOK, OR 97141
October 17, 1990
Gerald Opatz, Chief
Environmental Rev. Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
The Tillamook District Office of the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife conducts very little fish inventory work
on Neskowin Creek. To the best of our present knowledge
there are no threatened or endangered species in Neskowin
Creek.
We are, however, concerned with recent trends of Coho and
Chun Salmon which we monitor in other basins. Both Coho
and Chum occur in Neskowin Creek, but recent data is
limited. If current trends continue over the next few
years, steps may be taken by this office to list these
species as sensitive.
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Sincerely.
RICK KLUMPH
District Fish Biologist
CC:
HCD
Region 7
B-4
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ENVIRONMENTAL A TECHNICAL SERVICES CMVC
911 NE limAvcnu*-Room 620
PORTLAND. OREGON 97232
503/230-5400 FAX 503/230-5435
OCT 3 0 18QO
F/NWR5:281
:OV 011990
OCEAN PROGRAMS SECi'llrt
EPA - REGION 10
Mr. Gerald Opatz
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle. WA 98101
Re: Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Wastewater
Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Opatz:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has completed its
review of the subject document and found that resources for which
NMFS bears responsibility and alternatives to reduce adverse
impacts on these resources have been addressed to our
satisfaction. Therefore, we have no comments.
Sincerely.
MerritfE. Tuttle
Division Chief
B-5
-------
NEIL GOLDSCHr/lDT
Oregon Department of Agriculture
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SALEM, OREGON 97310-0110
December 1, 1990
Gerald Opatz
Environmental Review Section
EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
I received your request for information on state-listed
threatened or endangered plant species occurring within the
project area of the proposed wastewater treatment facility in the
town of Neskowin, Oregon. There are only two state-listed
species on the Oregon coast (Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora
and Lilium occidentale) and neither of these are known from
anywhere near your area of concern.
If the construction activities compromised any salt marsh
habitat, the possibility exists that the candidate taxon
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris could be impacted.
Although inventories for this plant have not covered the Neskowin
area, the species is known from Cape Lookout (to the north) and
the City of Newport (to the south).
Sincerely,
Robert J. Meinke
''Program Leader
Plant Systematics and Conservation Biology
Natural Resources Division
(503)378-3810
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT
-------
DEPARTMENT OF *S^^i.*^ltfSSaft^> 201 **** Avenue
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HlBHBHllflil.B&l.....* Wllamook, Oregon 97141
Vic Affolter, Director tfJBmMftgjgBMmBBHKt (503) 842-3408
Tillamook County
Land of Cheese. Trees and Ocean Breeze
August 5. 1987
D.E.Q.
811 S.W. 6th. Avenue
Portland. OR O72O4
Att: Ken Vigil
This is to supplement the enclosed Land Use Compatibility State-
ment and Board of Commissioner's Certification of Conformity with
our comprehensive plan.
The public facilities element of the county's plan acknowledges
that the Neskowln area Is in need of a sewer system. It discuss-
es the problems of the Neskowln Investor's Corporation sewage
treatment plant and the need for an area-wide system. it also
discusses the formation of the Neskowln Regional Sanitary Author-
ity (NRSA) and their attempts to secure funding.
The public facilities element does not address the location,
timing, and capacity of a sewage facility in Neskowin. However.
there is sufficient evidence of health hazards resulting from
Inadequate septic systems In the area to conclude that there la
an immediate need for a system that can serve the developed
portion of Neskowln. A further benefit of such a system is ite
ability to facilitate further development within the Neskowln
Community Growth Boundary.
The proposed sites for the sewage treatment facility will require
conditional use approval prior to actual construction or use.
This Includes the new treatment plant site, the spray irrigation
site, the existing lagoons If they are expanded, and possibly the
pump stations depending upon their size and off-site impacts. We
would recommend that these all be handled as one combined condi-
tional use request.
A remaining concern, which is not necessarily germane to this
review, is that the existing NRSA boundary is not congruent with
the Neskowln Community Growth Boundary as is identified in
our comprehensive plan. The public facilities element of our
plan states that "Tillamook County Is opposed to the extension
of sewer service outside of urban or community growth boundaries
unless there Is a significant health and water quality problem
and alternatives to central sewer such as repair and rehabilita-
tion of septic systems-is infeaslble..." This means that the
C-l
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
Ken Vigil
August 5, 1987
Page 2
relatively snail portion of the authority that is outside of the
Neskowln CGB could not be served without a plan amendment. We
anticipate that this issue will be resolved in a timely way and
that it should not serve as an obstacle to either funding or
constructing the sewage treatment plant and related facilities.
We appreciate this opportunity to identify remaining land use
Issues so that they may be resolved in a timely way and not serve
as an obstacle to construction of this much needed sewage treat-
ment facility. We strongly support this project and will do
whatever we can to assist in its completion.
Sincerely,
TILLAMOOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Vic Affolter
Director
VA/bl
encl .
cc: Board of Commissioners
Planning Commission
Gordon Munroe, HGE, Inc.
Jim Roberts, NRSA
C-2
-------
COMMISSIONERS
D. J. Kinkade
G. J. Creasy
G. A. Woodward
(503)842-3403
Tillamook County
Land of Cheese. Trees and Ocean Breeze
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Tillamook County Courthouse
201 Laurel Avenue, Tillamook, Oregon 97141
August 5f 1987
Ken Vigil
D.E.Q.
811 S.H. 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Dear Mr. Vigil:
We have reviewed the facilities plan report for the Nesko-win
Regional Sanitary Authority Sewage Treatment Plant and certify
that the recommendations of the report conform to the goals,
policies, and plans adopted in our comprehensive plan which was
acknowledged by L.C.D.C. in March, 1984* The recommended ac-
tions in the report appropriately implement the public facilities
and services element of our local plan and are in accord with
applicable Statewide Planning Coals.
The Sanitary Authority and HGE, Inc. are being notified that the
proposed sites for the sewage treatment facility will require a
conditional use approval prior to actual construction or use.
Since this matter could come to us on appeal, it is inappropriate
for us to prejudge the outcome of this process.
We strongly support this project which will resolve existing
severe sanitation problems within the area to be served by the
Sanitary Authority and provide for desired development within
Neskowin's Community Growth Boundary.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR^TILLAMOOK COUNTY, / OREG.ON
-A^Z^g^^g-xX^^ ^,
Dean J. Kinkade, Chairman
/ ?c *t£ 1 (.-it**
Gerald J. Creaejr, Commissioner
sb
Gerald A. Woodward, Commissioner
C-3
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
STATE OF OREGOtJ
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Sewerage Works Construction Grants Program
LAND USE COMPLIANCE QUESTIONS
Each sewerage facilities project must conform with the local compre-
hensive plans for the planning area. To demonstrate this consistency,
please answer the appropriate set of questions below and provide
supportive discussion within the text of the facilities plan. The
questions apply to each local government within the planning area.
Note. If the proposed project is affected by later' changes in the
facilities plan or local comprehensive plansa consistency must be
evaluated again prior to the next grant award.
SET I. If you have a comprehensive plan that LCDC has acknowledged
for compliance with all of the Statewide Planning Goals and
Tt covers the facilities planning area:
1. When was the acknowledgement received?
2. Is the proposed project's location, timing
and capacity consistent with the public
facilities element of your plan?
3. Does the project conflict with any other h^O M
element of the comprehensive plan? If so, Is am °\
plan amendment needed?
SET II. If you have a comprehensive plan that LCDC has not
acknowledged for compliance with all of the Statewide
Planning Goals and it covers the facilities planning area:
1. When will the comprehensive plan be submitted for
acknowledgement?
2. Has the plan been adopted locally by the
appropriate local governments? If not, when
is adoption expected? Has the public facilities
element of the plan been developed?
3. Answer one of the following:
a. If the area to be served by your proposed
project Is not within an adopted urban growth
boundary and the project Is outside the city
Units, provide the reasons for this extension
of service.
b. If the area to be served by your proposed project
Is Inside the urban growth boundary and Is not
contiguous with an urbanized area, provide the
reasons for this extension of service.
C-4
-------
State of Oregon
Dept of Environmental Quality
Bll SW Sixth Ave
Portland, OR 97204
DEQ Office Use Only
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT
'applicant Neskowin Regional
Sanitary Authority :HGE Inc.
pnni'nppr*: A Plannprs
Address
19 NW 5th Avenue
Portland. Oregon 97209
Phone
(503) 222-1687
fcC 1 I_ 1 T V fil*TE
(INCLUDE APPROPRIATE LEGAL OC8CRIPTION AND ZONI NO DESIGNATION)
NESKOWIN REGIONAL SANITARY AUTHORITY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION--
FACILITY/SITE LOCATION (CHECK ONE)
CITY
a INS IDE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS
OUTSIDE URBAN OROHTH
BOUNDARY
STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY FROM APPROPRIATE LAND USE AUTHORITY
(An equivalent statement may be provided in lieu of this form)
IF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JB not ACKNOWLEDGEDj CHECK ONE Of THK FOLLOWING:
DTHC PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THK
STATEWIDE PLANNING COALS
THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
ftach additional findings which reference statewide planning goals and state how the
loposed activity is compatible with them.
IF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <£g ACKNOWLEDGED, CHECK ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING!
p
PROPOSED ACTIVITY:
IS ALLOWED OUTRIGHT BY THE PLAN
DIS ALLOWED BY THE PLAN BUT IS SUBJECT TO
FUTURE COAL CONSIDERATION BY AN AGENCY
IS ALLOWED BY THE PLAN BUT IS SUBJECT TO fl * * NOT ADDRESSED OR CONTROLLED BY THE PLAN
STANDARDS IN SITINOt. DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION LJ
AND/OR OPERATION and Conditional Use Procedure
IB ALLOWED BY-THE PLAN BUT SUBJECT TO
FUTURE GOAL CONSIDERATION BY THK LOCAL
JURISDICTION
IS PROHIBITED BY THE PLAN
D DURING THE PERIODIC REVIEW THE PLAN WAS NOT FOUND TO
BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THK STATEWIDE PLANNING COALS
Attach additional findings which reference the specific plan policies criteria or standards
Ihich are relied on and state why the compatibility finding is justified based on plan
policies, criteria or standards and whether all necessary local approvals have been obtained.
If the activity is not addressed by the plan, attach additional findings which reference
Itatewide planning goals and state how the proposed activity is compatible with them.
USE AUTHORITY
Tillamnnlr Tniintt/ nonartmont nf rnmmtinitV
Director
8/3/87
USE THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURE BOX FOR CITY/COUNTY CONCURRENCE IF INSIDE URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY AND OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS
-AND USE AUTHOR I TV
5 I GNEO
C-5
-------
DEPARTMENT OF
:OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ric Affolter, Director
Tillamook County
Land of Cheese. Trees and Ocean Breeze
JAN 2 41991
J UL '
., 301 L-*H
PC']; PfM
Tillamook, OR 97141
(503) 842-3408
FAX # 842-2721
January 22, 1991
Fredianne Gray
EPA
1200 6th Avenue
MS/WD 136
Seattle, WA. 98101
RE: Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Wastewater Treatment,
and Collection Facilities.
Dear Ms. Gray:
This is to affirm that the above referenced facilities, as
described in EPA's September 1990 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, are consistent with Tillamook County's Comprehensive
Plan and implementing ordinances.
Treatment facilities may require conditional use approval
depending upon their location. The Simpson Timber site would
require such approval.
We strongly support this project which is required to address
existing sanitation problems within the area that will be served
by this project.
Sincerely,
TILLAMOOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Vic Affolter
Director
VA:dt
CC: Mike Kolwalski, NRSA Manager
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
WATER QUALITY DATA
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
D-l Historic Neskowin Creek Discharge Measurements . . D-l
D-2 1988 Neskowin Creek Drainage Measurements D-2
D-3 Neskowin Creek Low Flows, 1988 D-3
D-4 Estimated Neskowin and Hawk Creek Flood Flows . . . D-4
D-5 Hawk Creek Discharge Measurements D-5
D-6 Bacteriological, Chemical, and Physical Data from
Neskowin Area Streams Surveyed on August 6, 1985 . D-5
D-7 Bacteriological, Chemical, and Physical Data from
Neskowin Area Streams Surveyed on August 19, 1985 . D-7
D-8 Water Quality, March 29, 1989 Neskowin Creek
and Tributary Stations D-9
D-9 Water Quality, April 10, 1989 Neskowin Creek
and Tributary Stations D-10
D-10 Water Quality, May 29, 1989 Neskowin Creek
and Tributary Stations D-ll
D-ll Water Quality, July 10, 1989 Neskowin Creek
and Tributary Stations D-12
D-12 Water Quality, September 11, 1989 Neskowin Creek
and Tributary Stations D-13
-------
Table D-l. Historic Neskowin Creek Discharge Measurements
Date
08/29/31
08/29/31
09/09/34
09/09/34
09/11/36
09/16/37
08/15/52
08/09/73
09/06/73
05/15/73
08/20/74
10/05/74
05/28/75
07/02/75
Location
T6S, R10W, Sec. 15, NWV (Headwaters)
T5S, R11W, Sec. 36, SEh (Near Mouth)
SE\, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
NW?j, Sec. 15 (Headwaters)
SEh, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
SE^, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Highway Bridge Crossing
T6S, R10W, Sec. 6, NE!j, SEh
T6S, R10W, Sec. 6, HEh, SE^
SEV, SE^, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
SEh, SE^, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
SE^, SE^, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
SE?s, SE^, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
SE?j, SE^, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
Flow (cfs)
0.20
2.00
2.60
0.50
2.50
5.40
10.60
7.44
5.49
21.50
16.3
5.37
21.6
14.3
D-l
-------
Table D-2. 1988 Neskowin Creek Drainage Measurements
Date
06/21
06/22
06/24
06/25
06/26
06/27
06/28
06/29
06/30
07/01
07/04
07/05
07/06
07/07
07/08
07/10
07/11
07/13
07/14
07/15
07/16
07/17
07/18
07/20
07/25
07/26
07/27
07/30
08/01
08/02
08/03
08/04
08/08
08/10
Flow (Cfs)
27.3*
26
21.7*
22
20
19
21.2*
19
19
17.2
19
22.3*
19
18
16
14
16
41.5*
26
22
20
19
19.3*
17.3*
15.3*
14
13.6*
13
' 12.1*
12
12
12*
10.3*
10
Date
08/15
08/16
08/17
08/19
08/21
08/23
08/24
08/25
08/27
08/29
08/31
09/02
09/03
09/05
09/07
09/09
09/12
09/14
09/17
09/19
09/22
09/24
09/26
09/28
10/01
10/04
10/06
10/08
10/10
10/12
10/15
10/18
10/20
10/22
Flow (cfs)
9.3
27.6
14
10
9.5
9.5
9.5
10
9.5
9.5
7.33*
6.49*
7
6.5
7.5
6.0
6.5
5.0
7.0
8.0
8.5
9.0
12.64
17.6
11.08
8.5
9.52
8.0
9.0
19.8
35.1
34.0
31.5
* Indicates discharge measurement taken, all other flows from a
stage-discharge relationship.
D-2
-------
Table D-3. Neskowin Creek Low Flows, 1988
Lowest Monthly Flow Measured Monthly
*
**
June
July
August 7 .
September
October 8
Precipitation
Precipitation
19 cfs
13 cfs
33 cfs
5 cfs
.5 cfs
Precip. (% of normal)*
79%
187%
35%
79%
34%**
measured approximately 7 miles SE of Neskowin.
measured approximately 25 miles N of Neskowin.
Table D-4. Estimated Neskowin and Hawk Creek Flood Flows
Flows (cfs)
Return Interval (years)
Neskowin Creek
Hawk Creek
2
5
10
25
50
100
1531
2180
2565
3075
3554
3871
320
433
554
675
780
864
Source: USGS
D-3
-------
Table D-5. Hawk Creek Discharge Measurements
Date Location Flow (cfs)
08/28/31 UEh, S25, T5S, R11W 0.40
09/09/34 SEh, S25, T5S, R11W 0.30
09/11/36 SE^, SWh, S25, T5S, R11W 0.50
09/04/35 SE%, SVh, S25, T5S, R11W 0.40
09/11/37 SW^j, S25, T5S, R11W 0.90
06/21/88 SW^, S25, T5S, R11W 10.6
07/01/88 SW^, S25, T5S, R11W 9.2
07/13/88 SW^, S25, T5S, R11W 11.9
D-4
-------
Table D-6. Bacteriological, Chemical, and Physical Data from Neskowin
Area Streams Surveyed on August 6,1985
Station
# Sampling Location
Meadow Creek
1 North of Pacific Sands Golf
Course, private road
2 First bridge northeast of 1st
Tee, Pacific Sands Golf Course
Butte Creek
3 West of Hwy. 101
5 First bridge upstream from Meadow
Cr. mouth, Pacific Sands Golf Course
(Meadow Creek flows into Butte Creek)
6 Bridge about 20' north of
Pacific Sands Clubhouse
8 Hawk St. at west side of culvert
Hawk Creek
11 Hawk Cr. Golf Course, bridge upstream
from practice putting greens
12 Hawk St. east side of road
(Butte Creek flows into Hawk Creek)
14 SO' to 75' downstream from
Butte Cr. mouth
15 Off of Hawk Dr., opposite house
horse corral
16 Yamhill St. & Hawk Dr.
Hour
1340
1640
1040
1520
1440
1030
1515
1050
1525
1745
1100
1748
1420
1752
1125
1505
1823
1405
1650
1757
1655
1802
Temp.
°C
20
20
14
8
15
17
14
18
Number
FC
90
60
20
10
200
170
100
40
90
90
740
150
10
<10
10
<10
4,100
1,600
1,100
2,600
770
600
per 100 ml
FS
60
70
210
170
270
340
150
270
190
610
1^00
300
830
120
60
60
3,100
1,000
520
630
460
340
mg/1
NO3+NO2-N
0.03
0.02
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.63
0.62
0.89
17 Between Yamhill and McMinnville
Streets
1700
700
300
D-5
-------
Station
# Sampling Location
18 Salem St. bridge
Button Creek ("tributary to Neskowin Creek")
Hour
1115
1718
1815
Temp.
°c
14
Number
FC
10,000
800
390
per 100 ml
FS
4,900
420
220
mg/1
NO3+NO2-N
0.87
22 Private road crossing
Neskowin Creek
23
Estuar
21
About 0.5 miles south of
Neskowin, private bridge
About 505 downstream from junction
of Hawk Cr. and Neskowin Cr.
1734
1500
1710
14
30
<10
530
40
300
0.28
FC = Fecal Coliform
FS = Fecal Streptococcus
D-6
-------
Table D-7. Bacteriological, Chemical, and Physical Data from Neskowin
Area Streams Surveyed on August 19,1985
Station
# Sampling Location
Meadow Creek
1 North of Pacific Sands Golf
Course, private road
2 First bridge northeast of 1st
Tee, Pacific Sands Golf Course
Butte Creek
4 Near 8th Tee at Pacific Sands
Golf Course
5 First bridge upstream from Meadow
Cr. mouth, Pacific Sands Golf Course
(Meadow Creek flows into Butte Creek)
6 Bridge about 20' north of Pacific
Sands Clubhouse '
7 Behind septic tank area, Pacific
Sands Clubhouse
8 Hawk St. at west side of culvert
9 About 100' downstream from Hawk
St., yard of un-numbered home
10 About If upstream from Butte Cr.
mouth
Hawk Creek
11 Hawk Cr. Golf Course, bridge upstream
from practice putting greens
12 Hawk St. at east side of culvert
13 Hawk St. about 20' downstream from
culvert
Hour
1427
1100
1453
1050
1446
1458
1109
1503
1113
1245
1515
1550
0925
1524
1027
0900
1536
1355
1126
1527
0904
1529
Number per 100 ml
Temp.
°C FC FS
120
13 10
10
13 180
270
210
14 190
140
360
200
180
250
13 380
220
220
13 6,100
240
15 <10
10
10
13 20
20
200
670
650
190
140
110
350
400
420
760
420
620
380
360
480
720
410
30
70
180
220
100
mp/1
NO3+NO2-N
<0.02
13
12
1.2
1.2
0.58
0.60
D-7
-------
Station
#
Sampling Location
Hour
Number per
Temp.
°C FC
100ml
FS
mg/1
NO3+NO2-N
(Butte Creek flows into Hawk Creek)
14
16
(Marsh
parking
18
19
About 7S5 downstream from Butte Cr.
mouth
Yamhill St.
drainage just north of Wayside
lot)
Salem St. bridge
Opposite Neskowin Lodge, downstream
of walkway
0850
1532
0943
1557
1607
0950
1603
0958
1227
1622
13 5,200
130
1,000
120
170
2,400
290
4,300
1,700
410
520
200
310
420
590
410
400
490
400
960
0.81
0.80
Neskowin Creek
23
20
Estuary
21
About 0.5 miles south of
Neskowin, private bridge
Near mouth, southwest corner of
Gold Cove Restaurant
100' to 150' downstream from junction
of Hawk Cr. and Neskowin Cr.
1215
1015
1225
1616
1003
1233
1625
10
14 20
30
40
3,800
1,700
50
100
80
80
10
330
400
20
0.27
0.88
FC = Fecal Coliform
FS = Fecal Streptococcus
D-8
-------
Table D-8. Water Quality, March 29. 1989 -- Neskouin Creek and Tributary Stations
O
vo
Station 1
Time collected (hr)
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
PH
Conductance (umhos/cm)
Nitrogen, anmonla (mg/l)
Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (mg/l)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Ortho-phosphate (mg/l)
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
Fecal colfform (id/100 mis)
Fecal streptococcus (41/100 mis)
1200
6.319
152
0.61
1.01
ND a 0.1
NO a o.i
ND a o.i
NO a 0.1
7.44
4
52
7.6
ND a 3
52
56
2
1230
6.317
125
0.351
1.19
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND 8 0.1
6.71
9
44
7.6
ND a 3
78
24
3
1330
Not Collected During
6.541
48
0.343
1.25
ND a 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
0.84
6
14
11.94
ND 3 3
1
NO a 1
Replicate
4a 4b
1350
This Survey
6.584
51
0.349
2.65
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
0.73
13
10
12.14
ND 8 3
3
ND a i
1415
6.555
49
0.338
2.57
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND a o.i
0.74
19
15
12.17
ND 8 3
4
4
Blank
1340
6.527
1
0.221
0.046
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND 8 0.1
0.16
ND a 1
ND a 1
11.15
ND a 3
ND a 1
ND a 1
-------
Table D-9. Water Quality, April 10, 1989 -- Heskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
0
1
H
O
Station
Time collected (hr)
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
PH
Conductance (umhos/cm)
Nitrogen, ammonia (mg/t)
Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (mg/l)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Ortho-phosphate (mg/l)
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
Fecal col i form (0/100 mis)
Fecal streptococcus (If/100 mis)
1
1305
54
6.112
322
0.65
0.615
0.71
NO a 0.1
0.14
ND SI 0.1
9.4
9
194
5.08
ND 9 3
21
252
2
1325
54
6.057
274
0.51
0.728
0.58
0.1
ND 3 0.1
ND 3 0.1
7.6
3
120
5.61
ND 3 3
36
68
3
1430
53
6.738
201
0.05
1.28
0.07
ND a 0.1
0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 1
1
96
9.09
ND a 3
ND a 2
ND 3 2
4
1500
53
6.904
202
0.04
0.996
0.07
ND a 0.1
0.1
ND a 0.1
ND 3 1
6
52
9.01
ND a 3
ND 3 2
ND a 2
5
1440
53
3.874
198
0.62
1.03
0.73
ND 3 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 1
6
52
9.06
ND 3 3
ND a 2
ND a 2
6a
1355
53
6.876
215
0.49
1.81
0.53
ND 3 0.1
0.15
ND 3 0.1
ND a 1
15
42
9.09
ND 3 3
5
4
6b
1355
53
6.947
209
0.47
1.8
0.53
ND a 0.1
0.11
NO a 0.1
ND a 1
ND a 1
42
9.01
ND a 3
4
ND a 2
7
1340
54
6.8
227
0.6
2.18
0.64
ND 3 0.1
ND 3 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND 8 1
ND 3 1
48
8.89
ND 3 3
ND a 2
ND a 2
Blank
1410
64
7.106
0.639
ND a 0.01
ND 8 0.05
ND a 0.01
ND a 0.1
ND a o.i
ND a 0.1
ND a 1
ND a 1
ND a 1
8.58
ND a 3
ND a 2
ND a 2
-------
Table D-10. Water Quality, Nay 29, 1989 Neskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
Station
Time collected (hr>
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
pH
Conductance (mhos/cm)
O Nitrogen, annonia (mg/l)
' Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
fj Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (mg/l)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Ortho- phosphate (mg/l)
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
Fecal coliform (#/100 mis)
Fecal streptococcus (ft/100 mis)
Replicate
1
1245
54
6.139
335
0.71
0.375
1.68
0.25
0.68
0.23
13.8
6
174
5.58
NO 3 3
42
1085
2
1300
56.5
6.069
325
1.59
0.333
1.68
0.27
0.76
0.27
12.9
7
210
5.55
ND 3 3
21
652
3
1400
50
6.615
197
0.27
0.72
1.96
0.19
0.48
0.17
ND 3 1
11
50
9.5
ND 3 3
201
38
4
1455
50
6.672 .
193
0.06
0.823
0.56
0.08
0.21
0.08
ND 3 1
ND 3 1
42
9.72
ND 3 3
28
10
5a
1400
50
6.63
196
0.23
0.714
1.49
0.1
0.26
0.09
ND a 1
3
56
9.6
ND 3 3
117
34
5b
1400
50
6.674
200
0.21
0.764
1.77
0.24
0.52
0.21
ND a 1
9
36
9.19
ND 8 3
224
56
6
1340
52
6.587
211
0.23
0.853
1.77
0.61
1.67
0.58
1
9
36
9.24
ND 8 3
86
14
7
1320
54.5
6.615
232
0.41
1.31
2.15
0.33
0.88
0.32
2.5
11
102
9.47
ND a 3
116
84
Blank
1500
75
6.745
<1
0.05
ND a o.os
ND a 0.01
ND 8 0.1
ND a o.i
ND a o.i
ND 8 1
ND a i
ND a i
8.02
ND a 3
ND a 2
ND a 2
-------
Table D-11. Water Quality, July 10, 1989 -- Neskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
Station 1
Time collected (hr)
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
pH
Conductance (umhos/cm)
O Nitrogen, ammonia (mg/l)
^ Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
to Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (mg/l)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Ortho-phosphate (mg/l)
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
Fecal coliform (IK/100 mis)
Fecal streptococcus (IK/100 mis)
1215
60
6.099
252
1.25
0.221
1.31
0.88
0.74
0.14
10.1
5
192
7.76
ND a 3
>1000
54
Replicate
2a 2b
1230
59
3.281
130
1.68
ND 8 0.1
2.42
0.21
0.74
0.12
6.6
10
130
7.53
ND a 3
18
85
1230
59
6.249
137
1.64
ND a 0.1
1.68
0.17
0.31
0.07
6.1
5
128
7.66
ND a 3
42
11
3
1325
59
6.76
77.2
0.36
0.36
1
0.16
0.27
0.09
ND a 1
3
70
9.03
ND a 3
40
5
4
1345
58
6.899
70.3
0.15
0.39
1.31
0.1
0.13
0.05
ND a 1
14
64
8.7
ND 3 3
956
12
5
1310
58
6.774
45.6
0.43
0.43
1.77
0.23
0.3
0.1
ND a 1
4
64
8.87
ND a 3
41
17
6
1300
59
6.709
103.5
0.76
0.51
2.61
0.5
1.41
0.1
ND a 1
2
84
9.14
ND a 3
165
130
7
1250
59
6.856
99.4
0.65
0.83
2.33
0.29
0.7
0.1
1.24
2
88
8.99
ND 3 3
404
121
Blank
1345
72
6.556
0.1
ND 3 0.05
NO a 0.01
ND a 0.1
ND 8 0.1
ND a o.i
ND a 1
ND a i
ND a 1
8.9
ND a 3
ND a 2
ND a 2
-------
Table 0-12. Water Quality. Septeafcer 11, 1989 Neskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
Station 1
V
H
W
Time collected (hr)
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
PH
Conductance (umhos/cm)
Nitrogen, annonia (mg/l)
Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (mg/l)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Ortho-phosphate (mg/l)
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
Fecal coliform (#/100 mis)
Fecal streptococcus (df/100 mis)
1230
59
6.592
386
0.94
0.377
1.68
0.51
1.53
0.12
39.77
10
271.2
6.71
ND a 3
272
106
2
1245
55
6.544
159.1
1
0.245
1.12
0.153
0.41
0.1
9.24
ND 3 1
110
7.33
ND a 3
2
11
3
1320
54
6.949
84.8
0.1
0.503
ND 3 0.1
0.16
0.22
0.08
1.31
1
43.1
9.68
ND a 3
80
13
4
1335
55
7.029
163.5
0.15
0.523
ND 3 0.1
0.251
0.63
0.5
1.23
ND a 1
126.9
9.76
ND a 3
48
26
5
1325
54
6.926
85
0.14
0.508
3.26
0.13
0.33
0.09
1.38
4
67.3
9.57
ND 3 3
49
24
6
1310
55
6.951
107.8
0.12
0.618
ND a 0.1
0.067
0.18
0.08
1.56
ND 3 1
66
9.67
ND a 3
471
46
Replicate
7a 7b
1300
55
7.032
99.1
0.25
0.944
1
0.19
0.45
0.08
1.88
ND 8 1
95
9.17
ND a 3
975
118
1300
55
7.05
101.2
0.22
0.948
0.84
0.116
0.28
0.05
1.61
ND a i
97.5
8.89
9.48
1027
110
Blank
1345
75
6.627
0.33
ND a 0.01
ND 8 0.05
ND 8 0.01
ND a o.i
ND a o.i
ND a o.i
ND a 1
ND a i
ND a i
9.38
ND a 3
ND a 2
ND a 2
-------
APPENDIX E
NRSA HOOK-UP DISTRIBUTION
-------
EXPLANATION OF NRSA HOOK-DPS
The treatment plant is designed to have some excess capacity
after the Phase 1 sewering is installed, which can serve about
100 EDUs (Monro pers. comm.), or 258 people. To prevent
concentrated growth during Phase 2, units would be allocated to
various locations by NRSA Ordinance 2-88 (Kittell pers. comm.).
This ordinance supersedes the geographical allocations specified
in the 1988 facilities plan update. The ordinance specifies that
the excess capacity of the wastewater treatment facility would be
allocated as follows:
"Sixty residential connections would be allocated to
five geographical areas. Area number 1, defined as
Viking Estates, Ocean Creek, Pacific Sand Heights, NEFF
Addition and Neskowin Woods, is allocated 20 EDU
residential connections. Area number 2, defined as
Hawk Creek Hills and First Addition to Hawk Creek
Hills, is allocated 11 EDU residential connections.
Area number 3, defined as Proposal Rock, South Beach
Unnamed and Neskowin Heights, is allocated 16 EDU
residential connections. Area number 4, defined as the
core area and the point area, is allocated 8
residential EDU connections. Area number 5, defined as
Kiwanda Beach, is allocated 5 residential EDU
connections."
In addition, the ordinance allocates six commercial EDU
connections with no geographical designations, and six standby
residential EDU connections (a standby customer is defined as a
residential property owner who has a written contract with
Neskowin Lodge Investors made before July 1, 1988).
The rest of the available capacity (about 28 EDUs) would be
used to create an unrestricted excess capacity pool. Any NRSA
customer may access this pool to the extent that it is available,
but only after the allocations for the geographical areas
described above have been exhausted. Further, the pool shall be
available only after one year has elapsed after the date of
completion of the project. This allocation would be made on a
first-come-first-served basis. No single geographical area
described above can use more than half of this pool.
E-l
-------
APPENDIX F
STATE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
-------
Department of Environmenta! Quality
811 SW SIXTH AVENUE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97204-1390 PHONE (503) 229-5696
June 6. 1988
David U. Powers. Program Manager
State Historic Preservation Office
525 Trade Street SE
Salem. Oregon 9731C
Sevor.-ip.rt i'rojocr
Noskowin. Cirv:£.on
Dear Mr. Powers:
This letter is intended to solicit comment from your office on a planned
project at Neskowin, Oregon. The Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
(MRSA) proposes to construct a new sewage conveyance system, treatment
plant, and disposal facility to replace failing septic tanks and an
inadequate private package sewage treatment plant that currently serve the
area.
The KRSA is in the process of applying for an Environmental Protection
Agency sewage works construction grant. As part of that process, an
Environmental Assessment chat meets federal regulations is being completed
for Che project by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Ue vould appreciate comment from your office on Che effect chat this project
Bay have on historic and cultural resources in the Neskowin area. Are there
any historic or archeological sices that could be impacted by the proposed
projecc?
Enclosed are a description and map of che projecc from the first draft of
Che Environmental Assessment. Please call me at 229-S622 if you need
additional information for your evaluation. Thank you.
Sincerely.
Kenneth M. Vigil
Environmental Engineer
V!ater Qualify Division
KMV:kjc
WJ620
Enclosures
F-l
-------
Department of Transportation
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Parks and Recreation Division
525 TRADE STREET S.E.. SALEM. OREGON 97310
June 8, 1988
V/ater Quality
Dfpt- o' Eiwirof»~.*~".3l (J
JUN 14 1338
Kenneth M. Vigil
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmenral Quality
811 S.W. 6th Ave.
Portland, OR 97204-1390
RE: Sewerage Project: Neskowin
Tillamook County
Dear Mr. Vigil:
Our staff has reviewed the proposed Neskowin regional
sanitary sewage project to construct the new sewage
conveyance system, treatment plant and disposal facility to
replace the failing septic tanks and inadequate private
package sewage treatment plant that currently serve the
area. We have reviewed our historic inventory and feel that
the proposed project would not have an impact on historic
sites.
On the enclosed nap, we do have information to indicate
that a village site is located in the vicinity of the
confluence of Neskowin Creek, Meadow Creek and Butte Creek.
This site has never been verified by a professional
archaeologist. We only have a rumor that such a site
exists. If there is a village site close to or adjacent to
the proposed sewer line project, there is a possibility of
running into either cultural material or burials.
We would suggest that you have a professional
archaeologist look at the area to determine whether a site
exists and whether there might be potential cultural
resource conflicts.
If ycnr-^have any questions, you can contact Dr. Leland
Gilsen at/378-5,623.
Sinoe/eli
fltlv-
D. W^Pbwers^'"Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
DWP:lr
VIGIL.LTR
F-2
-------
'Neskowin
Regional
Sanitary
n)EBEfiVE
P.O. Box 383 Neskowin. Oregon 97149 (503) 392-3115
JULOM98Q
Water Quality
Dept- of Environmental Quality
June 30,1988
Ken vigil
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. 6th Avenue
Portland. OR 97204-1390
Dear Ken.
After being contacted by you on June 20th concerning the State
Historic Preservation Office's concern for a possible Indian village
site in our vicinity, we have taken the following steps:
1). I called Dr.Leland Gilsen of that office on June 21st
to clarify what the problem was and to find out what
we needed to do. He said (as your reported) that they
had some information to indicate that a village may
have been located in the vicinity of Neskowin Creek,
Meadow Creek, and Butte Creek. He said it was only a
rumor that it existed. He said that we needed to have
an archeologist look at the area. He gave me a list of
archeologists names that I could contact.
2). I called three of the names that Dr. Gilsen referred
rce to, and decided on Greg Brutchard who lives in Mc-
Minnville. He works through Portland State University.
Mr. Brutchard called Dr. Gilsen to get all the infor-
mation before coming down to Neskowin on June 24th.
3). In the meantime, we' had an idea that a similar arch-
eological study must have been done back in 1979 when
our new water system was installed at Neskowin. Al Shewey
of HGE finally tracked down a copy of a report by Julia
A. Follansbee, Professional Archeological Consultant , en-
titled "A Cultural Resources Survey for Neskowin"dated
February 1979. In her report which covers much of the
same area as the propsed sewer system. She states. "It
is well documented that there was an archeological site
= t the mouth of Ne.skowin Creek. The destruction of this
site during construction of Neskowin Lodge prevented a
full delineation of the sites extent. Further, residential
development of Neskowin makes detection of archeologicai
F-3
-------
Page 2
material difficult'-".' She also says". . . . the
(golf) course west of 101 was flooded ( this in-
cluded the area circled on Dr. Gilsen map). It
is in a low area unlikely to contain sites".
4). Mr. Brutchard (who had a copy of Miss Follansbee"s
report) left us a note after his June 24th visit
here saying that he "didn't find evidence of arch-
eological material". He said,"The most likely areas
for remains to occur appear to be at the new filtra-
tion plant and the new drain field". He vent en to
say that he "will probably recommend moniccrinq (at
those sites) during construction". His report vcj.ll ;
to Dr. Gilsen who will apparently render ju
what, if anything, needs to be cone. Mr. Br
that "... such an obligation (;nonitor inn J
severe a constraint and hopefully wi
nificantly on the project".
not:
is
i:- :D i
I P
presume that'Dr. Gilsen will be in touch with ycui ;ji;ici
Respectfully,
David D. Harris
Chairman
NRSA
cc: HGE
F-4
-------
WUf
u*
*-1""* - /.'"''
\ ''" "v~.-r"
. ' - * \f.
' *" ." .
"&'* '"J -:~
i
i
- -{ .»*1»: »-*:-» -*..T-
* _ ^ _ < !». c V .-.
«JN 1413=3
F-5
-------
NELGOLDSCHMCT
OOVEPUOO
Parks and Recreation Department
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATIO
525 TRADE STREET SE. SALEM, ORE
October 17, 1990
Kevin France
HGE Engineers
19 N.W. 5th Ave.
Portland, OR 97209
10 PHONE (SQU378-5001 FAX (503) 378-6447
I'
FICE
-PORTLAND
OCT 1 9 1890
RE: Neskowin Wastewater Facilities Project
T6S, R10W, Sec. 6
Tillamook County
Dear Mr. France:
Our office has reviewed our site files based on the
information you have supplied to us since we have no record
of any historic or archaeological sites in or adjacent to
the proposed project area. We feel that the project can
proceed as a "no effect" finding under Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800.
If you have any questions, you can contact Dr.
Gilsen at 378-5023.
Sincerely,
Leland
James M. Hamrick
Deputy SHPO
JMHrlr
FRANCE.LTR
F-6
------- |