EPA 910/9 - 90 - 021 Alaska
United States Region 10 Idaho
Environmental Protection 1200 Sixth Avenue Oregon
Agency Seattle WA 98101 Washington
Water Division Environmental Review September 1990
Neskowin
Regional Sanitary Authority
Wastewater Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal
Facilities
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
oEPA
September 5, 1990
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
We are forwarding for your review and comment this Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Neskowin Regional
Sanitary Authority Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
Facilities, Tillamook County, Oregon.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this EIS
pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and implementing Agency regulations. We have
prepared the EIS to serve as an informational document on the
potential impacts of construction of wastewater treatment
facilities for the City of Neskowin, Oregon. Discussions of
treatment alternatives, plant site alternatives, collection
alternatives, and effluent disposal alternatives that have been
considered during the planning process are included, as well as
measures that may be taken to minimize environmental impacts.
Availability of the EIS will be announced in the Federal Register
on Friday, September 14, 1990, beginning a 45-day comment period.
When you have reviewed the DEIS, if you have comments or wish to
provide additional information for inclusion in the final EIS,
please respond before the close of the comment period on Monday,
October 29, 1990. All comments received will be considered in
evaluating the alternatives before EPA's decision on the project
is made. Comments or questions concerning this Draft EIS should
be submitted to the attention of Mr. Gerald Opatz (Mail Stop WD-
136) at the above address. Copies of the EIS are available for
review at EPA's Oregon Operations Office in Portland, the Seattle
Regional Office, and in the Salem Central, Tillamook County, and
Pacific City Libraries.
Public hearings to discuss the Draft EIS will be held on
Saturday, October 13, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. and Sunday, October 14,
1990 at 2:00 p.m. in the Neskowin Fire Hall. We invite you to
attend the hearing. All are welcome and will have an opportunity
to be heard.
Region 10 Alaska
1200 Sixth Avenue Idaho
Seattle WA 98101 Oregon
Washington
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Neskowin 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
Fanners Home Administration
In Association with:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Thomas P. Dunne
Acting Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Date: August 31, 1990
-------
COVER SHEET
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
NESKOWIN REGIONAL SANITARY AUTHORITY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Lead Agency:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 10
Responsible Official: Thomas P. Dunne
Acting Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Cooperating Agency: Farmers Home Administration
Abstract of DEIS:
The action to be considered is the authorization of grant and
loan funds for the design and construction of proposed secondary
treatment facilities including a new treatment plant, placement of
interceptors and collectors, and effluent disposal systems. The
No Action alternative, two treatment alternatives, seven plant site
alternatives, and eight effluent disposal alternatives are
discussed. Project implementation is proposed in two phases:
Phase 1 would provide service for approximately 1,339 residents;
Phase 2 would expand the system to 2,715 residents. The facility
plan preferred alternative is the construction of a septic tank
effluent (STE) collection system, a contact stabilization/extended
aeration mechanical plant treatment facility, with discharge of
treated effluent to Neskowin Creek during winter high stream flows
and summer storage of treated effluent. The impacts of all the
alternatives 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 DEIS is offered for review and comment to members of the
public, special interest groups, and public agencies. A public
hearing will be held to solicit comments on the DEIS. Comments
received on the DEIS will be addressed in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS).
Location of DEIS:
Copies of this DEIS are available at the following locations:
Seattle
Salem
EPA Region 10 Headquarters
1200 Sixth Avenue, 13th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
Salem Central Library
585 Liberty S.E.
Salem, OR 97301
i
-------
Portland
Tillamook County
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
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:
October 29, 1990
Address all Comments to:
Gerald Opatz
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-8505
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY S-l
Background S-l
Alternatives 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
State Laws, Regulations, and Policies 1-8
Local Ordinances, Policies, and Regulations 1-11
CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Collection Alternatives 2-4
Design Flows 2-8
Treatment Alternatives 2-9
Sludge Disposal 2-10
Disinfection Alternatives 2-10
Treatment Plant and Effluent Storage Site Alternatives . 2-11
Existing Treatment Plant .... 2-11
Butte Creek 2-13
Hawk Creek 2-13
South Highway 2-13
Sutton Pasture 2-13
Simpson Timber 2-13
Pasture 2 2-13
Effluent Storage and Disposal Alternatives 2-14
Alternative 1: Existing Spray Irrigation System
and Holding Ponds, Construct Additional Summer
Storage Lagoon; Winter Discharge to Neskowin Creek . 2-14
Alternative 2: Summer Storage Lagoon; Winter
Discharge to Neskowin Creek 2-16
Alternative 3: Summer Subsurface Disposal; Winter
Discharge to Neskowin Creek 2-16
Alternative 4: Year-Round Discharge to Neskowin
Creek 2-16
Alternative 5: Marine Outfall 2-17
Alternative 6: Altered Wetland Disposal 2-18
Alternative 7: Spray Application 2-19
Alternative 8: Deep-Well Injection 2-19
Alternative 9: No Action 2-20
Development Options 2-20
Cost Estimates 2-22
Present Worth Analysis 2-22
User Costs 2-26
ซ
in
-------
Page
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
Introduction 3-1
Geography 3-1
Climate 3-1
Geological Units 3-1
Soils/Geology 3-2
Groundwater 3-4
Quantity 3-4
Quality 3-5
Surface Water 3-5
Water Quantity 3-5
Floodplain Management 3-8
Water Quality 3-9
Biological Resources 3-17
Neskowin Planning Area 3-17
Treatment Plant Sites 3-23
Effluent Disposal Sites .... 3-25
Adjacent to Planning Area 3-27
Threatened and Endangered Species 3-30
Land Use 3-30
Farmland Protection 3-31
Floodplain Protection . 3-31
State and Local Plans and Policies 3-31
Existing Land Uses in the Planning Area 3-38
Socioeconomics 3-41
Population Trends and Policies 3-41
Public Services 3-44
Public Health 3-46
Historical and Archaeological Resources 3-47
Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic 3-47
Air Pollution Control Requirements 3-47
Traffic and Noise 3-47
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 4-3
Socioeconomics 4-3
Public Health 4-4
Collection System Alternatives 4-4
Soils 4-4
Groundwater 4-5
Surface Water 4-5
Floodplains 4-5
Biological Resources 4-6
Land Use 4-7
Socioeconomics 4-8
Public Health 4-8
Historical and Archaeological Resources 4-8
Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic 4-8
iv
-------
Page
Sludge Disposal 4-8
Effluent Disinfection Alternatives ........... 4-9
Ultraviolet Light 4-9
Chlorination 4-9
Treatment Plant Site Alternatives ..... 4-11
Soils .. .............. 4-11
Groundwater 4-11
Surface Water 4-11
Floodplains and Wetlands 4-11
Biological Resources 4-12
Land Use 4-14
Socioeconomics 4-16
Public Health 4-16
Historical and Archaeological Resources 4-17
Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic . 4-17
Effluent Disposal Alternatives 4-17
Alternative 1: Existing Spray Irrigation System
and Holding Ponds, Construct Additional Summer
Storage Lagoon? Winter Discharge to Neskowin Creek . 4-17
Alternative 2: Summer Storage Lagoon; Winter
Discharge to Neskowin Creek 4-20
Alternative 3: Summer Subsurface Disposal; Winter
Discharge to Neskowin Creek 4-27
Alternative 4; Year-Round Discharge to
Neskowin Creek . 4-29
Alternative 5: Marine Outfall 4-3 2
Alternative 6: Altered Wetland Treatment 4-34
Alternative 7: Spray Application 4-39
CHAPTER 5 - MITIGATION MEASURES 5-1
Introduction ....... 5-1
Soils 5-1
Groundwater 5-1
Surface Water ....... ... 5-1
Floodplains 5-1
Biological Resources 5-2
Wetlands 5-2
Land Use 5-3
Socioeconomics 5-3
Public Health
Historical and Archeological Resources 5-3
Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic 5-4
CHAPTER 6 - IMPACT CONCLUSIONS 6-1
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . 6-1
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments
of Resources 6-2
Short-Term Uses of the Environment Versus
Long-Term Productivity 6-2
v
-------
Page
CHAPTER 7 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 7-1
Coordination 7-1
National Historic Preservation Act 7-1
Endangered Species Act 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
Agencies and Individuals Receiving Copies of the
Draft EIS 7-5
Federal Agencies 7-5
State Agencies 7-6
Local Agencies 7-6
Libraries 7-6
Interest Groups 7-6
Other Concerned Businesses 7-7
Individuals 7-8
CHAPTER 8 - LIST OF PREPARERS 8-1
Key Personnel 8-1
Technical Support Staff 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
vi
-------
LIST 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 Estimated Design Flows for the Proposed Treatment
and Disposal Facilities 2-8
2-2 Neskowin Sewer System Capital Cost Estimates . . . 2-23
2-3 Construction Costs for 110,000 gpd Mechanical
Plant, Simpson Timber Site 2-24
2-4 Present Worth Analysis Assumptions 2-25
2-5 Present Worth Comparison Summary of Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal Alternatives 2-27
2-6 User Fee Analysis 2-28
2-7 Eligibility for EPA Grant Participation by
System Component 2-29
3-1 Water Quality Surveys Conducted in the Neskowin
Creek System 3-13
3-2 Population Estimates and Projections for Neskowin
Area and Tillamook County 3-43
vii
-------
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 l) 2-6
2-4 Proposed Interceptors (Phase 2) 2-7
2-5 Alternative Treatment Plant Sites 2-12
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 3-10
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 .... 3-19
3-6 Zoning Designations within the Neskowin Regional
Sanitary Authority Service Area 3-32
viii
-------
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. They have also applied to
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) to provide for the local
share. 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.,
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 with FmHA
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
and are without any additional land (HGE, Inc. 1988). A small
package treatment plant also is present within the NRSA. This
plant is privately owned and serves a small development within
the NRSA.
A facilities plan was originally prepared in 1981. This
plan was updated in 1988. The preferred alternative in the 1988
Wastewater Facilities Plan Update (HGE, Inc. 1988) was identified
as acquisition, modification, and expansion of the existing
wastewater treatment plant, along with construction of new
facilities to provide collection, treatment, and disinfection of
the wastewater. The facilities plan also identified a preferred
disposal method which involves disposal of the treated effluent
into Neskowin Creek (the point of discharge of the existing
plant) in the winter months when effluent flows could be diluted
by stream flows by a ratio of greater than 20:1, and subsurface
disposal of the effluent during summer, initially at a site
currently used for pasture. As flows increased due to expansion
of the system and population increases, additional lands would be
used for subsurface disposal.
S-l
-------
During the preparation of this,EIS, it was determined that
additional land would be necessary to meet design criteria for
subsurface disposal. It was further determined that an
alternative disposal method would be necessary as population
increases.
In August, 1990 an addendum to the facilities plan was
prepared (HGE, Inc. 1990). Based on that plan, the preferred
alternative was identified as abandonment of the existing sewage
treatment plant and construction of a mechanical plant (contact
stabilization/extended aeration). Treated effluent would be
discharged to Neskowin Creek during the winter months when
effluent flows could be diluted by stream flows (greater than
20:1 dilution). During summer months and low stream flows,
effluent would be stored in a lagoon constructed for this
purpose.
This document evaluates alternatives based on the 1990
facilities plan addendum with additional effluent disposal
alternatives proposed by EPA.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives for each of the major project components have
been developed as part of both the facilities planning process
and this EIS process. These alternatives include: two
collection alternatives; seven alternative sites for the
treatment plant (existing wastewater treatment plant, Butte
Creek, Hawk Creek, South Highway, Sutton Pasture, the Simpson
Timber site, and the Pasture 2 site); two disinfection
alternatives and nine disposal alternatives (including No
Action).
The nine effluent disposal alternatives fully considered in
this EIS are:
Alternative 1: Existing Spray Irrigation System and
Holding Ponds, Construct Additional Summer Storage
Lagoon; Winter Discharge to Neskowin Creek;
ฆ Alternative 2: Summer Storage Lagoon; Winter Discharge
to Neskowin Creek;
Alternative 3: Summer subsurface disposal; winter
discharge to Neskowin Creek;
ฆ Alternative 4: Year-Round Discharge to Neskowin Creek?
Alternative 5: Marine Outfall;
ฆ Alternative 6: Altered Wetland Disposal;
ฆ Alternative 7: Spray Application;
S-2
-------
ซ Alternative 8: Deep-Well Injection; and
Alternative 9: No Action.
The EIS also addresses the impacts of the collection system,
treatment, and disinfection alternatives.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Impacts of the alternative treatment plant sites can
generally be divided into effects on upland habitat and effects
on wetlands. The existing plant and Hawk Creek 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 contains a
small disturbed wetland which could be avoided. The Pasture 2
site may be expensive and difficult to develop (see Table S-l).
The significant impacts of the effluent disposal
alternatives, including growth-related impacts, are summarized in
Table S-2. All alternatives potentially will impact population
growth rates in the Neskowin area. Alternative 4 appears to
offer the least degree of significant adverse impact.
Alternative 2 appears to have suitable soils only for a limited
population; completion of the Phase 2 marine outfall could serve
the projected long-term population.
The impacts of selecting the No Action Alternative are
described in Table S-3. Potentially significant adverse impacts
would occur on 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
-------
Table S-1. Sumary of Significant Impacts Associated with Plant Siting Alternatives
Capable of
Mitigation to
Simpson Less Than
Impact Area Existing Site lutte Creek Hawk Creek South Highway Sutton Pasture TtRtoer Pasture 2 Significant Levels
Soils
Groundwater
Surface Water
Biological
Resources
(.and Use
Socioeconomics
Public Meatth
Historical and
Archaeological
Resources
Air Ouality,
Hoise, and
Traffic
None
None
None
Potential
ia^acts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
None
None
Impacts to
100-year
floodplain
Impacts to
wetlands
None
Potential
impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
Operation
could cause
odor problems
for nearby
residences
None
None
None
None
None
Potential
impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
None
None
None
None
Impacts to
wet lands
None
None
Potential
impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
None
None
None
Impacts to
100-year
floodplain
Impacts to
wetlands
None
Potential
impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
Possible
odor and noise
for nearby
residences
None
None
None
None
None
Potential
impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
None
None
None
None
Difficult
to develop
None
Potential
impacts to
subsurface
cultural
resources
Possible
odor and noise
for nearby
residences
n/a
n/a
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
Yes
No
-------
Table S-2. Siry of Significant l^wcta Associated vith Effluent Disposal Alternatives
l^MCt Arn
Spray Irrigation
Winter Discharge
to Neskowin Cr./
Suwwu Storage
(Alternative 1)
Winter Discharge
to Neskowin Cr./
Sumer Storage
(Alternative 2)
Winter Oischarge
to Neskowin Cr./
Subsurface Disposal
(Alternative 3)
Tear-Round
Discharge to
Neskowin Cr.
(Alternative 4)
Marine
Outfall
(Alternative 5)
Wetland
Disposal
(Alternative 6)
Spray
Application
(Alternative 7)
Deep-Well
Injection
(Alternative B>
Soils
None
Rone
Capacity
insufficient
Norte
None
Potential for
conversion of
prine agricultural
land
Same as
Alternative 3
None
Groundwater
Potential for
nitrate loading
None
Sane as
Alternative 1
None
None
Samie as
Alternative 1
Same as
Alternative 1
Possible
contamination
of aquifer
Surface Water
None
None
Potential for
increased nitrate
from groundwater
(iiaaer)
Sane as
Alternative 3;
degradation of
water quality in
Neskowin Creek
during the sunner
None
Sane as
Alternative 3
Sane as
Alternative 3
Hone
Biological
Resources
Potential for growth
and development
in wetlands
Same as
Alternative 1
Same as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternative 1;
decline in the
habitat quality
of Neskowin Creek
for aquatic biota
during sumer
months
None
Same as
Alternative 1;
potential alteration
of wetland species
Sane as
Alternative 1
Hone
Land Use
Phase 1, no i^oct;
Phase 2, potential
growth inducement;
requires amendment to
County Comprehensive
Land Use Plan
Phase 1, no iapect;
Phase 2, potential
growth Inducement
Sane as
Alternative 2
Phase 1, ***e as
Alternative 2; Phase
2, possible
moratorium
Sam* as
Alternative 2
Phase 1, same as
Alternative 2; Phase
2, additional
disposal land
required, possible
moratorium
Sane as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternative 1
Socioeconomics
Potential increase in
population leading to
increase in crime/
police protection,
other utility demand,
commercial development
Same as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternative t
Sane as
Alternative 1
Same as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternative I
Sane as
Alternative \
Public Health
None
Rone
None
Exposure to poorly
diluted effluent
None
None
None
None
Historic A
Archaeological
Resources
Potential ispects to
subsurface cultural
resources
Same as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternotive 1
Sane at
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternstive 1
Same as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternative 1
Air Duality,
Traffic ฃ Noise
Potential increase
in noise, traffic
Sane as
Alternative 1
Sane as
Alternative 1
None
None
None
Sane as
Alternative 1
None
-------
Table 8-3. Impacts of the Mo Action Alternative
Impact Category
Soils, Biological Resources,
Historical and Archeological
Resources, and Traffic, Noise,
and Air Quality
Groundwater
Surface Water
Land Use
Socioeconomics
Public Health
Impact
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 draft 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 to
evaluate the impacts of developing the Neskowin Regional Sanitary
Authority's (NRSA) wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal
system. 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 project.
BACKGROUND
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
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. The Neskowin Sanitary District was formed in 1971 to
regulate wastewater disposal.
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 formed. 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.
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
1-1
-------
Portland
Salem
Ejigcnc
ROOCaWa*
. -J ฆ- BEACH I
GARIBALDI
BAYCTTY
OTLLAMOOtJ
OCEAN
[HMLOOC
lWOOJSS
, Mr.
HEBO
\
pacific.
OTY
oretown
KOWIN
(j;
KEOTSO
incoln crry
f. < I
- - -V" -
m
? *- '
/iX'p0X; ฆ
rJpllt
| - '#4 "
Mtdford
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map
1-2
-------
area) the waste disposal systems occupy all available land area
and are without any additional land (HGE Inc. 1988). A small
package treatment plant is also present within the NRSA. This
plant is privately owned and serves a small development within
the NRSA.
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
The EIS is a "full disclosure" document and follows specific
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, (as set forth
in 40 CFR Part 5, 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.
This EIS has been prepared to evaluate the environmental
impacts of NRSA wastewater facilities development and to
encourage public participation in the planning process through
local meetings, workshops, and public hearings. It also provides
input to the facilities planning process.
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.
1-3
-------
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.
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;
ฆ impacts on dune aquifer;
impacts to floodplains and wetlands;
impacts on water quality of Neskowin, Hawk, and Meadow
Creeks; and
ฆ 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
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 issued for the outfall. 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).
1-4
-------
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 4.
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.
Endangered Species Act
The main purpose of the Endangered Species Act, as amended
(16 USC 1536 et seq.), 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
1-5
-------
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
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.
1-6
-------
Safe Drinking water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300f et seg.) reguires
EPA to set standards for drinking water guality 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 seg.) reguires
states to prepare plans to attain national ambient air guality
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 guality
planning in the Oregon coastal area is discussed in Chapter 3,
and the consistency of the Neskowin facilities plan with NAAQS
and the SIP is addressed in Chapter 4.
National Historic Preservation Act
Under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470 et
seg.), 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
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.
1-7
-------
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 LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES
QDEO Mjซ
-------
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
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 1) 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.
ฆ During periods of high stream flows (approximately
November l 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.
ฆ More stringent waste treatment and control requirements
can be imposed due to the existence of special
conditions.
1-9
-------
These standards, along with EPA standards, have been used as
the basis for wastewater treatment process design during
facilities planning.
Sewage Disposal in Pnderground 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 reguirements 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:
ฆ The top 4 feet of the soil horizon must be aerobic and
not subject to saturation.
ฆ 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.
ฆ The new groundwater rule requires an evaluation of
subsurface conditions and evidence of groundwater
protection through monitoring.
ฆ 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.
ฆ The field sizing is based on nitrate dosing rates.
l-io
-------
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.
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).
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.
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.
1-11
-------
CHAPTER 2
-------
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains a description of the alternatives
considered in the Neskowin wastewater facilities plans (Century
West Engineering 1981; HGE, Inc. 1988, 1990), and cost
evaluations based on those plans. In addition, descriptions and
discussions of alternatives developed subsequent to completion of
these plans are presented.
The 1981 and 1988 facilities plans discussed the primary
components of the wastewater disposal project and provided a
discussion of some of the available alternatives for collection,
treatment, treatment plant sites, disinfection, and methods of
sludge disposal. A phased approach to implementation of the
upgrading and expansion of the collection and treatment
facilities through the year 2006 was also presented. Effluent
disposal alternatives were discussed briefly in the 1988
facilities plan update.
The analysis provided in the 1981 wastewater facilities plan
resulted in the recommendation for 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 and presented an economic analysis of each
alternative. That analysis resulted in a recommendation that
would provide a septic tank effluent (STE) collection system, a
recirculating gravel filter treatment plant, and polishing
lagoons with effluent discharge to Neskowin Creek in the winter
months, and subsurface disposal in the summer.
Based on public opposition to creek discharge, the potential
for other treatment/disposal alternatives, and on the facilities
plan update review, EPA determined that additional effluent
disposal alternatives should be evaluated and incorporated into
this EIS. An addendum to the 1988 facilities plan was prepared
in August, 1990 (HGE, Inc.199). The 1990 addendum evaluated
upgrading the existing package plant and reevaluated the contact
stabilization/extended aeration treatment plant alternative.
This evaluation led to the recommendation to construct a new STE
collection system in the north and south core areas, upgrade the
existing gravity collection system now in use, and construct a
110,000 gallon per day (gpd) mechanical plant at the Simpson
Timber site. Further, it analyzed abandoning the existing
polishing lagoons and assessed summertime storage of treated
effluent and discharge to Neskowin Creek in the winter months.
In addition to alternatives developed in the facilities plans,
2-1
-------
this EIS evaluates wetland, spray application, and marine
effluent disposal alternatives.
The 20-year planning period is divided into two phases.
Phase l will provide service to the core area, the "Point," and
the western portion of Proposal Rock. Phase 1 will initially
serve a population of 1081 people and includes a plant with
capacity which minimally exceeds projected demand. (As indicated
below, the design population for the treatment plant will be
1339; however, the collection system for Phase 1 will serve only
1081.)
In order to equitably allocate the excess plant capacity and
to prevent concentrated growth, this excess capacity was
allocated to various locations within the district by NRSA
Ordinance 2-88 (see Appendix E). The ordinance supersedes the
geographical allocations specified in the 1988 facilities plan
update. The excess capacity will serve 100 equivalent dwelling
units (EDUs) or 258 people. Although the services were allocated
as part of the Phase 1 treatment plant expansion, many of the
homes to be served will only have access to hook-ups following
completion of the construction of Phase 2 collectors and
interceptors. EPA grant funding covers only the costs for
capacity to serve existing needs. The cost for providing reserve
capacity is not grant eligible. The reserve capacity cost ratio
is estimated to be 0.93.
In Phase 2, the facilities plan update calls for sewering in
the following neighborhoods: Viking Estates, Kiawanda Beach,
Neskowin Crest, Hawk Crest, Neskowin Heights and the remainder of
the Proposal Rock subdivision. As sewage flows to the treatment
plant approach the Phase 1 capacity, a Phase 2 plant expansion
would be necessary. The expansion would increase capacity to
meet projected demand through the 20-year planning period. Phase
2 sewers will serve an additional 1,634 people, including the
Phase 1 excess capacity allocation of 258 people, for a total
projected population of 2,715.
EPA and the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) are
considering funding requests from the NRSA to provide for design
and construction of Phase 1 sewering, treatment plant capacity
and effluent disposal. The EPA Construction Grant Program for
construction of wastewater facilities will not be available after
federal fiscal year 1990, ending September 1990 (Grant awards,
however, may be made as late as September 1991). After that
time, the NRSA and other entities in Oregon can apply to ODEQ for
low or no interest loans under a new Oregon State Revolving Loan
Fund, which will be taking the place of the EPA grant program.
The NRSA service area boundary is shown in Figure 2-1. The
area known as Neskowin North, located to the north of Kiawanda
Beach, is a recent development that incorporated the current
state standards for septic system design. The development
received County Sanitarian approval for its septic systems and as
a result, elected not to join in as part of the NRSA.
2-2
-------
\ \M
j
iri
VIKING ESTATES
L
KIAWANDA BEACH Xl= = J
1
1
1
1
1
Bj
^ NESKOWIN REGIONAL
SANITARY AUTHORITY
BOUNDARY
nl gm--*
NESKOWIN CREST
JsrW^
888WsJ!gr /
Miy 1 \
<^ffi \ >^ \JA
w i \ > ซmv\
p i \ \
J NESKOWIN HEIGHTS
Figure 2-1. NRSA Service Area
2-3
-------
Due to the potential long term population growth effects of
this project, and the 20-year planning period required for EPA
construction grant facilities, this document discusses potential
impacts associated with implementation of both Phase 1 and Phase
2. This EIS discusses the proposed options for collection,
treatment processes, treatment plant siting, sludge disposal,
disinfection and effluent disposal which were presented in the
1988 facilities plan update, those additional alternatives which
have evolved as part of the NEPA review process, and those which
were developed in the 1990 addendum.
COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES
Conventional gravity systems and septic tank effluent (STE)
systems were compared in both the 1981 and 1988 facilities plans.
Septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) systems were evaluated in the
1988 facilities plan, but were eliminated because of higher
costs. 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.
Installation of a new conventional gravity collection system
would consist of 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). For the STE system, excavation and installation of
approximately 342 new septic tanks, mainly in front or back
yards, will also be required. For the STEP system, smaller
pressure lines (3 to 4 inches in diameter) would be installed at
depths of 3 to 5 feet rather than the larger (minimum 8-inch-
diameter) gravity lines at depths of 8 to 12 feet. The STEP
system would also require installation of sewage pumps in the
septic tanks and the installation of electrical power panels at
each septic tank. The STEP system was eliminated from further
consideration due to higher costs.
The STE system would utilize gravity flow to transport the
wastewater from the residential septic tanks to one of several
pump stations. The interceptors would generally follow identical
routes for either the conventional gravity or STE system (Figure
2-3 and 2-4).
The pump stations and force mains would be constructed to
complement the gravity flow portion of the system. Ultimately
the wastewater will be pumped from the pump stations to the
headworks at the treatment facility.
Estimated costs for construction of the STE system and the
conventional gravity system were compared in the 1988 facilities
plan. Utilization of the existing conventional gravity system
for existing flows and construction of a new STE collection
system to transport new flows was recommended as the least-cost
collection alternative.
2-4
-------
NORTH CORE
AREA \
SOUTH CORE
AREA --
BREAKERS
BLVD
PROPOSAL
ROCK
NESKOWIN
HEIGHTS
NORTH
I =~
1000 FEET (approx)
TREATMENT
PLANT
COUNTY ROAD
LEGEND PRESSURE LINE
GRAVITY LINE
PUMP STATION
EFFLUENT IRRIGATION SITE
Figure 2-2. Existing Collection and Treatment Facilities
2-5
-------
NORTH CORE
AREA \
SOUTH CORE
AREA -
BREAKERS
BLVO
PROPOSAL
ROCK -
NESKOWIN
HEIGHTS
COUNTY ROAD
TREATMENT
PLANT
NORTH
I
1000 FEET (approx)
LEGEND -
- PRESSURE LINE
- GRAVITY LINE
PUMP STATION
Figure 2-3. Proposed Interceptors (Phase 1)
2-6
-------
I 1
\ my I
\ '
/ M i
/ \l\ 1 VIMNu to 1A1 to
Wnmn
KIAWANDA BEACH ) Jfti WV
i
i
i
i
i
1 US / i I
/ II 0 uutt ' *
1 US ffi
I/sum oTHmlll 1
r ? flKttzE/ll i
/ B /<^ 1 NESKOWIN crest
NORTH CORE /
AREA y (- j
i ^ j /// ซ#wwwj
\ / / / VV\/# M 1
W L-
E/7
PcpiL/ # o i
SOUTH CORE RCK' #
AREA ig-j]
i
i
j
i
i
J .-J: : J
BREAKERS ฆ 1 -ป..ป!>
blvd c T^mrW hawk i
nvfc^ti ฎ^lREEK ^j5"j
proposal//*
ROCK -AJ/ bWtT-^
EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
NESKOWfc^T ^^^H^?UNTYR0AD
HEIGHTS7 ~CSS /
\ 1 X \ปA.
J ^ i \ vav.
I
NORTH
i \ mT
1000 FEET (approx)
LEGEND
Future Development
Figure 2-4. Proposed Interceptors (Phase 2)
2-7
-------
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; however, a 15%
allowance for cost increases since 1988 has been added:
Conventional System = $756,860 x 1.15 = $870,389; and
. STE System = $689,260 x 1.15 = $792,649.
The STE collection system remains the least-cost collection
alternative. The 1990 facilities plan addendum recommended
continued use of the existing conventional gravity collection
system, with no installation of septic tanks, in combination with
an STE system for the proposed new Phase 1 hookups. This is the
preferred alternative for the collection system.
DESIGN FLOWS
The following table (Table 2-1) displays Phase 1 and Phase 2
flows in gallons per capita per day for the STE and gravity
collection systems. The flows were calculated based on the
assumption that there are 213 customers served by the existing
collection system with flows per capita per day not exceeding 12 0
gallons (this includes an estimate of 45 gallons per capita per
day for infiltration from the existing collectors). The flows
for the remainder of the population were calculated using 75
gallons per capita per day for the STE systems and 100 gallons
per capita per day for a conventional gravity system.
Table 2-1. Estimated Design Flows for the Proposed
Treatment and Disposal Facilities (in gpd)
STE Gravity
Phase 1 110,0001,s 138, OOO2-5
Population 1339
Phase 2 213,0003 241,3604
Population 2715
1213 ง 120 gpcd plus 1,126 @ 75 gpcd
2213 ง 120 gpcd plus 1,126 ง 100 gpcd
3213 @ 120 gpcd plus 2,502 @ 75 gpcd
4213 ง 120 gpcd plus 1,126 @ 100 gpcd and 1,376 ง 75 gpcd
5 Includes noneligible reserve capacity for 258 people (allocation
per NRSA Ordinance 2-88). A reserve capacity cost ratio
estimated at 0.93 has been applied in determining the EPA share.
2-8
-------
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
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
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.
Five alternative biological treatment processes were
evaluated in the 1988 facilities plan update:
Extended aeration (package plant);
Extended aeration (oxidation ditch);
Contact stabilization;
Aerated lagoon; and
ฆ Recirculating gravel filter.
A recirculating gravel filter was identified as the
recommended treatment alternative. Upgrading the existing plant
(which ODEQ has indicated is at the end of its service life)
appeared to be a viable alternative and was further evaluated in
the 1990 addendum.
The 1990 addendum evaluated the following four biological
treatment processes in detail:
ฆ 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);
ฆ Recirculating gravel filter (110,000 gpd); and
Contact stabilization/extended aeration mechanical plant
(110,000 gpd).
Other alternatives were evaluated but were eliminated in the
preliminary screening process. The alternative recommended by
2-9
-------
the 1990 addendum was to abandon the existing treatment plant and
construct a contact stabilization/extended aeration mechanical
plant. Expansion of the contact stabilization/extended aeration
mechanical plant would occur during Phase 2 to accommodate
additional flows.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
When a STE or STEP 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 typically pumped from
septic tanks and 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, discharges into many septic systems
occur only during a period of six to eight months every year.
Septic tanks are expected to be pumped every five to seven years.
If the 1990 facilities plan recommended alternatives for
collection and treatment were constructed, sludge generated would
be in the form of septage from the septic tanks and aerobically
digested sludge from the mechanical treatment plant. This sludge
will be pumped on a biannual basis and can be handled in a manner
similar to septage.
Currently, two companies provide septic tank pump-out
service. 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 should consider entering into a contract
through a competitive bidding process for the routine pumping and
removal of both septage and sludge generated at the sewage
treatment plant. In order to reduce the volume of septage to be
disposed, the NRSA may wish to consider adding septage treatment
facilities at the sewage treatment plant.
Economic evaluations conducted during the preparation of the
facilities plan update assumed sludge disposal by transportation
to the Tillamook County landfill for the purposes of developing
cost estimates. Since completion of the facilities plan, the
landfill has closed. Disposal of septage will be allowed only at
ODEQ approved disposal sites.
DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES
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.
2-10
-------
The advantages to using UV are primarily related to the
effluent constituents. UV disinfection results in effluent that
meets state and federal standards with no residual chlorine
discharged to the receiving waters. However, the systems which
are available require considerable maintenance for cleaning and
changing bulbs, monitoring the effluent, and determining the
degree of pathogen destruction. These systems usually require a
back-up system which would not qualify for EPA grant funding
because it is EPA policy not to fund two disinfection systems for
the same plant. In the event of failure of the UV system, NRSA
must be capable of providing the secondary disinfection system;
responsibility for financing this secondary system will be
NRSAs.
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
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 have
been proven to be toxic to aquatic organisms. Dechlorination
prior to discharge to Neskowin Creek would be required and would
reduce or eliminate these impacts. For further discussion of
these impacts and methods to minimize them, see Chapter 4.
Various processes are used for the dechlorination of
wastewater. However, the addition of dechlorination to the
wastewater treatment system increases the capital cost of the
system and requires additional operation and maintenance.
TREATMENT PLANT AND EFFLUENT STORAGE SITE ALTERNATIVES
Five alternative treatment plant sites were presented in the
1988 facilities plan update (HGE, Inc. 1988). Two additional
sites, the Simpson Timber site and the Pasture 2 site, were
evaluated in the 1990 addendum. In addition, the Simpson Timber
site and the Pasture 2 site were evaluated as alternatives for
construction of a summer storage lagoon for treated effluent.
The location of these sites is presented in Figure 2-5.
EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT
Two limited capacity storage ponds, a package treatment
facility, and small buildings are located at the existing
treatment plant site. If the existing treatment plant were
operated in conjunction with an aerated lagoon, acquisition of
both the Simpson Timber and Pasture 2 sites would be necessary to
accommodate the treatment plant lagoon and storage lagoon. If
the existing treatment plant were operated in conjunction with a
recirculating gravel filter, it would be necessary to acquire
2-11
-------
South
Highway
Site
Pasture 2
Site
Butte
Creek
Site
Hawk
Hawk Creek
Existing Wastewater
Treatment Plant Site
Simpson
Timber
Site
Sutton
Pasture Site
1,800
NORTH
0
FEET
Figure 2-5. Alternative Treatment Plant Sites
2-12
-------
only the Simpson Timber site to accommodate the recirculating
gravel filter and storage lagoon.
BUTTE CREEK
This site is adjacent to the Neskowin Crest residential
area, west of Highway 101. The land is undeveloped. Of the 7
acres available, approximately 4 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
This 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
from further consideration due to high construction costs (HGE,
Inc. 1990)
SOUTH HIGHWAY
This site is located on the north and east 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
wetland classification.
SUTTON PASTURE
The 1981 facilities plan designated this site as a potential
alternative, 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 wetland and the underlying
soil which is a blue clay which would require pile supported
facilities, thereby significantly increasing construction costs.
SIMPSON TIMBER
The 1990 addendum designated this site for use both as a
potential treatment plant site and an effluent storage site.
This site lies to the east of Slab Creek Road. It is estimated
that 10 acres are capable of being developed.
PASTURE 2
The 1990 addendum evaluated the Pasture 2 site for use as a
treatment site and a storage site. The site was eliminated from
consideration as a Phase 1 treatment site due to high costs. Use
2-13
-------
of the site remained an option for Phase 2 treatment, but was
eliminated from consideration for summer storage of Phase 1
effluent due to high cost. This site consists of 38 acres;
however, only the 15 acres that lie west of Neskowin Creek and
east of Highway 101 are capable of being developed. The site is
long and narrow and development would be difficult. In addition,
the property was recently sold for $100,000 and, thus, may be
expensive to acquire.
EFFLUENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Disposal techniques evaluated in this EIS include:
Alternative 1: Existing Spray Irrigation System and
Holding Ponds, Construct Additional Summer Storage
Lagoon; Winter Discharge to Neskowin Creek;
Alternative 2: Summer Storage Lagoon; Winter Discharge
to Neskowin Creek;
Alternative 3: Summer subsurface disposal; winter
discharge to Neskowin Creek;
Alternative
4:
Year-Round Discharge to Neskowin Creek;
Alternative
5:
Marine Outfall;
Alternative
6:
Altered Wetland Disposal;
Alternative
7:
Spray Application;
Alternative
8:
Deep-Well Injection; and
Alternative
9:
No Action.
Potential site locations for each fully evaluated
alternative are shown in Figure 2-6.
ALTERNATIVE 1: EXISTING SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND HOLDING
PONDS, CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL SUMMER STORAGE LAGOON; WINTER
DISCHARGE TO NESKOWIN CREEK
Alternative 1 would utilize the existing spray irrigation
system and limited capacity holding ponds at the existing
treatment plant site. In addition, a summer storage lagoon would
be constructed at the Simpson Timber site. If a combination of
the existing treatment plant and aerated lagoon were chosen as
the treatment alternative, all of the 10 available acres would be
required to accommodate the treatment lagoon and storage lagoon.
If a combination of the existing treatment plant and
recirculating gravel filter were chosen as the treatment
alternative, a total of 8 out of the available 10 acres would be
needed. Alternative 1 would be chosen only if continued
operation of the existing treatment plant was part of the
selected alternative.
2-14
-------
tea*
SOUTH BEACK
MARINE OUTF,
Hawk Creek
HEADLAND
MARINE
OUTFALL
lii
ฃ RIEDESEL'S PASTURE
SITE
Subsurface Disposal
Artificial Wetland
Spray Application
South
Subsurlace Disposal
NORTH NESKOWIN
SITE
Subsurlace Disposal
Artificial Wetland
Spray Application
BREAKERS BOULEVARD
Subsurlace Disposal
Existing Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Existing
Neskowin Creek
Discharge
.Sutton
Pasture
Subsurlace Disposal
NESKOWIN VALLEY - PASTURES 1 & 2
\ DISPOSAL SITE
Subsurface Disposal Simpson
^pray Application / Timber Site
Summer Storage
NORTH
FEET
Figure 2-6. Alternative Effluent Disposal Sites
2-15
-------
Alternative 1 would provide for spray irrigation or storage
of all effluent between May 15 and October 31 with discharge of
stored and winter effluent to Neskowin Creek between November 1
and May 14. Discharge to Neskowin Creek would occur through a
new outfall located upstream of the storage lagoon at
approximately river mile 3.5. 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 BOD5
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.
ALTERNATIVE 2: SUMMER STORAGE LAGOON; WINTER DISCHARGE TO
NESKOWIN CREEK
Alternative 2 would provide for storage of all effluent
between May 15 and October 31 with discharge of stored and winter
effluent into Neskowin Creek between November 1 and May 14.
Storage would be accomplished at the Simpson Timber site.
Treated disinfected effluent would be discharged as in
Alternative 1, above.
Without use of the holding ponds and spray irrigation system
at the existing treatment facility, the summer holding facilities
for Phase 1 flows from the 110,000 gpd treatment plant would
require a minimum capacity of 16.8 million gallons. Assuming a
6.5-foot water depth, a 7.4-acre water surface area would be
required. Allowing for dikes and access roads, the storage
facilities will require approximately 8.5 of the available 10
acres. Approximately 1.5 acres would remain available at this
site to accommodate either the recirculating gravel filter or the
contact stabilization/extended aeration treatment plant.
ALTERNATIVE 3: SUMMER SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL; WINTER DISCHARGE TO
NESKOWIN CREEK
Alternative 3 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.
ALTERNATIVE 4: YEAR-ROUND DISCHARGE TO NESKOWIN CREEK
Alternative 4 would consist of year-round discharge to
Neskowin Creek. 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
2-16
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVE 5: MARINE OUTFALL
Since some communities along the Oregon Coast use ocean
outfalls, EPA concluded that the previous facilities plans did
not include sufficient data to eliminate marine outfall
alternatives. Ocean disposal would provide a year-round disposal
alternative which would meet existing standards for wastewater
treatment plant effluent. Therefore, additional analysis is
provided in this EIS to review two possible locations for a
marine outfall (Figure 2-6).
ฆ The South Beach outfall 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.
The headland outfall would also extend from the treatment
plant along existing roadway easements to a point south
of Proposal Rock and would then follow the base of the
bluff to the south of Proposal Rock to the sea stack at
the north end of Cascade Head. The outfall would be
buried through the surf zone approximately 1,500 feet and
would discharge the effluent at a water depth of
approximately 15 feet.
The slope of the beach in the surf zone is approximately 1
foot per 1,000 feet. Beyond the 2.5 fathom line (13 feet), the
slope steepens to approximately 1.5 feet per 1,000 feet.
Available oceanographic information for the Oregon Coast
indicates significant winter beach erosion in the surf zone.
During the winter, large waves caused by the winter storms cause
the beach to erode and the bottom sediments are transported off-
shore. During the summer months, smaller summer waves move the
sediments back towards the beach. This process creates a trough
close to the beach and a sand bar offshore of the trough during
the winter. The depth of the trough can be as deep as 30 feet
and the width as wide as 1,000 feet. During the summer, the
onshore movement of sediments fills the trough.
2-17
-------
The South Beach outfall alternative could be constructed
using conventional beach outfall construction techniques. The
pipeline would be installed using a braced sheet pile lined
trench through the surf zone. The sheet piling would be used to
construct a temporary dock which would be used as the staging
area for the offshore section of the outfall pipeline. The
offshore section would be constructed using underwater open
trench dredging techniques. The estimated cost of this outfall
alternative is $4.5 million.
The basis 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
this location. For this reason, the headland outfall alternative
was discarded without further analysis.
ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTERED WETLAND DISPOSAL
Wetlands were identified during a preliminary site visit and
estimates of their size made at that time. Complete wetland
delineation, using methodology recommended in the new Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands
(January 1989), will be completed for the proposed treatment
plant and effluent disposal sites prior to publication of the
Final EIS. Findings impacting project feasibility will be
submitted for public review in an addendum to the Draft EIS.
Wetland disposal alternatives were dismissed from further
investigation in the facilities plans due to time and fiscal
constraints. Additional analysis is presented in this EIS to
review wetland disposal alternatives and their potential effects
on the environment. Use of existing wetlands is limited to
polishing secondary effluent because water quality standards roust
be met near the point of discharge to the wetland (EPA 1987).
Two sites were investigated for the creation of altered
wetland disposal areas (Figure 2-6). The first site is located
near the Viking Estates Mobile Home Park in North Neskowin in an
existing disturbed wetland. The altered wetland would be sited
upslope from the Neskowin Crest Wetland, across Highway 101 from
Viking Estates. 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
altered wetland and drain into the large Neskowin Crest Wetland.
2-18
-------
The second site considered was Riedesel's Pasture, a portion
of which is disturbed wetland. This site was also proposed for
subsurface disposal in Phase 1 of Alternative 3. Tertiary
effluent from this altered wetland would be discharged to
Neskowin Creek.
Effluent can carry nitrogen compounds which can accelerate
algal growth in the receiving water. Some nutrients would be
removed by periodic harvesting of the wetland vegetation.
Drainage into adjacent wetlands can result in alteration of
vegetation in the wetland. Altering the vegetation of the
wetland could have a significant impact on existing functions and
values of the wetland. Any such impact is strongly discouraged
by ODEQ.
ALTERNATIVE 7: SPRAY APPLICATION
Disposal of effluent using this alternative was considered
under two different scenarios: 1) year-round spray irrigation of
treated effluent onto acceptable plots of ground, and 2)
discharge of effluent into Neskowin Creek during the winter
months with spray irrigation of treated effluent to be used
during the summer months. In addition, a spray irrigation
component was considered as part of Alternative 1.
Each of these alternatives require adequately drained soils
in sufficient quantities to ensure percolation and removal of
nutrients. As indicated elsewhere in chapter 2 and in Chapter 3,
the soils of the Neskowin area, specifically those sites
investigated as potential disposal sites are poorly drained with
evidence of high permanent water tables. Scenario 1 was dropped
because of the high water tables during the winter months which
would preclude sufficient percolation and soil treatment.
Scenario 1 could also result in surface runoff of effluent into
adjacent waters. Scenario 2 would require screening, buffers,
and fencing; the amount of land remaining for spray irrigation
would be insufficient for spray irrigation disposal with the
exception of the existing system, which handles only a small
portion of the flow.
ALTERNATIVE 8: DEEP-WELL INJECTION
This alternative would utilize deep-well injection to
dispose of the treated wastewater effluent. Deep-water injection
of the treated effluent was not considered in the previous
facilities plans. Typically, in coastal aquifers, the fresh
water aquifer is 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,
2-19
-------
particularly in areas close to an aquifer capable of, or
currently providing, a public water supply.
ALTERNATIVE 9: MO ACTION
Under this alternative, the NRSA would take no further
action to upgrade the existing wastewater collection, treatment
and disposal system that is currently serving the area. Public
health hazards resulting from failed systems would remain
uncorrected.
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
The 1988 facilities plan update (HGE, Inc. 1988) identified
32 sewerage systems options which were evaluated by an initial
screening process. Of the 32 options identified, 5 were selected
for further analysis. Four of the five options evaluated in
detail by the facilities plan included relocating the sewage
treatment plant to the Sutton Pasture site and only one option
was evaluated using the existing treatment plant site. This EIS
evaluates five optional sewerage systems, three of which utilize
the existing treatment plant site. Two alternatives are
evaluated which require abandoning the existing treatment
facility. As noted above, soil conditions at other potential
treatment plant sites precluded further consideration of these
sites.
The development options evaluated in this EIS all
incorporate use of the existing conventional gravity system with
construction of a new STE collection system to accommodate new
flows. Effluent disposal Alternative 1 (use of the existing
spray irrigation system and holding ponds with construction of a
summer storage lagoon and winter discharge of treated effluent to
Neskowin Creek), is incorporated only for options evaluating use
of the existing treatment plant (development options 1 and 2).
Effluent disposal Alternative 2 (construction of a summer storage
lagoon and winter discharge of treated effluent to Neskowin
Creek) has been incorporated in all other development options.
Both Alternatives 1 and 2 are incorporated only for Phase 1
effluent disposal. Effluent disposal Alternative 4 (construction
of a marine outfall) has been identified and evaluated in all
development options for implementation during Phase 2. The
development options evaluated in this EIS are:
Option 1: Phase 1: Sewage would be collected using the existing
conventional gravity collection system combined with a
new STE collection system. Sewage would be pumped to
both the existing sewage treatment plant site for
treatment at the existing facility (50,000 gpd) and to
the Simpson Timber site for treatment in an aerated
lagoon (60,000 gpd). During the summer, treated
effluent from the existing treatment plant would be
disposed of or held by a combination of spray
irrigation at the existing facilities, or stored in
existing limited capacity storage lagoons. In
2-20
-------
addition, effluent would be pumped to the Simpson
Timber site for summer storage in a holding lagoon.
Treated effluent from the new treatment lagoon on the
Simpson Timber site would be held during the summer in
the holding lagoon on the site. During winter, the
stored, treated effluent together with additional
winter effluent would be polished using a sand filter
and discharged to Neskowin Creek.
Phase 2: Additional STE collection systems would be
installed to collect Phase 2 effluent. The existing
mechanical treatment plant, limited capacity storage
lagoons, and spray irrigation system would be
abandoned and the Phase 1 aerated lagoon located on
the Simpson Timber site would be expanded to 213,000
gpd capacity by converting the Phase 1 storage lagoon
to a treatment lagoon. Since no additional land would
be available at the Simpson Timber site, the Pasture 2
site would be acquired to provide the additional 8
acres needed for the expansion of the treatment
lagoon. As previously noted, acquisition of the
Pasture 2 site may be prohibitively expensive.
Effluent would be discharged year round to an ocean
outfall.
Option 2: Phase 1: Sewage would be collected, treated, and
disposed of as in Option 1 with the exception that a
recirculating gravel filter (60,000 gpd capacity)
would be used for treatment in place of the aerated
lagoon.
Phase 2: Collection would be accomplished as in
Option 1. The existing treatment plant and disposal
facilities would be abandoned as in Option 1. The
recirculating gravel filter would be expanded to a
capacity of 213,000 gpd. The storage lagoons would be
abandoned and effluent disposal would be as in Option
1, to a marine outfall.
Option 3: Phase 1: The collection system would be as in Option
1. The existing treatment and disposal facilities
would be abandoned and a recirculating gravel filter
(110,000 gpd capacity) would be constructed at the
Simpson Timber site. Effluent would be stored in the
on-site lagoon during the summer and discharged to the
creek in the winter as in Option 1.
Phase 2: Collection would be accomplished as in
Option 1. The recirculating gravel filter at the
Simpson Timber site would be expanded to 213,000 gpd
capacity, and the storage lagoons would be eliminated
as in Option 2. Effluent disposal would be by ocean
outfall.
2-21
-------
Option 4: Phase 1: The collection system would be as in Option
1. The existing treatment and disposal facilities
would be abandoned and a 110,000 gpd contact
stabilization/extended aeration mechanical plant would
be constructed at the existing treatment plant site.
Treated effluent would be pumped to a holding lagoon
at the Simpson Timber site, held during the summer and
discharged to Neskowin Creek in the winter as in
Option 1.
Phase 2: The collection system would be constructed
as in Option 1. The contact stabilization/extended
aeration mechanical plant would be expanded at the
existing site to 213,000 gpd capacity, and the storage
lagoons would be eliminated as in Option 2. Effluent
disposal would be by ocean outfall.
Option 5: This option is identical to Option 4 with the
exception that the contact stabilization/extended
aeration mechanical plant would be constructed at the
Simpson Timber site.
COST ESTIMATES
Cost estimates for the development options are presented in
Table 2-2. To the extent possible the cost estimates have been
developed using the costs presented in the facilities plan update
(HGE, Inc. 1990). Detailed cost estimates for the preferred
alternative are presented in Table 2-3.
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
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.
2-22
-------
Table 2-2. Neskouin Sewer Systea Capital Cost Estinates (Phase 1 and 2)1
STE with
Aerated Lagoon
(Option 1>
STE with
Recirculating Filter
Existing Site
(Option 2)
STE with
Recirculating Filter
Si laps on Timber Site
(Option 3)
STE with
Mechanical Plant
Existing Site
(Option 4)
STE with
Mechanical Plant
Simpson Timber Site
(Option 5)
Estimated Phase 1 Cost:
S 3,582,500
t 3,265,3402
t 3,433,7003
t 3,927,123
% 3,333,500
Estimated Phase 2 Cost:
% 10,401,300
t 10,388,300
1 9,965,800
* 9,380,000
* 9,374,300
Estimated Project Cost:
S 13,983,600
$ 13,653,640
t 13,399,500
$ 13,307,123
$ 12,707,800
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
1 Refer to HGE, Inc. 1990 for detailed breakdown of Phase 1 and Phase 2 capital costs.
2 60,000 spd gravel filter plant at Siapson Timber Site.
3 110,000 gpd gravel filter plant at Simpson Timber Site.
-------
Table 2-3. Construction Costs for 110,000 gpd Mechanical Plant,
Slips on Tinber Site (Preferred Alternative 5)
Item Cost
Phase 1
New Treatment Plant:
Site Acquisition $ 21,300
New Mechanical Plant 866,000
Power to Site 1,000
New Pump Station 38,000
New 6" Pressure Line, Punp Station to Plant (9,900 If) 148,500
Upgrade Existing Collection System 88,500
New STE Collection System; North/South Core Area 636.000
Phase 2
$ 1,799,300
Summer Holding Lagoon:
Holding Lagoon $ 555,000
Effluent Polishing Filter 45,000
Flow Measuring Facilities 15,000
U.V. Disinfection Unit 50,000
Outfall Line to Neskowin Creek 5,000
Groundwater Monitoring Wells and Testing 75,000
Fencing and Site Improvements 20.000
S 765,000
Engineering, Legal, Administration and Contingencies (3 305!) 769.200
Project Cost - Phase 1: S 3,333,500
Expansion Plant to a * 213,000 gpd $ 525,000
Expand U.V. Disinfection Facility 95,000
New STE Collection System for Remainder of Service Area 2,091,000
Ocean Outfall (includes pump station and pressure line) 4.500.000
Subtotal - Construction Costs $ 7,211,000
Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Contingencies (3 30X) 2.163.300
Project Cost - Phase 2: t 9,374,300
Total Project Cost - Phase 1 and 2:
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
2-24
-------
ฆ Present worth costs for the construction of additional
facilities at a later stage of the project but within the
20-year planning period.
Remaining value of improvements or the value of
facilities and equipment at the end of the planning
period (2 0 years).
A present worth analysis of the alternative wastewater
facilities development options was presented in the wastewater
facilities plan addendum (HGE, Inc. 1990)-
Table 2-4 presents the basic assumptions used in determining
the present worth of the options described above.
Table 2-4. Present Worth Analysis Assumptions
Planning Period
20 years
Service Life
Treatment Plants/Pump Stations
Pipelines/Collection Systems
Recirculating Gravel Filters
Ocean Outfalls
Interest Rate (annual percent)
Cost Basis (ENR Construction Cost Index)
Allowance for Administration, Engineering,
Legal, and Contingencies
20
years
50
years
20
years
50
years
8.875
%
4,735
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.
The present worth analysis presented in the facilities plan
update addendum (HGE, Inc. 1990) indicated that utilization of
the existing gravity collection system with construction of an
STE collection system in the north and south core areas,
abandonment of the existing plant, construction of a 110,000 gpd
contact stabilization/extended aeration mechanical plant on the
Simpson Timber site, and effluent disposal to Neskowin Creek in
the winter with lagoon storage during the summer was the most
cost-effective development option.
2-25
-------
The present worth analysis prepared for this EIS is
summarized in Table 2-5. The development option with the lowest
present worth is Option 5, the option recommended by the
facilities plan addendum.
USER COSTS
Costs to the individual Neskowin sewer customers have been
calculated for the least cost development alternative (Option 5,
construction of a 110,000 gpd mechanical plant on the Simpson
Timber site) using the rate assumptions presented in the 1988
HGE, Inc. facilities plan and the 1990 HGE addendum. The
estimated user costs associated with this option is $25.85 per
month (Table 2-6). This analysis assumes implementation of Phase
1 only.
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
2-7). Conventional systems (e.g., ocean outfall, chlorination)
would only gualify 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.
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, 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 1, with 80 percent paid
by the portion of the NRSA included in Phase I. All costs for
operation and maintenance will be borne by Phase I 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
2-26
-------
Table 2-5. Present Worth Comparison Suanary of Collection, Treatment,
and Disposal Alternatives (All Costs in $1,000)
Development Alternative
Operation & Salvage
Capital Costs + Maint. (20 Yrs) Value
Total
Option 1: STE with Aerated Lagoon
Option 2: STE ulth Recirculating
Filter (existing site)
Option 3: STE with Recirculating
Filter (Simpson Timber site)
Option 4: STE uith Mechanical Plant
(existing site)
Option 5: STE with Mechanical Plant
(Simpson Timber site)
$8,148
S7.825
$7,808
$8,045
$7,426
$342
$398
$361
$388
$382
$1,748
$1,693
$1,778
$1,546
$1,541
$6,742
$6,530
$6,391
$6,887
$6,267
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
2-27
-------
Table 2-6. User Fee Analysis (assumes
Phase l implementation only)
Project Funding - Total Estimate Cost
EPA Grant
G.O. Bond Issue
Revenue Bond Issue
FmHA Grant
HUD Grant
$4,015,951
1.979.210
800,000
452,741
475.000
$ 309,000
Annual Costs
(1) Bond Payment to Tax Base
Bond Payment to Phase I Users
0 & M
Total Annual Cost
$ 26,000/yr
64,950/yr
40.700/vr
$ 131,650/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
(0 & M)
(1)
Total Monthly Charge
Bond Payment = 1,252,741 @ 6% + 30 years
$
$
5.10/mo
12.7 5/mo
8.00/mo
25.85/mo
90,950/yr
Source: HGE, Inc. 1990
2-28
-------
Table 2-7. Eligibility for EPA Grant Participation
by System Component
Component EPA Eligible1
Treatment Plant2
Sewage Treatment Plant Site 0%
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.
2-29
-------
of septage. Phase I 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 alternative;
however, other viable alternatives 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.
2-30
-------
CHAPTER 3
-------
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. Hind 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 North Neskowin site are identified by SCS
as Winema series. The Wineroa series is described as moderately
deep, poorly drained soils formed in material weathered from
shale. The Winema series soils at the North Neskowin site are
identified as being on a 12 to 20 percent slope. They provide
poor treatment for STAF due to depth to rock, slow percolation,
and slope.
The soil at Riedesel's Pasture, located near the western end
of the Neskowin Creek Valley, is identified by SCS as Nehalem
series. The Nehalem series consists of well to moderately
drained soils formed in recent alluvium with slopes typically 0
to 3 percent. The Nehalem series soils provide poor treatment
for STAF due to flooding.
The soils at the Neskowin Valley site, Pasture 1, are
identified by SCS as Nehalem series, described above. The soils
at the Neskowin Valley disposal site, Pasture 2 are identified as
Nehalem series, Knappa series and Gauldy series. The Knappa
series soils at the Pasture 2 site are identified as having a 0
to 7 percent slope, and are described as well-drained soils
formed in alluvium on terraces. They provide poor treatment for
STAF due to slow percolation. The Gauldy series in the Pasture 2
site are located on a 0 to 7 percent slope, and consists of deep,
somewhat excessively drained soils formed in mixed alluvium on
floodplains. These Gauldy series soils provide poor treatment
for STAF due to flooding and poor filtration.
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.
3-3
-------
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
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
3-4
-------
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 wet cool winters and relatively
moist 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 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 Creak
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.
3-5
-------
Hawk Creek
NORTH
1,800
Figure 3-1. Streams in the NRSA Service Area
3-6
-------
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.
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).
BwK
-------
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.
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.
3-8
-------
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 1 proposed development
are located in the Proposal Rock subdivision. 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.
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.
Htfftpry
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
3-9
-------
KEY TO MAP
500-Year Rood Boundary
100-Year Rood Boundary
Zone Designations
100-Year Rood Boundary
500-Year Rood Boundary
Bate Rood EJevati online
with Elevation in Feet**
Baae Rood Elevation in Feet
Where Uniform within Zone**
Elevation Reference Mark
River Mile ซMli
~Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
EXPLANATION OF ZONE DESIGNATIONS
ZONE
A*
ZONE B
ZONE
ZONE
ZONEB
(EL 9*7)
AO
AH
A1A30
A99
C
D
Vป
V1.V30
EXPLANATION
Areas of 100- Year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factor? nx determined
Areas of 100-year shallow flooding where depths
are between one (1) and three (3) feet, average depths
of inundation are shown, but no flood hazard factors
arc determined.
Areas of 100-ucar shalow flooding where depths
re between one (1) and three (3) feet; base flood
elevitions ire shown, but no flood hazard factors
ire determined.
Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors determined.
Areas of 100-year flood to be protected by flood
protection system under construction; base flood
elevations and flood hazard factors not determined.
Areas betwoen limits of the 100-year flood and 500-
year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year flood-
ing with average depths leas than one (1) foot or where
the contributing drainage area is less than one square
mOe, or areas protected by levees from the baac flood.
(Medium shading)
Areas of minimal flooding. (No shading)
Areas of undetermined, but possible, flood hazards.
Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base hood elevations and flood hazard factors
not determined.
Areas of 100-year coastal flood with velocity (wave
action); base flood elevations and flood hazard factors
determined.
* Refer to Tillamook Couray Rood Hazard Overlay which consists of
ZonesA&V.
Certain areas not it the special flood hazard areas (zone A and V)
may be protected by flood control structures.
This map ia for insurance purposes only; it does not nccces-
sarily show all areas subject to flooding in the community or
all planimctric features outside special flood hazard areas.
ZONEAO
(DEPTH 1')
ZONE C
ZONE C
ZONEB
ZONEB
ZONE AO
(DEPTH 1')
ZONE C
ZONE
ZONEB
ZONEB
ZONE C
ZONEB
ZONEAO
(DEPTH 1)
ZONE C
ZONEB
ZONEAO
(DEPTH 1')
ZONE C
ZONE AO
(DEPTH 1)
ZONE Vll
(EL 16)
ZONEB
ZONE AO
(DEPTH 1')
ZONKC
ZONE VI#
(ELI
ZONEAO
(DEPTH 1')
ZONE
C
ZONEB
ZONE C
ZONE V10
(EL 16)
ZONE
ZONE
13
ZONE C
ZONEB
ZONE C
ZONEC
ZONEB
IzoneaqB
(DEPTH ll
ZONE VI*
(EL 1*)
ZONEAO
(DEPTH O
ZONE V14
2
ZONE B
ZONE C
ZONE AS
(EL 13)
ZONEB
ZONE VU
|(EL 16)1
ZONEB
ZONE B
ZONE AO
ZONE VI*
(EL If)
(DEPTH 1
ZONEB
ZONEB
ZONE C
ZONEAO
(DEPTH 1')
/ZONEB
ZONE C
ZONE
ZONEAO
(EL 16)
Figure 3-2. Floodplains in the Neskowin Area
3-10
-------
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.
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 Colifonn 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 colifonn 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). FCsFS 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
3-11
-------
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 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).
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
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
3-12
-------
Table 3-1. Water Quality Surveys Conducted
in the Neskowin Creek System1
Date Agency Parameters Analyzed
Fecal
Total Fecal Strepto-
Coliform Coliform cocci
22
March 1978
DEQ
X
X
06
September 1978
DEQ
X
X
16
October 1978
DEQ
X
X
22
August 1980
CWE
X
X
15
September 1980
CWE
X
20
August 1984
TCHD
X
X
26
September 1984
OSHD
X
X
X
24
October 1984
OSHD
X
X
X
06
August 1985
DEQ
X
X
X
19
August 1985
DEQ
X
X
X
DEQ - Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
CWE - Century West Engineering
TCHD - Tillamook County Health Department
OSHD - Oregon State Health Division
1 Refer to Appendix D for historical water quality data.
3-13
-------
MEAN OF REPLICATE SAMPLES: CASES N WHICH ONE
OF THE REPLICATES WAS BELOW DETECTABLE LEVELS
ARE INDICATED AS X/ND.
z
Q
R
o
8
O
-
ฃ
DC
0c
>-
>-
-J
&
&
i
Q_
I
uj
m
A
FC
78
36
21
30'
2
U
FS
24
68
652
48'
11
A
FC
52
21
42
>1000
272
V
FS
56
252
1085
54
106
A
FC
NC
ND
116
404
1001'
U
FS
NC
ND
84
121
114*
A
FC
NC
4.5'
86
165
471
U
FS
NC
4/ND*
14
130
46
CI
FC
NC
ND
171'
41
49
FS
NC
ND
45
17
24
A
FC
1
ND
201
40
80
U
FS
ND
ND
38
5
13
A
FC
3.5*
ND
28
956
48
FS
4/ND'
ND
10
12
26
NORTH
FEET
FC Fecal Colitorm Colonies per 100 Mis
FS Fecal Streptococcus Colonies per 100 Mis
NC Not Collected
NO Not Detectable at 1 Colony per 100 Mis
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
-------
Hawk Creek
Figure 3-4. The Ratio of Fecal Conforms to Fecal Streptococcus Colonies Found in Waters
Sampled In the Vicinity of Neskowln, Oregon Between March and September, 1989
3-15
-------
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.
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.
3-16
-------
Dissolved Oxvaen
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. B0D5 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
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 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.
3-17
-------
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.
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
3-18
-------
K1AWANDA BEACH
NORTH CORE
AREA v
SOUTH CORE
AREA
PROPOSAI
ROCK |k
NESKO1
HEIGHT
SUTTON PASTURE
SITE
VIKING ESTATES
NESKOWIN CREST
WETLAND
\ NESKOWIN REGIONAL
SANITARY AUTHORITY
BOUNDARY
NESKOWIN CREST
BUTTE CREEK
WETLAND SITE
HAWK
CREEK
SITE
HAWK
PREEK
WETLAND POND
SITE
COUNTY ROAD
SOUTH HIGHWAY SITE
PASTURE WETLAND
ITE
NORTH
1000 FEET (approx)
Figure 3-5. Wetland Locations in the Neskowin Vicinity
3-19
-------
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, hardhack, 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.
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. Well-developed remnant stands are present,
however, in scattered locations.
3-20
-------
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.
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
3-21
-------
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
tshawvtscha), coho (0. kisutch), and chum salmon (0. keta),
winter-run steelhead trout (Oncorhvnchus mvkis. formally Salmo
gairdneri), and resident and sea-run cutthroat trout (Salmo
clarki) 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. It has not been established if
suitable spawning habitat is available or if salmon are spawning
in Neskowin Creek below the treatment plant discharge. However,
no fish have been reported to be spawning below the treatment
plant outfall. If suitable gravel is available, it is likely
that chum and some chinook salmon would spawn in the lower
reaches of the creek. The life histories of these Neskowin Creek
salmon stocks are thought to be similar to other mid-coastal
stocks.
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.
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
3-22
-------
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).
TREATMENT PLANT SITES
Five alternative sewage treatment plant sites were
identified in the wastewater facilities plan update (HGE, Inc.
1988). The facilities plan update addendum identified two
additional sites for evaluation (HGE, Inc. 1990). These sites
are:
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.
Butte Creek
This area would be classified as palustrine emergent and
scrub/shrub wetland dominated by skunk cabbage, willow, and
crabapple. The area is immediately adjacent to Highway 101,
northeast of the golf course near Butte Creek. Filling of the
wetland to create the golf course ends in a distinct line at this
site. This wetland is not part of the large Neskowin Crest
Wetland located at the head of Meadow Creek. It is approximately
4 acres in size.
In April, 1989, the site was characterized by dense skunk
cabbage in full bloom. Adjacent to the highway is a dense willow
and crabapple scrub system. The hydrology of the wetland is
controlled by the flooding levels of Butte Creek and Neskowin
Crest. The golf course floods during the winter months, and the
groundwater is likely to be high enough during the growing season
to ensure the presence of the wetland vegetation. Ditching of
Butte Creek likely has had little effect on the hydrology of the
3-23
-------
area except perhaps to carry some of the fall flows off more
quickly once the site becomes saturated.
Hawk Creek
This site is located at the far west end of the Hawk Creek
Golf Course, adjacent to Highway 101. The majority of the site
has been cleared and filled and is now characterized by the
presence of Scot's broom, Himalayan blackberry, and some red
alder scrub. The Hawk Creek site is estimated to be 3 to 4 acres
in size.
The portion of the site which is left unfilled adjacent to
the highway is an emergent wetland system dominated by skunk
cabbage with a small area of cattail and water parsley. The
wetland habitat occupies less than 1 acre. As the surrounding
elevations are similar except for the presence of the fill, it is
likely that this entire Hawk Creek floodplain in the vicinity of
Highway 101 may have been wetland prior to the creation of the
golf course and filling of the southwest corner.
South Highway
This area is north of Highway 101 and downhill from the
existing treatment facility. The area is a palustrine
scrub/shrub wetland dominated by crabapple and willow scrub.
Pockets of open water are present, as are dense stands of
cattails, skunk cabbage, sedges, and rushes. The wetland is
located between the highway and a single lane paved road to the
north which parallels the highway. Hydrology of the wetland is
partially controlled by its location between the two roadways.
It collects drainage from the steep hillside above. This wetland
is estimated to be 6 to 7 acres in size.
Sutton Pasture
This area is located near the northwest end of the Neskowin
Creek RV Resort. The area is the remains of a forested wetland
which has been altered by earth work and changes in hydrology.
Remnant Sitka spruce and large red alder are present as are dense
stands of skunk cabbage and bentgrass. The RV site perimeter
ditch runs along the far side of this wetland. Soils within this
wetland are very mottled in the first 3 inches, indicating
saturated soils in this area. The wetland is estimated to be 1
to 2 acres in size.
fiimpsop Tj inbar
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.
3-24
-------
Pasture 2
The Pasture 2 site is an active horse pasture located west
of Neskowin Creek and east of Highway 101. The majority of the
site is dominated by a mix of grasses, Trifolium, and Rumex
crispus. There are two obvious wet areas dominated by skunk
cabbage and water parsley. One of the areas is a long, narrow
depression paralleling Slab Creek Road for approximately 50
meters. The other wet area on the south side of the creek covers
an area about .25 acre in size.
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL SITES
Eight alternatives for effluent disposal have been
identified, of which five involve substantial surface area. The
following are the descriptions of the general terrestrial habitat
at each of the sites (Figure 2-6).
Riedesel's Pasture
This 21-acre pasture area is located southeast of the RV
park between a steep hillside and the channel of Neskowin Creek.
At the base of the hillside is a narrow strip of forested and
emergent wetland. The forested community is characterized by an
overstory of mature red alder trees, and a subcanopy of
salmonberry and red elderberry. The ground flora is skunk
cabbage, water parsley, and slough sedge. Soils in April 1989
were saturated at 18 inches. These are more characteristic of
upland as opposed to wetland soils.
The emergent habitat extends into the open pasture area
where skunk cabbage, bentgrass, and velvet grass are predominant.
The soils in this outer area are variable; some areas are
mottled, and in other locations it is upland soil with saturated
clays at 24 inches. Skunk cabbage is dominant throughout the
southwest two-thirds of this pasture area, although the soils are
technically upland. Approximately one-third of the pasture site
would be classified as emergent wetland.
The pasture near the creek consists of upland soils and a
variety of pasture grasses (Timothy grass, Poa. bentgrass) and
thistle. The soils are well drained as the creek bed is 3 to 6
feet below the pasture elevation and the groundwater seeps from
this steep hillside drain westward along the base of the slope.
The vegetative edges of the forest and riparian habitats
surrounding the pasture provide a diversity of resources for
wildlife. The forested wetland community at the base of the hill
provides habitat for songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Hawks
and owls may use the taller trees overlooking the field as
hunting perches. The emergent area of the wetland and the open
pasture provide forage habitat for a variety of animals such as
hawks, owls, songbirds, deer, small mammals, and reptiles as well
as cover for many of the smaller animals. The proximity of the
3-25
-------
creek may increase the value of the pasture for insectivores such
as swallows and cedar waxwings.
North Neskowin
A large pasture is now divided by Highway 101. The portion
of the pasture (10 to 15 acres) west of the highway has been left
fallow and is under consideration in this EIS as an alternative
disposal site. The vegetation consists of a variety of pasture
grasses surrounding large stands of carex. Brackenfern, common
daisies and trifolium are scattered throughout the field. The
soils are high in organic matter.
Characteristics of the soil on the site classifies it as a
wetland soil. Although wetland hydrological criterion was not
observed or expected in early July, 1989, the vegetation and
soils indicate saturation occurs during the rainy season and some
portion of the growing season. Assuming wetland hydrological
characteristics are present, the majority of the fallow pasture
would be classified as a palustrine emergent wetland. This wet
pasture has been disturbed in the past but it appears that
vegetation typical of a wet meadow is returning.
Neskowin Valley
Pasture l - The first pasture does not appear to be used for
grazing at this time. Vegetation is dominated by upland grasses.
The topography is fairly level.
Pasture 2 - The second pasture is bisected by Neskowin
Creek. It is an active horse pasture. The majority of the site
is dominated by a mix of grasses, Trifolium. and Rumex sjciSEUS*
There are two obvious wet areas dominated by skunk cabbage and
water parsley. One of the areas is a long, narrow depression
paralleling Slab Creek Road for approximately 50 meters. The
other wet area on the south side of the creek covers an area
about .25 acre in size.
Breakers Boulevard
Breakers Boulevard is a narrow asphalted road extending from
Mt. Angel to Carlton in the Neskowin Core Area. Vegetation is
limited to the shoulders of the road and consists of patchy
growths of a mixture of grasses.
Subsurface disposal along Breakers Boulevard was not
considered a technically sound alternative in the 1988 facilities
plan. However, in a letter to EPA dated February 7, 1989, the
County Sanitarian indicated that he was not opposed to subsurface
disposal along this street provided that the effluent was
pretreated to reduce nitrogen concentrations (Marshall 1989).
3-26
-------
Simpson T
-------
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 fSiliaua 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
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.
Pish
Common fishes occurring in the surf zone along the Oregon
coast include surfperch (Embiotocidae), flatfishes
(PIeuronectidae) and skates (Bala spp.). Nearshore littoral
fish would most likely include northern anchovy (fingraillis
mordax), smelt fHvpomesus pretiosus), Pacific herring (Clypea
3-28
-------
harengus), sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific hake (Merluccius
productusi. and salmonids fOncorhvnchus 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 (Phoca vitulina richardsil and
Steller sea lions (Eumetopias lubatusl are present in Oregon
coastal areas year-round. California sea lions (Zaloohus
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 anqustirostris) 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
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
(Phocoena phocoenal, and the gray whale fEschrichtius ifiteUStUS)
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 obilouidens) and Dall porpoises
fPhocoenoides dallil.
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.
3-29
-------
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.
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
eleaans), Queen-of-the-forest (Filipendula occidentalism, march
clubmoss (Lvcopodium inundatum). Adder1s-tongue (Qphioalossum
vulaatum), loose-flowered bluegrass (Poa laxiflora), withered
bluegrass (ฃoa marcida), and hairy-stemmed checkmallow (Sidalcea
hirtipesl (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.
W PSE
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
3-30
-------
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
zones are based primarily on the underlying soil types, some of
which are classified as prime agricultural soils (see "Soils,"
earlier in this chapter).
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
3-31
-------
Estuary Conservation 1
BREAKERS
BlVD
SUTTON
PASTURE
SITE
NORTH
1000 FEET (approx)
Zoning Designations within the Neskowin Regional Sanitary
Authority Service Area
SOUTH HIGHWAY SITE
ZONE DESIGNATIONS
BUTTE CREEK
SITE
F Forest
SFW-20 Small Farm and Woodlot-20 ac.
SFW-10 Small Farm and Woodlot-10 ac.
RR Rural Res.
R-1 Low Den. Urban Res.
R-3 High Den. Urban Res.
C-1 Neighbor. Commer.
R-M Rec. Mgmt
FM Flood Hazard Overlay
PD Shore Overlay
HAWK CREEK
SITE
SFW-20
RM
EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 3-6.
NESKOWIN CREST
WETLAND
RR-PD
NESKOWIN REGIONAL
SANITARY AUTHORITY
BOUNDARY
3-32
-------
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.
T-i n ampox 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
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;
ฆ Goal 11 - Public Services and Utilities;
ฆ 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
3-33
-------
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.
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).
3-34
-------
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 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 Paa 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
3-35
-------
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
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.
ฆ High Density Urban Residential Zone (R3) - 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.
ฆ 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.
3-36
-------
ซ 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.
ฆ 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
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.
3-37
-------
ฆ 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.
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 Sites
Five treatment plant sites were presented in the 1988
facilities plan (Figure 2-5). The 1990 addendum added the
Pasture 2 and Simpson Timber sites. The existing land uses and
zoning designations for the six sites are presented below.
Existing Treatment Plant: Two ponds, a package treatment
facility, and several small buildings are located at the
existing treatment plant site. If the new treatment
plant is built at this site, additional land would have
to be acquired (HGE, Inc. 1988). This site is zoned Low
Density Urban Residential (R-l).
3-38
-------
Butte Creek: This site is adjacent to the Neskowin Crest
residential area, west of Highway 101. Currently, the
area is undeveloped. This site is zoned Low Density
Urban Residential (R-l).
Hawk Creek: This site is located east of Highway 101 and
is adjacent to the Hawk Creek golf course. It is
undeveloped and is zoned Rural Residential (RR).
South Highway: This site is located on the north and
east side of Highway 101, downhill from the existing
treatment plant. The site is a forested wetland and has
not been developed. Buildings are located on the portion
of the site bordering the County Road. The site is zoned
Forest (F).
ฆ Sutton Pasture: When the 1981 facilities plan was
prepared, this site was undeveloped. However, it has
since been developed as a recreational vehicle resort.
Northwest of the resort is an area which is the remains
of a forested wetland. This site is zoned Small Farm and
Woodlot (20-acre minimum) (SFW-20).
ฆ Simpson Timber: This site is located on the east 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.
Pasture 2: This site is outside of the Community Growth
Boundary and the NRSA boundary. The site is located on
both sides of Slab Creek Road, with Neskowin Creek
forming the southern borders of the two areas. North of
Slab Creek Road a portion of the site is zoned Small Farm
and Woodlot (20-acre minimum), surrounded by Forest (F).
South of Slab Creek Road, the site is zoned Forest (F)
(Willard pers. comm.).
Effluent Disposal 8if s
Existing land uses for the effluent disposal alternatives
are described below.
Riedesel's Pasture
One of the sites under consideration for subsurface disposal
is Riedesel's Pasture upstream from the Neskowin Creek RV Resort
(Figure 2-6). This site is a fallow pasture. The RV Resort is
zoned Small Farm and Woodlot, with a 20-acre minimum size
required. Neskowin and Sutton Creeks are zoned Estuary
Conservation 1 (EC1) to the Mean Higher High Water line or the
line of non-aquatic vegetation, whichever is most landward.
Riedesel's Pasture is zoned Small Farm and Woodlot, with a 20-
acre minimum size. This site is located outside of the Neskowin
Community Growth Boundary. The site is not within the Shorelands
3-39
-------
Overlay Zone but is within the coastal zone. Neskowin and Sutton
Creeks are zoned Estuary Conservation 1.
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.
South Beach Marine Outfall
The outfall would discharge into the ocean south of Proposal
Rock. The pipeline most likely would run from the treatment
plant and pass through Neskowin Heights along the South Beach
Road right-of-way and some forested areas on its way to the
ocean. The pipeline would traverse the beach. Tillamook County
has not established zoning designations for the beach, since it
is owned by the State. The beach area lies within the coastal
zone and within the Shorelands Overlay Zone. Since the inland
route of this alternative is unknown, no zoning designations can
be determined. The area most likely to be impacted is Neskowin
Heights, which is zoned Low Density Urban Residential (R-l).
Land south of Neskowin Heights is zoned Small Farm and Woodlot
(20-acre minimum).
Headland Marine Outfall
The pipeline on the uplands would follow a path similar to
the South Beach Outfall. At the point the pipeline reached the
beach, it would turn southward and extend along the higher high
water line to the base of the bluff. The pipeline would follow
the base of the bluff to the point and would extend beyond the
base of the seaward edge of the sea stack adjacent to the point.
As with the above marine outfall alternative, the zoning for the
upland portion is quite likely low-density urban residential (R-
1). The remainder of the route is State owned.
North Neskowin
This site is located between the new Highway 101 alignment
and the delineated Neskowin Crest Wetland, within the Community
Growth Boundary, southwest of Viking Estates Mobile Home Park.
It is undeveloped and contains scattered areas of wetlands. This
site is zoned Rural Residential (RR), and is within the coastal
zone but lies outside of the County's Shorelands Overlay Zone.
3-40
-------
Neskowin Valley - Pastures 1 and 2
The site is outside of the Community Growth Boundary and the
NRSA boundary. The site is located on both sides of Slab Creek
Road, with Neskowin Creek forming the southern borders of the two
areas. North of Slab Creek Road a portion of the site is zoned
Small Farm and Woodlot (20-acre minimum), surrounded by Forest
(F). South of Slab Creek Road, the site is zoned Forest (F)
(Willard pers. comm.).
Simpson Timber site
The site is located east of Slab Creek Road, east of the two
Neskowin Valley pasture sites. Of the 42.5 acres, it is
estimated that 9 acres are suitable for development. The site is
owned by the Simpson Timber Company and was formerly a Christmas
tree farm. Neskowin Creek is situated just south of this site.
This site is zoned Forest and is located outside both the
Neskowin Community Growth and NRSA boundaries.
SOCIOECONOMICS
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
3-41
-------
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).
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
Mfill-inM 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.
Neskowin
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
3-42
-------
Table 3-2. Papulation Estimates and Projections for Neskowin Are* and Tillanook Couity (1980-2006)
Projection
1980
1986
1995*
1996*
2000*
Ave. Annual
Growth
2006 Rate
Neskowin Area
Facilities Plan1
Straight Line
Tillanook County
N/A 1,470
N/A 1,470
N/A 1,998
1,970
N/A 2,715
2,640
4.2
3.4
Cohort-Coaponent Model'
21,164 21,300 23,600
N/A 24,400
N/A
1.0
N/A Not Aval I able
* Projected
I HGE, Inc. 1988
* Jones I Stokes Associates 1989
Center for Population Research and census 1989
-------
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
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 SuppIv
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,
3-44
-------
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.).
Pire 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
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.
coram.).
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
3-45
-------
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
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.).
PDBLIC 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
3-46
-------
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
Neither the Clatsop-Tillamook Intergovernmental Council, nor
the State Historic Preservation Office have record of any
historic or archaeological sites in the Neskowin area. 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 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. AMD 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 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). Since Oregon has an approved State
Implementation Plan for air quality, the project will not create
local air pollution conditions, and since the project is not
located in a non-attainment area, this provision does not apply
to this project.
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.
3-47
-------
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, and as discussed in Chapter 2, 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 rtight 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 tanks 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
4-2
-------
natal stream. When they return as adults, their homing behavior
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 most
effectively diluted, and would probably not significantly alter
the chemical status of the stream. 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, the core area would not be
able to grow 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
4-3
-------
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.
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 ALTERNATIVES
Collection system alternatives were presented in Chapter 2:
(1) gravity with sewers, (2) gravity collecting only septic tank
effluent (STE), and (3) a combination of (1) and (2). 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
Alternative 2, 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. Gravity 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
4-4
-------
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.
GROUNDWATER
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
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 could potentially 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.
FLOODPLAXN8
The Point area and the Proposal Rock subdivision are located
in the 100-year floodplain (Figure 3-2). Only three undeveloped
lots 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
4-5
-------
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.
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 Alternative 2.
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.
4-6
-------
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 l, 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
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). For the gravity sewer system,
impacts would include excavating and laying gravity sewer lines
from homes to lines in the street and to the treatment plant.
For the STE system, short-term impacts also would include
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.
4-7
-------
The potential indirect or long-term land use impacts
associated with the project as a whole are discussed under
Alternative 2 of the "Effluent Disposal Alternatives" 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
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 Alternative" section, under the analysis of
Alternative 2.
PUBLIC HEALTH
The collection system is not expected to directly impact
public health. Implications for public health of operation of
the wastewater treatment and disposal system are discussed below
in the "Effluent Disposal Alternatives" section.
HISTORICAL AMD 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 or
archaeological 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 Neskowin1s 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
The preferred alternative identified in the facilities plan
includes installation of community septic tanks in the core area,
collection of effluent from community and individual septic
4-8
-------
tanks, and treatment: of the effluent at a secondary treatment
plant using a contact stabilization/extended aeration mechanical
plant.
The NRSA does not have a sludge management plan. The sludge
produced at the treatment plant and collected in the septic tanks
will require periodic removal and disposal. Presently, local
contractors dispose of sludge in state approved sludge disposal
areas or haul it for treatment at the Tillamook municipal
wastewater treatment plant. This practice could continue.
Traffic generated by sludge pumping from septic tanks is
expected to grow incrementally in proportion to expanding
population in the service area. Existing air quality and noise
conditions are expected to continue for disposal of sludge from
the Neskowin treatment plant. No adverse impacts are expected to
occur.
EFFLUENT DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES
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.
Two methods of effluent disinfection were considered in the
facilities plan: use of ultraviolet light, and chlorination.
ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT
Ultraviolet radiation is proposed in the facilities plan as
the primary method to be used to disinfect effluent. 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 function. If the ultraviolet system fails, a backup
disinfection system required.
No adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic biota, or
public health are anticipated with the installation and proper
operation of an ultraviolet disinfection system.
CHLORINATION
The facilities plan preferred alternative proposes that a
chlorination system at the Neskowin Treatment Plant would only be
operated if the ultraviolet system fails and the storage capacity
of holding ponds is exceeded. However, chlorination is also
being considered as a primary method of disinfection.
4-9
-------
Chlorination of effluent is a common practice at most
treatment plants throughout the United States. Effluent is not
normally dechlorinated before discharge, unless the receiving
waters are sensitive or the downstream uses of water make it
necessary (i.e., a fish hatchery present downstream).
Chlorine can be toxic to aquatic fauna. The EPA criteria
for chlorine in receiving waters (outside the mixing zone) are 11
and 19 ug/1 for chronic and acute exposure, respectively.
Without dechlorination, chlorine residuals in effluent are
expected to be in the range of 0.5-1.5 mg/1. To meet the EPA
criteria for chronic exposure, a dilution of 140:1 would be
required. At an effluent discharge rate of 0.2 cfs during Phase
1, a stream flow above 28 cfs would be necessary to accomplish
this dilution for disposal alternatives involving creek disposal.
During Phase 2 (assuming a marine outfall is not constructed), a
stream flow of 70 cfs would be required to adequately dilute a
effluent flow of 0.5 cfs.
Existing data for Neskowin Creek indicate that stream flows
during summer and fall months are generally lower than flows
necessary for adequate dilution of chlorinated effluent (Table
D-2). It is likely that adequate stream flows would be available
during the winter months; however, there is little direct data to
support this (i.e., winter stream flows were calculated from a
model, but rarely or never measured directly).
Based on the above discussion, year-round discharge of
chlorinated effluent is probably not feasible, under EPA
criteria, during either phase of the operation. Discharge of
chlorinated effluent during winter months would have to be
regulated by the actual stream flows in the receiving waters.
Chlorine residuals in effluent following the dechlorination
process would normally be below 100 ug/1. If a dechlorination
process were added to the system, a minimum of a 10:1 dilution
would be necessary to meet EPA criteria for chronic exposure.
This would require that stream flows during periods of discharge
be at a minimum of 2 cfs in Phase 1, and 5 cfs in Phase 2. These
flows are exceeded between November 1 and May 14. In terms of
chlorine residual, year-round discharge of dechlorinated effluent
to Neskowin Creek would be feasible under EPA criteria, dependent
on actual stream flow conditions.
In addition to EPA criteria, however, ODFW has requested
that there be 0.0 mg/1 chlorine residual in receiving waters
during low flow periods (Robart 1989) . Since discharges will
only occur during high flow periods, ODFW concerns regarding
residual chlorine can be avoided.
The use of chlorine would require regular shipment of
chemicals to the treatment plant. This would result in an
incrementally small increase in truck traffic in the area.
4-10
-------
TREATMENT PLANT SITE ALTERNATIVES
The facilities plan proposes seven alternative sites for
location of the treatment plant. The preferred site identified
in the facilities plan addendum (HGE, Inc. 1990) is the Simpson
Timber site. The following impacts are primarily direct impacts
related to construction. Indirect impacts related to growth are
discussed under the analysis of Effluent Disposal Alternative 2,
below.
The effects of the seven alternative sites 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.
80ILS
None of the proposed sites for the treatment plant contain
prime or unique agricultural land. Soil movement would occur as
a result of treatment plant 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
construction of the facility.
SURFACE WATER
Selection of alternative treatment plant sites 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
The Butte Creek treatment plant site is located in the 100-
year floodplain. In addition, all of the Neskowin Crest Wetland
and a portion of the Sutton Pasture site are wetlands. EPA
policy is to discourage development, including wastewater
treatment plants in floodplains or wetlands where alternatives
exist. These impacts are, therefore, considered significant.
4-11
-------
The Butte Creek treatment plant site was also dropped because of
high groundwater.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Construction and operation of the treatment plant should not
impact aquatic biota because the plant would not be constructed
in streams. Minor 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.
There are differences between the seven treatment plant
sites with respect to wetlands and terrestrial habitat on the
site. 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
site which could be impacted due to poor construction techniques
or increased runoff from the developed site.
Butte Creek
Most of the site, approximately 4 of 7 acres, appears to be
palustrine emergent and scrub/shrub wetland. The 4 acres of
wetland provide nesting sites, forage, and cover for wildlife
such as songbirds, raccoons, amphibians, and deer. Construction
of a treatment plant on the site would permanently eliminate this
wetland and eliminate wildlife use. The impacts on wildlife are
expected to be locally important.
The wetlands would have to be filled in preparation for
construction of a treatment plant. These wetlands are small
(approximately 4 acres), but they are relatively diverse. A
portion of this site may lie within the shorelands boundary which
includes all areas within 100 feet of the large Neskowin Crest
Wetland. Under Goal 17 (Tillamook County 1984) use of this site
as an altered wetland treatment system would be compatible with
the designation so long as it is compatible with the Tillamook
County Zoning Ordinance (Brunson pers. comm.). This wetland also
falls under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers Section
4-12
-------
404 permit process and filling it would be a potentially
significant impact which would require mitigation. The Butte
Creek site has been dropped from further consideration because of
high groundwater.
Haw* Creek
The Hawk Creek site was historically a wetland, but has been
filled. The habitat is now dominated by large Scot's broom and a
variety of grasses. The portion of the site which has not been
filled (less than 1 acre) is an emergent wetland dominated by
skunk cabbage with a small area of cattail and water parsley.
Wildlife potentially supported by the site includes songbirds,
deer, small mammals, and reptiles. The small size (1.5 acres) of
the site limits its value to wildlife. Locating a treatment
plant on the site is expected to have a less than significant
effect on wildlife use.
No existing wetland values would be lost or adversely
impacted by the construction and operation of a treatment plant
site on this old fill. The site has been removed from further
consideration because it was determined to be too small.
poytft fftgftwfty
The South Highway site is a palustrine emergent and
scrub/shrub wetland about 7 acres in size. The diversity of
habitat at this site offers forage, nesting sites, and cover for
herons, songbirds, amphibians, mink, racoon, and beaver.
Building a sewage treatment plant in the wetland would eliminate
its use by wildlife. Effects on wildlife use of the site are
expected to be locally important.
This site is a wetland, and grading and filling would be
necessary to develop it for a treatment plant. Since this site
is a wetland, fill and removal of more than 50 cubic yards of
material would require a joint Corps of Engineers/Division of
State Lands fill and removal permit (Brunson pers. comm.).
Construction of a treatment plant essentially would fill the
entire wetland. This wetland is somewhat isolated by the
surrounding roads and the hill on the north side. A Corps of
Engineers Section 404 permit would be required to fill this
wetland. This is a potentially significant impact and EPA
wetland policies require mitigation for filling of wetlands. The
site has been removed from further consideration because of the
presence of saturated soils and wetlands.
Sutton Pasture
A small wetland about 1 acre in size sits above Sutton Creek
at the west end of the Sutton Pasture site. The creek has been
ditched in the past, probably to increase drainage in the area.
Buildings and roads are adjacent to the site, and much of the
area is regularly mowed. Wildlife habitat is limited by the
4-13
-------
disturbed condition of the vegetation community. Animals which
may use this site in its present condition include small mammals,
insect- and seed-eating birds, and occasional raptors. The
effects on wildlife are expected to be less than significant.
The wetland has been physically disturbed. It provides some
forage and cover for wildlife, but its greatest value may be that
it provides a vegetated corridor along the creek. Construction
of a treatment plant probably would occur east of the wetland and
therefore would impose no long-term impacts to the wetland.
However, this sight has been removed from further consideration
because of unsuitable soils.
Simpson Timber
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.
Pasture 2
The Pasture 2 site is an active horse pasture. The majority
of the site is dominated by a mix of grasses, Trifolium, and
Rumex crispus. There are two obvious wet areas dominated by
skunk cabbage and water parsley. One of the areas is a long,
narrow depression paralleling Slab Creek Road for approximately
50 meters. The other wet area on the south side of the creek
covers an area about .25 acre in size. Wildlife habitat is
limited by the disturbed condition of the vegetation community.
Animals which may use this site in its present condition include
small mammals, insect- and seed-eating birds, and occasional
raptors. The effects on wildlife are expected to be less than
significant.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The USFWS has indicated that there are no known threatened
or endangered species within the project vicinity. No impacts
are anticipated.
LAND USE
Direct impacts to existing land uses for all 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 the treatment works. Long-
term land use impacts would result from construction at any of
the currently undeveloped sites. Five of the six proposed sites
are undeveloped at this time. Construction would result in an
irretrievable and irreversible commitment of the site to use as a
treatment plant.
4-14
-------
Existing Treatment Plant
Currently, all of this site is developed as the existing
wastewater treatment plant. Additional land would have to be
acquired to construct the new plant on-site.
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. Development of the
existing treatment plant site as a wastewater treatment plant
would be consistent with the zoning ordinance. This site is not
located in the 100-year floodplain. No significant impacts would
occur.
Use of the existing treatment plant site would also be
consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and policies. The
1987 letter from the County Commissioners on the NRSA facilities
plan, discussed under "Effluent Disposal Alternatives,
Alternative 1," covered construction of a new treatment plant at
the existing location. Therefore, the County Commissioners'
letter certified that the existing treatment plant site was
consistent with the Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan. The
County Commissioners most likely would have to adopt another
certification statement if an alternate treatment plant site is
selected.
Butte Creak
The majority of the Butte Creek site is zoned Low Density
Urban Residential (R-l), and the remainder is zoned Rural
Residential (R-R). Sewage treatment facilities are permitted
with a conditional use permit in the R-l and R-R zones (Brunson
pers. comm.). Development of the portion of the Butte Creek site
zoned R-l as a wastewater treatment plant would be consistent
with the zoning ordinance. No significant impacts would occur to
allowed land use. This site is located partially within the 100-
year floodplain? it has been dropped from further consideration
because of high groundwater.
The Hawk Creek site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-l).
Wastewater treatment facilities are permitted in the C-l zone
with a conditional use permit. Development of the Hawk Creek
site as a wastewater treatment plant would be consistent with the
zoning ordinance; however, it has been dropped from consideration
because it is too small.
South Highway
The South Highway site is zoned Forest (F). Wastewater
treatment facilities are permitted in this zone with a
conditional use permit. None of this site is located within the
Shorelands Overlay Zone. This site is not located within the
4-15
-------
100-year floodplain. No significant land use impacts would
occur. However, this site has been dropped because of saturated
soils and the presence of wetlands.
Sutton Pasture
This site was listed as the preferred alternative in the
1981 facilities plan. However, the majority of this site has
been developed as the Neskowin Creek RV Park. The alternative
site is northwest of the RV park and is forested. Impacts to the
adjacent RV park would include temporary noise, dust, and traffic
impacts during construction.
The Sutton Pasture site is zoned Small Farm and Woodlot
(with a 20-acre minimum). Wastewater treatment facilities are
permitted in this zone with a conditional use permit.
Development of the Sutton Pasture site as a wastewater treatment
plant would be consistent with the zoning ordinance, thus no
significant impacts to allowed land use would occur. This site
is located within the 500-year floodplain and borders the 100-
year floodplain. This site is no longer under consideration
because of unsuitable soils.
Simpson Timber
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. The site is not located within the 100-
year floodplain. However, since this site is located outside
both the NRSA and Neskowin Community Growth boundaries, the NRSA
will have to apply to Tillamook County for an amendment to
include the site in the Community Growth Boundary. This approval
should be obtained prior to development of the site. In
addition, the NRSA will have to change its boundary to include
this site.
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
growth. Impacts are incorporated below in the "Effluent Disposal
Alternatives" section of this chapter.
PUBLIC HEALTH
There are no impacts to public health associated with the
treatment plant sites. Operation of the wastewater system would
have a direct, positive impact on public health and is discussed
in the "Effluent Disposal Alternatives" section of this chapter.
4-16
-------
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No historical or archaeological resources are known to exist
in the six alternative sites. Several of the sites are known to
have experienced extensive disturbance in recent years. 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, noise and air
pollution associated with the use of heavy equipment would create
temporary nuisance conditions. However, since most of the
treatment plant sites are not adjacent to residential areas and
construction would be short-term, these impacts are not
considered significant.
During operation of the treatment plant, adverse impacts to
the residential neighborhood near the Sutton Pasture and Butte
Creek sites (Neskowin Creek) 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 ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1: EXISTING SPRAY IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND HOLDING
PONDS, CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL SUMMER STORAGE LAGOON; WINTER
DISCHARGE TO NESKOWIN CREEK
Soils
This alternative would utilize the existing spray irrigation
system and limited capacity holding ponds at the existing
treatment plant site. Soils would be excavated and the site
reshaped during construction of the treatment facilities and
holding lagoon. Erosion will be controlled during construction;
planting of exposed and disturbed soils will be undertaken as
soon as construction is completed. As noted in Chapter 2, under
Alternative 7 there is no sufficient land available to dispose of
all treated effluent using spray irrigation.
Assuming there is sufficient land available for some spray
irrigation of treated effluent, no adverse impacts to soils would
be expected since the quantity of sprayed effluent would be
limited. If too much effluent is spray irrigated, loading rates
could be exceeded at which point impacts would become
significant.
Groundwater
One of the discharge points for groundwater in the Neskowin
area is Neskowin Creek. The water ultimately discharges into the
4-17
-------
ocean. Available information does not suggest that recharge of
the aquifer occurs from Neskowin Creek.
Land application of the treated effluent would ultimately
allow percolation of the effluent into the underlying groundwater
or could result in a certain amount of overland flow due to soil
and slope characteristics. The information listed in the 1981
facilities plan indicates the soil in the Neskowin Creek Valley
allows slow percolation.
Additional information collected during field investigations
has been found which indicates a shallow depth to groundwater.
Although the soil is described as allowing slow percolation,
the available information indicates a small vertical distance for
the water to travel. This could result in a short retention time
in the unsaturated zone, resulting in limited additional
treatment of the effluent.
The groundwater in the Neskowin Creek Valley ultimately
discharges into the creek. Although water quality degradation is
possible due to the effluent application, the effect is expected
to be localized and no significant impacts are expected. 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
Alternative 1 would provide for spray irrigation or storage
of all effluent between May 15 and October 31 with discharge of
stored and winter effluent to Neskowin Creek between November 1
and May 14. Treated disinfected effluent would be discharged
into Neskowin Creek only when the stream flow to effluent ratio
is greater than 20:1.
Surface runoff may directly impact Neskowin Creek. Spray
irrigation may result in incrementally small increases in erosion
and transport of sediment to Neskowin Creek.
If spray application rates do not exceed loading rates, no
significant impacts to ground or surface water are expected.
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Biota
The site is currently used intermittently for spray
irrigation. Impacts to existing species would be minimal.
Aquatic Biota
Generally, impacts on aquatic biota are those associated
with change in water quality or stream hydrology. For Phase 1,
4-18
-------
these impacts are expected to be less than significant. Since no
significant changes in water quality which could impact aquatic
biota are expected, no impacts to aquatic biota are anticipated.
Following completion of Phase 2, if there are discharges of
effluent to Neskowin Creek, they could impact aquatic biota
during flow regimes below 70 cfs unless dechlorination is
undertaken. With dechlorination, no impacts to aquatic biota
would be anticipated with flows above 5 cfs.
Land Use
The land proposed for the effluent disposal site would be
used for spray application and would resemble an agricultural
area. The site is zoned Small Farm and Woodlot (20-acre minimum)
and Forest, and lies outside of the Neskowin Community Growth
Boundary. The NRSA would need to obtain a conditional use permit
from the county to dispose of effluent at this site. Since the
site would be sewered, the community growth boundary would not
need to be amended (Willard pers. comm.). A new Land Use
Compatibility Statement would be needed from the county.
Socioeconomics
Impacts of this alternative on population trends and public
services are fully discussed under Alternative 2.
Public Health
Impacts to public health with this alternative are expected
to be minimal. Currently, NRSA uses spray irrigation as the
method to dispose of some effluent.
Historical and Archaeological Resources
No impacts to historical resources would occur as a result
of spray irrigation.
Air Quality. Noise, and Traffic
With this alternative, an increase in traffic would result
during construction of the spray application system. The spray
application site is far enough from residences and Highway 101 so
that air quality and noise impacts should be minimal. There
would be heavy machinery used to lay pipes. During operation of
the spray application system, noise and air quality impacts
should be minimal. In addition, this site is not located near
large numbers of residences or sensitive receptors. No
significant impacts would result at the site.
Refer to Alternative 2 for a discussion of growth-induced
secondary impacts.
4-19
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2: SUMMER STORAGE LAGOON; WINTER DISCHARGE TO
NE8KOWIN CREEK
Soils
Soils will be excavated and the site reshaped during
construction of the treatment facilities and holding lagoon.
Erosion will be controlled during construction; planting of
exposed and disturbed soils will be undertaken as soon is
construction is completed.
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.
8urface 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. Furthermore, effluent
volumes are expected to be relatively low in the winter because
population in the sewer service area declines during the winter
months.
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
4-20
-------
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
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
Alternative 2 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 l,
these impacts are expected to be less than significant. Since no
significant changes in water quality are expected with respect to
animals, no impacts to aquatic biota are anticipated. Following
completion of Phase 2 (assuming discharges continue to Neskowin
Creek), discharges of effluent to Neskowin Creek could impact
aquatic biota during flow regimes below 70 cfs unless
dechlorination is undertaken. With dechlorination, no impacts to
aquatic biota would be anticipated with flows above 5 cfs.
Land Ose
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
4-21
-------
for septic systems, and sewering areas with soils unsuitable for
septic systems on small lots. Secondary beneficial 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 August 1987, the Tillamook County Board of Commissioners
certified to ODEQ that the ". . . recommendations of the report
[1988 facilities plan update] conform to the goals, policies, and
plans adopted in our comprehensive plan . . . The recommended
actions . . . appropriately implement the public facilities and
services element of our local plans and are in accord with
applicable Statewide Planning Goals" (Tillamook County pers.
comm.; letter included as Appendix C). The certification letter
was accompanied by a Land Use Compatibility Statement indicating
that the proposed actions complied with the comprehensive plan.
However, the proposed actions discussed in the Land Use
Compatibility Statement only included the proposed collection
system, construction of the treatment plant at the existing site,
and effluent disposal as discussed under Alternative 3. Effluent
disposal using any other method than Alternative 3 would require
the NRSA to obtain a new Land Use Compatibility Statement from
the County.
Socioeconomics
Population
Phase 1 sewering is designed to meet the needs of the
residential and commercial properties within the north and south
core areas, a portion of Proposal Rock Subdivision, and the
Neskowin Lodge Investors customers. 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 l 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
system residences is severely limited, the project taken as a
whole can be said to be growth inducing. Limited growth is
likely to occur without the project, as discussed under the "No
4-22
-------
Action" alternative. The degree to which the proposed project is
growth inducing depends on the economy 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.
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
4-23
-------
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.
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
4-24
-------
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. comm.) 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.).
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.
4-25
-------
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
Under Alternative 2, 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.
The facilities plan proposes 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 effluent disposal sites are not adjacent to any residential
areas.
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
4-26
-------
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.
ALTERNATIVE 3: SUMMER SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL; WINTER DISCHARGE TO
NESKOWIN CREEK
Bolls
As noted in Chapter 2, preliminary soils investigations
indicate that if all sites proposed for subsurface disposal are
suitable, insufficient land is available within the Neskowin
area.
For completion of Phase 1, additional (as of yet
unidentified) sites would be required. Impacts to soils in these
additional sites would be of similar type to that expected for
development of the sites investigated, i.e., increases in soil
pH, nitrogen (particularly nitrate), and phosphorus. Increases
in trace elements could also be expected, but these are not
likely to be readily detected because the effluent does not
include industrial wastewater. Depending upon the quantity of
effluent to be discharged, effects of subsurface disposal on
soils could range from less than significant to very significant.
Some of the land required for Alternative 3 would be located
on sites containing prime agricultural land. The sites contain
Class I, II, and IV soils (Bizeau pers. comm.). Potential
adverse impacts listed above would not preclude the use of the
disposal fields for pastures. Compacting the soil should be
minimized to reduce likelihood of harming subsurface drainfields.
Groundwater
Soil in the Riedesel's Pasture is saturated at depths
ranging from 18 inches to 6 feet below the ground surface. A
portion of the pasture has been described as wetlands, while the
area near the creek is described as having well-drained soils.
Based on these observations, made in April and November 1989,
treated effluent from Phase 1 could percolate rapidly through the
unsaturated zone into the saturated zone. This could potentially
result in degradation of the water quality of the groundwater.
Any groundwater degradation would probably be of limited areal
extent because the available data indicates much of the
groundwater discharges into surface water bodies (see below).
The impact to the use of groundwater is not significant.
However, new ODEQ regulations require that groundwater may not be
degraded; monitoring wells may be required adjacent to the
disposal field to ensure that no degradation occurs.
4-27
-------
Surface Water
During the winter, Alternative 3 would use the existing
outfall structure. It is presently large enough to accommodate
both phases of the proposed sewage treatment plant expansion.
Therefore, no new construction would be required. Impacts to
surface water will be the same as Alternative 1.
The effect of subsurface discharge of effluent to land near
Neskowin Creek on water quality in Neskowin Creek during the
summer is not easily predicted. Pathogens will be removed
through disinfection. Organics exerting biochemical oxygen
demand and phosphates are likely to be trapped in the soil
matrix, but dissolved nitrates and nitrites may flow with
groundwater to the stream. Since nitrogen is not a limiting
nutrient, an increase in inorganic nitrogen would not increase
algal production in the stream.
Biological Resources
During the summer, Alternative 3 would use up to five sites
with a total land area of 22.3 acres for effluent disposal during
Phase 1. This is insufficient for the anticipated summertime
discharges.
Terrestrial
If sufficient land was available, the construction of
drainfields for subsurface disposal would create temporary
habitat loss for all wildlife using the site. A permanent pump
house would cover a small amount of land and would not cause
significant disturbance to wildlife using the area. Construction
activities including trenching and movement of large equipment
over the disposal fields would eliminate the populations of small
soil dwelling animals whose home range lies within the boundaries
of the construction site. However, the populations of these
animals should be replenished within a year or so of regrowth of
the vegetation, following completion of construction. Mobile
animals such as birds and larger mammals would use similar
habitats available nearby, possibly with some reduction in their
numbers due to increased competition for resources. As with the
smaller animals, decreased populations should return to previous
levels a season or two after the original habitat is restored.
The addition of the effluent during the summer could encourage
expansion of the wetland vegetation across the fields.
Some wetlands, especially those located near the Phase 1
sewer collectors, could be impacted by this project. As sewers
become available, the pressure to fill and develop these areas
will increase. These are considered potentially significant
impacts.
4-28
-------
Aquatic Biota
During discharge to Neskowin Creek, impacts to aquatic biota
will be similar to Alternative 2.
Land use
The Riedesel Pasture and Pasture 1 sites are zoned Small
Farm and Woodlot (20 acre minimum). The Pasture 2 and Simpson
Timber sites are zoned Forest. All of these sites lie outside of
the Neskowin Community Growth Boundary and the NRSA boundary.
Utility facilities, such as ones for effluent disposal, are
permitted in the Small Farm and Woodlot zone, and with a
conditional use permit in the Forest zone. However, since the
sites are outside the Community Growth Boundary and the NRSA
boundary, the County requires an amendment to the comprehensive
plan (Appendix C). Acquisition of an amendment is not a
significant impact.
Development of effluent disposal facilities at the Riedesel
Pasture and Pasture 1 sites would be consistent with the zoning
ordinance. Utility facilities, including wastewater facilities,
are permitted uses in the Small Farm and Woodlot (20 acre
minimum) zone. In addition, effluent disposal facilities at the
Pasture 2 and Simpson Timber sites are permitted with a
conditional use permit in the Forest zone.
Socioeconomics
Impacts of this alternative are essentially identical to
those discussed above under Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 4: YEAR-ROUND DISCHARGE TO NESKOWIN CREEK
Poilp
Soils would not be impacted by year-round discharge to
Neskowin Creek.
Groundwater
As stated under Alternative 2, discharge to Neskowin Creek
during the winter is not anticipated to cause any adverse impacts
to the groundwater.
During the summer months the creek water reportedly becomes
somewhat stagnant near the mouth of the creek. The creek flow is
apparently too low at times to discharge into the ocean.
Recharge of the aquifer from Neskowin Creek during the summer
during low flows is highly unlikely. The impacts of this
alternative on groundwater are less than significant.
4-29
-------
Surface Water
During low flows, ODEQ effluent quality standards require
that effluent concentration not exceed 20 xng/1 BOD and 20 mg/1
suspended solids in the effluent; in the receiving water, BOD and
suspended solids concentrations must not increase receiving water
concentrations more than 1 mg/1 after dilution. For Phase 1, the
maximum effluent discharge, 0.2 cfs, to Neskowin Creek could
occur as long as the flows remained above 4.0 cfs. This occurs
more than 95 percent of the time (Klingeman 1979). Because of
the relatively high flow to effluent ratio, and because of the
outfall's proximity to the ocean, the impact to DO as a result of
this discharge would not be significant at creekflows in excess
of 4.0 cfs.
For Phase 2, maximum effluent discharges are expected to be
0.5 cfs. This will require a minimum streamflow of 10 cfs to
meet ODEQ standards. Impacts to streamwater quality could be
significant if the stream to effluent ratio is less than 20:1.
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Resources
Terrestrial plant and wildlife habitats would not be
affected by Alternative 4; thus, adverse impacts are not
expected.
Aquatic Biota
The most critical period for potential impacts to aquatic
biota would occur during the summer when stream flows are lowest
and effluent discharges are highest. As noted above, flows below
4 cfs and 10 cfs for Phase 1 and 2, respectively, could have a
significant impact on the fisheries resources using the Creek
below the discharge point. Water quality could also be impacted
as a result of algal production which could initially cause large
diurnal fluctuations of DO concentrations due to photosynthesis/
respiration and later as algal die-off occurs. If low flows were
to occur concurrently with the end of the growing season and
impedance of flow to the Pacific Ocean, adverse impacts to
aquatic biota could occur. These impacts are considered
significant.
If chlorination/dechlorination were to be selected as the
method of disinfection for Alternative 4, the chlorine residuals
after dilution in 4 cfs creekflow from dechlorinated effluent
would be about 9 ug/1 in Phase 1. This is not low enough to meet
0DFWs requirement of 0.0 mg/1 in the summer months, and would be
considered a significant impact. In Phase 2, chlorine residuals
after dilution would be approximately 10 ug/1 at streamflows of
10 cfs. This does not exceed EPA criterion; ODFW requirements
for chlorine would be exceeded.
4-30
-------
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.
Land Psa
No direct impacts to existing land uses are expected from
year-round discharge to Neskowin Creek. Indirect impacts are
discussed under Alternative 2, above.
Neskowin Creek is zoned Estuary Conservation 1, and storm
water and sewage outfalls are permitted in this zone with a
conditional use permit. Therefore, placement of the outfall in
the Creek would be consistent with the Tillamook County Land Use
Ordinance. The County Commissioners more than likely would have
to prepare a new land use compatibility statement if Alternative
4 were designated as the preferred effluent disposal alternative.
Socioeconomics
Impacts of this alternative are essentially identical to
those discussed above under Alternative 2.
Public Health
Significant impacts to public health from Alternative 4
could occur if effluent discharges occurred whether or not
streamflow was sufficient for 20:1 dilution, since the existing
outfall to Neskowin Creek would be used year-round, the bacteria
counts would have to be closely monitored to ensure that
disinfection was adequate. Bacterial contamination from
uncontrolled sources would be reduced, but not necessarily
eliminated.
Historieal and Archaeological Resources
There are no known historical or archaeological resources
associated with the existing outfall, and no adverse effects are
expected (Appendix F).
Air Quality. Noise, and Traffic
No direct impacts would occur under this alternative;
however, secondary air quality, noise, and traffic impacts could
be induced (see Alternative 2).
4-31
-------
ALTERNATIVE 5: MARINE OUTFALL
Soils
Under this alternative, an outfall would be constructed
along the South Beach Road right-of-way, then either across the
beach and into the marine environment or along the base of the
bluff to a discharge point at the base of the nearshore sea
stack. No significant adverse impacts are expected on the
already modified soils along South Beach Road.
Groundwater
No adverse impacts to the groundwater are anticipated due to
marine outfall discharge of the treated effluent.
Surface Water
State standards require minimum dilution in marine outfall
design, and detailed oceanographic data and engineering studies
would be required to determine the depth and distance from shore
at which water quality standards would be met.
Secondary treatment and disinfection are expected to result
in a wastewater discharge with only minor effects on water
quality in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. Nutrients are
likely to be rapidly taken up by phytoplankton, but the volume of
waste discharge and the total nutrient loading is expected to be
too small to result in a measurable change in phytoplankton
populations in the outfall area. The absence of industrial
effluents in the service area is expected to result in a treated
effluent with very low concentrations of potentially toxic
chemicals. No significant surface water impacts are expected.
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Biota
Impacts to terrestrial wildlife from this alternative could
result from the construction of the pipeline from the plant to
the outfall. While there is no specific layout developed at this
point, some generalized impacts can be described. The pipeline
would follow existing roadways where possible, minimizing impacts
to habitat and thus to wildlife. There could be a stream
crossing. Impacts to wildlife from construction in habitats
other than wetlands would vary depending on the initial condition
of the affected habitat. Most habitat values and wildlife uses
would likely be regained with the restoration of the original
vegetation community type. Forested communities would take
longer to recover. These impacts are also less than significant.
Wetlands
There are two wetlands below the existing plant and one near
the Neskowin Creek RV Resort that would be impacted if
4-32
-------
construction occurred in or near them. Both the riparian and
wetland habitats in this area are diverse and support a large
number of species of wildlife. Animals using the palustrine
scrub-shrub, riparian, and open water wetland habitats for food,
nesting and cover include songbirds, herons, swallows,
kingfishers, raccoons, beaver, mink, and amphibians.
Construction in the vicinity of these habitats would adversely
impact wildlife use for at least the duration of construction.
Construction activities within the wetland would cause the
temporary loss of the habitat values. Impacts to wildlife would
be as described for construction of the drainfield in
Alternative 3. Replacing destroyed vegetation in the wetlands or
along the stream would be more difficult and take longer than for
a less mature habitat such as the pasture discussed in
Alternative 3. These impacts are less than significant because
of the small area disturbed and the short duration of disruption.
Marine Resources
Short-term construction impacts on marine biota are expected
in the corridor in which the outfall is constructed. These
impacts include displacement of more mobile organisms and death
of sessile organisms. Burial of the pipe to eliminate wave
damage would result in a disruption of benthic communities along
the outfall corridor. Repopulation would occur within two years
along the pipeline route.
Secondary-treated effluent has low suspended solids (less
than 20 mg/1). Because of the vigorous mixing processes along
the Oregon coast and the low loading of suspended solids, solids
deposition as a result of wastewater discharge in the marine
environment should not have a noticeable long-term effect on
benthic communities in the area.
Aquatic Resources
Discontinuing discharge of effluent to Neskowin Creek would
have beneficial impacts on surface water quality. However, no
noticeable changes in fish populations should occur.
tand PH
Refer to Alternative 2 for discussion of consistency of this
alternative with the comprehensive plan. In addition to the
comprehensive plan requirements discussed above, Goals 18 and 19
are applicable to ocean outfalls.
It is not known where the pipeline from the treatment plant
would traverse the beach. Therefore, impacts to existing land
uses cannot be assessed in detail. However, the pipeline most
likely would be located in road easements until the pipeline
reached Neskowin Heights, and then would be directed out to the
ocean.
4-33
-------
The beach lies within the Shorelands Overlay Zone and the
coastal zone. The pipeline is likely to pass through Neskowin
Heights, which is zoned Low Density Urban Residential (R-l).
Areas east of Neskowin Heights are zoned either Forest (F) or
Small Farm and Woodlot (20 acre minimum) . Utility pipelines are
permitted outright in the Small Farm and Woodlot zone and with a
conditional use permit in the Forest zone. Therefore, the
pipeline route would be consistent with the County Land Use
Ordinance and no significant land use impacts are expected. A
new Land Use Compatibility Statement from Tillamook County would
be required for this alternative.
Socioeconomics
Impacts of this alternative on population trends and public
services are virtually identical to those described for
Alternative 2.
Public Health
Under this alternative, no public health problems are
expected to occur since the outfall would be required to meet
state design and siting standards.
Air Quality. Noise, and Traffic
Construction of a marine outfall could temporarily increase
traffic and noise in neighborhoods along the outfall route from
the treatment plant to the ocean. No operational impacts are
expected to occur. Refer to Alternative 2 for discussion of
secondary impacts from growth inducement.
ALTERNATIVE 6: ALTERED WETLAND TREATMENT
Soils
Soils in the created wetlands would likely show increased
levels of nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen. Due
to the low pH of wetland soils, pH increases are expected from
effluent. The magnitude of these changes would depend on the
soil chemistry and the quantity and quality of the added
effluent. The Riedesel's Pasture site contains prime
agricultural land (Bizeau pers. comm.). Creation of an altered
wetland at this site would forever preclude its use for
agriculture. This impact is considered significant and
irreversible. This site has been dropped from consideration due
to insufficient size (see Chapter 2).
Groundwater
The altered wetland would remove most if not all of the
total suspended solids (TSS) and organic nutrients contained in
the treated effluent. Depending on the soil type in the area,
infiltration of the effluent into the groundwater can vary.
4-34
-------
The altered wetlands in North Neskowin would ultimately
discharge into the existing Neskowin Crest Wetland (Figures 2-5
and 3-4). The soil in the existing wetlands is classified as
Hebo series soil, which is characterized by slow percolation into
the subsurface. This site has been dropped from consideration
because of possible impacts to vegetation in the Neskowin Crest
Wetland.
At the Riedesel's Pasture site alternative, the soils are
the Nehalem series, and moderately well drained. Although
significant treatment would occur in the wetland, degradation of
the water quality could occur in the groundwater underlying the
wetlands. However, because the groundwater would probably
discharge to Neskowin Creek, any water quality degradation would
probably be a localized occurrence and is not considered a
significant impact. Available information does not indicate the
existence of any domestic or municipal water wells near the
proposed treatment plant site. Water quality monitoring of the
groundwater in the vicinity of the wetlands would be necessary to
determine if the groundwater is being impacted. The impact to
groundwater would vary with soil type and design of the wetland.
8urface Water
From a regulatory standpoint, discharge of secondary treated
effluent to wetlands created as polishing ponds (altered
wetlands) is not subject to water quality standards, even though
aquatic and wetland biota may eventually occupy and flourish in
the created wetland. Discharge of effluent from the altered
wetland, however, must meet water quality criteria in the
receiving water. In order to ensure that pathogens and viruses
are not introduced into the Neskowin Crest Wetland or Neskowin
Creek, effluent discharge to an altered wetland would be
disinfected prior to discharge to that wetland.
Discharge of effluent from a tertiary treatment altered
wetland system near Viking Estates is likely to occur to the
large Neskowin Crest Wetland at the headwaters of Meadow Creek.
The addition of up to 0.5 cfs of tertiary effluent may have an
effect on the Neskowin Crest Wetland. Factors which affect
wetland ecology include hydrologic regime, sedimentation, and
nutrient availability. In Cannon Beach, year-round discharges to
an existing wetland have led to changes in the vegetation
community as a result of continued discharge to the wetland
during the normally drier summer months (Vigil pers. comm.)
With proper design and maintenance of the altered wetland,
the majority of any remaining suspended solids from the secondary
effluent should be removed. Nutrients are expected to be taken
up by the soils, and subsequently, the vegetation in the altered
wetland, further reducing the concentration found in secondary
treated effluent. The intent of regular harvesting of vegetation
is to prevent the altered wetland from exceeding its retention
capacity for nutrients.
4-35
-------
If this alternative is selected, additional analysis will be
required to determine the hydrologic regime of the Neskowin Crest
Wetland. An evaluation of the tertiary effluents potential for
altering the wetland ecology will be necessary.
Waterfowl and wildlife occupying wetland habitats are
expected to contribute to fecal coliform loading in downstream
waters. Data collected during the summer of 1989 suggest that
wildlife in Neskowin crest Wetland contribute to fecal coliform
levels in Meadow Creek. The use of altered wetlands as effluent
treatment is not expected to either enhance or reduce the
contribution of wildlife to fecal coliform counts in Neskowin
Crest.
The impacts of discharge to the Riedesel's Pasture site are
expected to be generally comparable to those described above.
The major difference, however, is that secondary treated effluent
polished in the altered wetland eventually would be discharged to
Neskowin Creek. No significant impacts are expected.
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Biota
This alternative would remove the vegetation presently
existing at the site and significantly alter the hydrology of the
site as well. Either site would be permanently dedicated to the
altered wetland.
These sites provide food, nesting and cover values for a
similar community of wildlife as described in Alternative 1.
Short-term impacts would be the same as in Alternative 1 during
the construction period. The long-term impacts are greater,
however, because the habitat would be altered permanently.
Construction and establishment of vegetation would take one to
three years. Some of the songbirds and small mammals now present
at the site may utilize the altered wetland in reduced numbers.
Other species better adapted to increased flows and altered
vegetation community would predominate. These species include
mink, racoon, amphibians, and some additional species of
songbirds. No significant impacts would result.
Aquatic Biota
Humboldt State University and the City of Areata in northern
California are currently conducting experiments to determine if
coho salmon and steelhead can be successfully imprinted to waters
fertilized with wetland-treated secondary effluent (Allen and
Couch in press). In these experiments, fish are reared and
released from ponds fertilized by treated wastewaters. Adult
return facilities are constructed to allow entry of adults to
ponds containing water of a character similar to that in which
the fish were raised.
4-36
-------
Salmon and steelhead inmigration to Neskowin Creek occurs
between September and March, a period of relatively high flows,
and thus, high effluent dilution ratios. Discharge of the
tertiary treated effluent from the altered wetlands into Neskowin
Creek during salmonid migration would not impact these species.
Wetlands
Creation of an altered wetland treatment system would
permanently modify the habitat. The wetland at these sites
probably would be dominated by emergent vegetation such as
cattails and have some open water. The wetland habitat values
present at each of these sites are low because they are in the
early stages of recovery from use as pastures. More wetland
habitat would be gained than lost, but the vegetative community
created would be different than that which was lost.
Productivity levels would increase because of the nutrients
available in the effluent. Two or three growing seasons would be
required to establish the vegetation. No significant impacts
would result.
Land Dae
Impacts to existing land uses most likely would be
associated with modification of the existing wetland and
construction of additional wetlands. Construction of an altered
wetland would involve grading the site, building dikes or berms
for ponds, establishing an effluent distribution system, and
planting vegetation in the wetland. However, long-term impacts
would result from use of the site as an altered wetland for
effluent disposal, since the sites would be irreversibly and
irretrievably committed to use as an altered wetland. The
northern altered wetland would be compatible with the immediately
adjacent land uses of Highway 101 and the Neskowin Crest Wetland
and Meadow Creek. This potential impact is not considered
significant.
For the wetland altered in Riedesel's Pasture, additional
impacts could include a conflict between the Neskowin Creek RV
Park and the adjacent altered wetland. However, much of the land
separating the RV park from this wetland site is vegetated, and
should act as a buffer. Vegetation along Neskowin Creek acts as
a buffer between the site and Highway 101. No significant
impacts would occur. Refer to Alternative 2 for assessment of
consistency with County plans and policies. Inconsistency with
the comprehensive plan is considered a significant impact.
The Riedesel's Pasture site is zoned Small Farm and Woodlot
(20 acre minimum) and lies outside of the Neskowin Community
Growth Boundary and the NRSA boundary. Utility facilities, such
as ones for effluent disposal, are permitted in the Small Farm
and Woodlot zone. However, since the site is outside the
Community Growth Boundary and the NRSA boundary, the County
requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan (Appendix C).
The amendment was discussed above under land use impacts of
4-37
-------
Alternative 1. Acquisition of an amendment is not considered a
significant impact. A new Land Use Compatibility Statement from
Tillamook County would be required for this alternative.
The Rural Residential zone which encompasses the north
Neskowin wetland site allows wastewater treatment plants, and
most likely effluent disposal facilities, under its "public
utilities" category with a conditional use permit (Brunson pers.
comm.). This site is within the coastal zone, but not the
County's Shorelands Overlay Zone. This site for the altered
wetland is close to the Neskowin Crest Wetland. No
inconsistencies exist and no significant impacts are expected.
Socioeconomics
Impacts of this alternative on population trends and public
services are comparable to those discussed under Alternative 2.
Public Health
With this alternative, effluent would be discharged into an
altered wetland. Impacts to public health are not expected to
occur. Prior to leaving the treatment plant, effluent would be
disinfected, which would remove any pathogens before effluent is
discharged into the wetland. No significant impacts are
expected.
Historical and Archaeological Resources
There are no known historical or archaeological resources on
the sites (Appendix F). However, there is a potential for
impacts to unidentified subsurface cultural resources, which
could be significant.
Air Quality. Noise, and Traffic
With this alternative, air quality, noise, and traffic would
be impacted during construction of the altered wetland. These
impacts would depend on the size of the wetland being
constructed. Noise, dust and traffic impacts would result from
heavy equipment use.
For the north Neskowin wetland, during the summer,
construction vehicles would incrementally add to Highway 101
traffic, but the increase would be minimal compared to the volume
of traffic on the highway. Residences in Viking Estates, east of
the site, could be adversely impacted from noise and traffic
during construction. Impacts resulting from operation of the
altered wetland for effluent disposal would be minimal.
For the south Riedesel's Pasture wetland, construction-
related noise at the site could adversely impact the Neskowin
Creek RV Park. No impacts to air quality and noise are expected
to result from operation of the wetland treatment system.
4-38
-------
Refer to Alternative 2 for discussion of growth-induced
secondary impacts.
ALTERNATIVE 7: SPRAY APPLICATION
Soils
Assuming there is sufficient land available, impacts on
soils are expected to be similar to those noted for Alternative
3. One of the sites contains prime agricultural soils, as
discussed in Chapter 3. However, no adverse impacts are expected
because spray application would allow continued use of the site
for agriculture. Crops grown on this site could not be consumed
by humans. No significant impacts are expected. If insufficient
land is available, loading rates could be exceeded. Impacts
would become significant.
Groundwater
Land application of the treated effluent would ultimately
allow percolation of the effluent into the underlying
groundwater. Application near Viking Estates could result in a
certain amount of overland flow due to soil and slope
characteristics. The information listed in the 1981 facilities
plan indicates the soil in the Neskowin Creek Valley allows slow
percolation. However, additional information collected during
field investigations has been found which indicates a shallow
depth to groundwater.
Although the soil is described as allowing slow percolation,
the available information indicates a small vertical distance for
the water to travel. This could result in a short retention time
in the unsaturated zone, resulting in limited additional
treatment of the effluent.
The groundwater in the Neskowin Creek valley ultimately
discharges into the creek. Although water quality degradation is
possible due to the effluent application, the effect is expected
to be localized and no significant impacts are expected.
Surface Water
Surface runoff may directly impact on Neskowin Creek. Spray
irrigation may result in incrementally small increases in erosion
and transport of sediment to Neskowin Creek.
In North Neskowin, spray irrigation may result in
incrementally small increases in erosion and transport of
sediment to the Neskowin Crest Wetland, and subsurface discharge
may result in small increases in groundwater flow to the Neskowin
Crest Wetland and Neskowin Creek.
If sufficient land is identified, no significant impacts to
ground or surface water are expected.
4-39
-------
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Biota
There are several pastures located in the Neskowin Valley
upstream of the Highway 101 crossing. Most are actively used,
but at least one appears not to be used at this time.
The field west of Highway 101 in North Neskowin has been
left fallow and is developing some significant stands of sedge.
The increase in nutrients and especially in water to this site
would favor the dominance of this wetland species over upland
plants and would encourage the establishment of other wetland
plants. The hydric soils at this site indicate that wetland
vegetation would become increasingly dominant. The effect of
spray application would be to increase the rate of succession to
wetland vegetation and to encourage species that prefer soils
wetter than those at the site now.
Wildlife using these sites are similar to those found at
Riedesel's Pasture (Chapter 3). Impacts of this alternative
would be minor for most species. The action of frequent spraying
may disrupt the normal activities of some species more sensitive
to disturbances. However, since these habitats are already
disturbed by human activity the overall effects would be minimal.
Nutrient and water quantity increases could affect some
plant species ability to compete with other plants and result in
a different community structure in the fields. However, present
grazing and mowing activities would maintain the dominance of
grasses and herbaceous plants. Since the change of plant species
would be minor, the change of wildlife species would be minimal
as well. Because of the increase in nutrients and water,
productivity could be increased and the sites then would be able
to support greater populations of wildlife. No significant
impacts are expected.
Wetlands
The only wetlands are located in the second pasture and in
North Neskowin (Figure 2-5). There are two palustrine emergent
wetlands in the second pasture that maintain some standing water
in the winter and spring. The south wetlands are approximately
0.5 acre in size and are in a pasture presently used for grazing.
There is some diversity, but their small size and grazing impacts
limit the overall value as productive wetland habitat. Spray
application would increase the amount of water the pasture
receives in the summer. Impacts would be limited to those
resulting from increasing the water supply. The wetland habitat
acreage potentially could be increased. Impacts of this
alternative on wetland habitat are expected to be less than
significant.
4-40
-------
Aquatic Biota
Generally, impacts on aquatic biota are those associated
with change in water quality or stream hydrology. For Phase l,
these impacts are expected to be less than significant. Since no
significant changes in water quality which could impact aquatic
biota are expected, no impacts to aquatic biota are anticipated.
Following completion of Phase 2, if there are discharges of
effluent to Neskowin Creek, they could impact aquatic biota
during flow regimes below 70 cfs unless dechlorination is
undertaken. With dechlorination, no impacts to aquatic biota
would be anticipated with flows above 5 cfs.
Land Pse
Most of the land proposed for these effluent disposal sites
would be used for spray application and would resemble an
agricultural area. The Neskowin Valley sites are zoned Small
Farm and Woodlot (20 acre minimum) and Forest, and lie outside of
the Neskowin Community Growth Boundary and the NRSA boundary.
The NRSA would need to obtain a conditional use permit from the
County to dispose of effluent at this site. Since the site would
be sewered, the community growth boundary would not need to be
amended (Willard pers. comm.). A new Land Use Compatibility
Statement would be needed from the county which includes the
site.
Since the North Neskowin site is sloped away from Highway
101, the possibility for conflicts between existing land uses is
reduced. However, if sprinklers are used, a buffer should be
created between Highway 101 and the site.
Socioeconomics
Impacts of this alternative on population trends and public
services are discussed under Alternative 2.
public Health
Impacts to public health with this alternative are expected
to be minimal. Currently, NRSA uses spray irrigation as the
method to dispose of some effluent.
Historical and Archaeological Resources
No impacts to historical resources would occur as a result
of spray irrigation.
hiv pplMf Traffic
With this alternative, an increase in traffic would result
during construction of the spray application system. The
Neskowin Valley spray application site is far enough from
residences and Highway 101 so that air quality and noise impacts
should be minimal. Construction and operation of spray
4-41
-------
irrigation at the north Neskowin site could increase noise and
odors. These impacts could be significant to adjacent
residences. There would be heavy machinery used to lay pipes.
During operation of the spray application system, noise and air
quality impacts should be minimal. In addition, this site is not
located near large numbers of residences or sensitive receptors.
No significant impacts would result at the Neskowin Valley sites.
Refer to Alternative 2 for discussion of growth-induced
secondary impacts.
4-42
-------
CHAPTERS
-------
CHAPTER 5
MITIGATION MEASURES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes measures available to reduce
significant impacts identified in Chapter 4 to less-than-
significant levels.
SOILS
To prevent soil erosion impacts under Alternative 5, the
marine outfall should be constructed using erosion control
techniques including revegetation of the areas disturbed and soil
stabilization as appropriate.
GROUNDWATER
To prevent the potential for groundwater contamination
adjacent to the effluent disposal fields, groundwater monitoring
wells should be installed to assess local groundwater conditions
prior to and following implementation of Alternative 3.
SURFACE WATER
Effluent disposal alternatives under Alternative 4 would not
meet ODEQ discharge requirements during flows less than 4 cfs
(after implementation of Phase 1) or 10 cfs (after completion of
Phase 2). For this reason, and due to public opposition,
Alternative 4 was dropped from further consideration.
In order to ensure that the stream to effluent ratios are
not exceeded, a gaging station with alarms could be placed near
the outfall to measure stream flow. Diversion of effluent to the
subsurface system would be triggered by low stream flows. Water
quality impacts as a result of treatment plant discharges could
be avoided using such a diversion system.
FLOODPLAINS
In order to avoid impacts to floodplains, treatment plant
siting will not occur within the 100-year floodplain. The Butte
Creek, Hawk Creek, and Sutton Pasture sites would not be
acceptable because of their potential impact to the 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
5-1
-------
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 (and possibly
the marine outfall) could create temporary barriers to fish
migration. NRSA, in consultation with ODFW, could require
construction to be timed to avoid fish migration time periods.
Discharge of chlorinated or chlorinated/dechlorinated
effluent should be limited to high flow periods to preclude
potential impacts to aquatic resources.
WETLANDS
The intent of mitigation measures for wetlands is to reduce
impacts or restore wetland values that may be damaged or lost as
a result of Disposal Alternatives 3, 6, and 7, as well as two of
the treatment plant site alternatives. Preventative measures,
such as employment of Best Management Practices, should be
undertaken. These practices include erosion control, stormwater
control, and setting up protective barriers around sensitive
habitats.
If vegetation is removed, it should be replaced as soon as
possible to minimize both short- and long-term impacts. It is
important to use native species and to design planting plans to
closely mimic the original vegetation community structure. In
the event that sediments have built up or temporary fill has been
placed in the wetland, corrective measures would include removal
of the fill and revegetation.
If wetlands are permanently filled during construction of
Phases 1 or 2, mitigation could include construction of new
wetlands. Any created wetlands should be placed as close as
possible to the original site and in a similar position within
the drainage system. The goal is to replace the original
functional values of the wetland, which may include stormwater
and water quality control important to the specific drainage
system. If created wetlands are proposed as mitigation for
natural wetland losses, a detailed plan should be prepared by a
qualified wetland biologist.
5-2
-------
For wetlands which are likely to be indirectly affected by
urban growth during Phase 2, EPA and FmHA will provide grant or
loan conditions to prohibit sewering of such areas.
1AND DSE
To ensure consistency of Phase 1 of the project with local
land use plans under effluent disposal Alternatives 1, 3, 5, 6
and 7, the NRSA would have to apply to Tillamook County for an
amendment in the Community Growth Boundary so that the facilities
would fall within the boundary. To mitigate potential impacts to
less-than-significant levels, the plan amendment 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."
SOCIOECONOMICS
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 above on these topics.
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.
PTOMC HEALTH
Significant public health impacts should not occur under
effluent disposal Alternative 4 if dilutions exceeding 20:1 are
maintained. See "Surface Water" above for a discussion of
mitigation measures to reduce this impact to less-than-
signif icant levels.
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
5-3
-------
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
routes, manholes can be sealed and vents extended to the tops of
utility poles.
5-4
-------
CHAPTER 6
-------
CHAPTER 6
IMPACT CONCLUSIONS
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Significant adverse impacts of the preferred plant siting
alternative and preferred effluent disposal alternative are
summarized in the "Summary" section and in Chapter 4 of this
EIS. The principal adverse impact which may be unavoidable in
terms of effluent disposal Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 (i.e.,
discharge to Neskowin Creek either seasonally or year-round) is
the disposal of chlorinated or chlorinated/dechlorinated
effluent. As noted in Chapter 4, residual chlorine in effluent
which has not been dechlorinated can exceed EPA acute and chronic
toxicity standards in the receiving waters during flows below 10
cfs. This would generally occur during the summer months and
thus would more likely be an impact if Alternative 4 is
implemented. If effluent is dechlorinated prior to discharge and
the receiving water exceeds 4 cfs, EPA standards for chlorine
will not be exceeded in Phase 1. The ODFW criterion of 0.0 mg/1
during low flow will always, however, be exceeded if chlorination
is used for disinfection.
Implementation of Alternative 4 could, under certain flow
regimes, also lead to reduced DO concentrations during the
summer. These reduced concentrations would have severe impacts
to aquatic biota.
Completion of Phase 2 will provide treatment to the
population projected up to 2006. The increased population will
use the beaches, parks, and recreation facilities; they will be
more crowded than is currently the case.
Selection of Alternative 6 (altered wetland disposal in
South Neskowin) will result in the conversion and loss of prime
agricultural land.
Operation of a treatment facility at Butte Creek or Sutton
Pasture could lead to odor impacts to neighboring Neskowin Crest
and the Neskowin Creek RV Park, respectively. Control of odor
at sewage treatment plants has not been fully successful.
Use of subsurface disposal during the summer (Alternative 3)
could lead to inadequate treatment of effluent, soil saturation,
and contamination of groundwater. There is insufficient land
available of suitable soil type to implement Alternatives 1, 3,
or 7 (spray application).
6-1
-------
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The permanent changes occurring to the site of the treatment
plant, if a site other than the existing treatment plant site is
selected, 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 sites and the associated loss of wildlife
habitats (and possibly floodplain protection). 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. In addition, if Alternative 6 were selected, it
would result in an irretrievable commitment of prime agricultural
soils to use as an altered wetland.
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.
6-2
-------
CHAPTER 7
-------
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 PSC SEC. 47 0 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 PSC SEC. 1531 ET BEO.l
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:
ฆ 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.
ฆ 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,H 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 impacts to floodplains. The alternatives
may also indirectly result in construction or accommodate growth
in floodplains. EPA and FmHA can provide grant, loan, and permit
conditions to limit or preclude construction adversely affecting
floodplains.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 - PROTECTION OP 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 project will not directly result in
new construction located in wetlands. However, all other
suitable sites in the project area, except the site of
the existing plant 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);
ฆ impacts on public health;
impacts on dune aquifer;
ฆ 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 the
potential 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.
Subsurface disposal along Breakers Boulevard does not
appear to be a technically sound disposal alternative,
therefore, detailed information on groundwater flow is
probably not needed.
- 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.
AGENCIES >wn TMPIVIDUALS RECEIVING COPIES OP THE DRAFT 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
7-5
-------
- Oregon Operations Office
- EIS Filing Section
ฆ Federal Emergency Management Agency
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- Division of Ecological Services
- Regional Office
U. S. Forest Service
- Suislaw National Forest
ฆ 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
ฆ Oregon State Department of Water Resources
ฆ Oregon State Division of Intergovernmental Relations
Oregon State Highway Division
Oregon State University, Department of Zoology
ฆ University of Oregon, Department of Geology
LOCAL AGENCIES
Department of Community Development
Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
Netarts-Oceanside Sanitary District
ฆ Tillamook County Department of Community Development
Tillamook County Sanitation Department
LIBRARIES
Pacific City Library
ฆ Salem Central Library
Tillamook County Library
INTEREST GROUPS
1000 Friends of Oregon
Community Action Team
ฆ The National Audubon Society
The Nature Conservancy
Oregon Environmental Council
ฆ Oregon Parks Foundation, Inc.
Oregon Shores Coalition
ฆ Oregon Trout
ฆ Oregon Wetlands Conservancy
Pacific Northwest Natural Resources
7-6
-------
OTHER CONCERNED BUSINESSES
ฆ Coldwell Banker, N. Kirk Taylor
GBD Architects, Stephen W. Domreis, AIA
HGE, Inc. Engineers & Planners
ฆ 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.
ฆ The Proctor & Gamble Co., St. Bernard Plant, Peter S.
Mclndoe
7-7
-------
INDIVIDUALS
Anderson, John W. P.E., Ph.D.
Joyce, David
Applegate, Lester
Joyce, Kacey
Ayers, Ray
Joyce, Katharine
Blaine, Jaime
King, Don
Blum, Jeanine
Kinnamau, Anne
Booth, Brian
Kosterlitz, Dr. Richard H.
Boyden, Allen, M.D.
Kovack, Laurie
Boyden, Marjorie
Kovak, L. A.
Buck, Fred L.
LaRiviere, John
Conklin, Robert B.
Marsh, Loyal F. Ph.D., P.C.
Connors, Edward C.
Martin, Kerri
Corliss, John F.
Martin, William
Craig, D. H.
Mason, Robert
Crandall, Ann
McCallum, Mrs.
Culp, R. D.
Mclndoe, Judith
Dawson, Mr. & Mrs.
Mclndoe, Mary Anne
de Rham, Margaret W. H.
McMenamin, Bob
DeArmond, Ron
McMinimee, L. C.
Dougherty, Philip
McNama ra, Kev in
Duncan, David J.
Meaney, Peter & Ruth
Duncan, Dr. Alice
Meihoff, Walter M.D.
Eaton, Sidney L.
Merchant, Carolyn M.
Eltz, Michele
Needham, W. H.
Foor, Ann
Nelson, W. Byron
Foster, Janet M.
Oyala, Pam
Frank, Douglas
Patten, George F. Jr.
Franklin, H. P.
Patten, Skip
Fuller, M.
Patten, Stuart E.
Fuller, Marian
Patton, Alice L.
Gallop, Betty
Pfeiffer, Steve
Gerrish, Deborah
Powelel, Audrey
Gill, M. P.
Prince, Ken & Laura
Graber, Robert
Quirin, Rhoda
Graber, Robert J.
Riche, John
Green, George
Riedesel, P. J.
Hadley, Mr. & Mrs. Wayne
Roberts, Bette
Haga, Lee R.
Robnett, Tony
Hale, Bill
Rueter, Patty
Hamilton, Linda Nelson
Saxton, Lynne
Hammel, Lloyd
Schlicting, Hal
Hammel, Sharon
Schlicting, Theodore
Hansen, Neil B.
Seeley, Becky Wiese
Harmon, Jean F.
Sherman, Leslie
Harris, Evelyn
Sifford, Alex
Harrison, Mr. & Mrs. Eugene
Smith, David B.
Hiatt, Bill
Smith, Gregory T. Ph.D., P.C
Hirsch, Frederic S.
Smith, Karen
Hirsch, Harold
Smith, Owen T.
Hite, Martha
Smith, William
Holcomb, Idris
Staats, Donald R.
Hoisworth, Garry
Steelhammer, Jan
Holzworth, Jill
Stephens, Sue
Johnson, Veronica
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
-------
CHAPTER 8
-------
CHAPTER 8
LIST OF PREPARERS
KEY PERgQWEfc
A. Herson
D. DesVoigne
H. Van Veldhuizen . . . .
6. Grette
J. Ives
A. Herson
R. Trott
H. Glines
T. Huse (Montgomery Egrs.)
P. Newton (SCS)
R. Alvord (SCS)
Role
Principal in Charge
Project Manager
Former Project Manager
Water Resource Task Leader
Terrestrial Biota Task Leader
Land Use Task Leader
Socioeconomics Task Leader
Technical Editor
Cost Estimates
Engineering Task Leader
Hydrogeology Task Leader
TECHMIOAL support staff
s.
Cassatt
R.
Denman
M.
Rudman
M.
Rittmann
R.
Oestman
J.
Grathwol
C.
staedter
G.
Helland (SCS) . . .
K.
Beattie (SCS) . . .
8-1
-------
CHAPTER 9
-------
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, G. H. and D. R. Couch. [In press]. Evolving management
techniques at the Areata 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 An
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
-------
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, G. H. and O. R. Couch. [In press]. Evolving management
techniques at the Areata 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. 6. 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 aguifer
study, June 1982. Eugene, OR.
Magaritz, M. and J. E. Luzier. 1985. Water-rock interactions
and seawater-freshwater mixing effects in the coastal dunes
aguifer, 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.f 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, Areata, 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.
Branson, 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.
Holzworth, 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
Date
Flow fcfs)
Hawk
Highway Crossing, 5S, 11U, Sec. 25, NEW
08-28-31
0.40
Hawk
300" Above Highway Crossing, Sec. 25, SEW
09-09-34
0.30
Hawk
SEW, SWA, Sec. 25
09-11-36
0.50
Hawk
SEW, SUH, Sec. 25
09-04-35
0.40
Hawk
Sift, Sec. 25
09-11-37
0.90
Neskowin
6S, 10W, Sec. 15, NWA (Headwaters)
08-29-31
0.20
Neskowin
5S, 11U, Sec. 36, SEW (Near Mouth)
08-29-31
2.00
Neskowin
SEW. Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
09-09-34
2.60
Neskowin
NIM, Sec. 15 (Headwaters)
09-09-34
0.50
Neskowin
SEW, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
09-11-36
2.50
Neskowin
SEW, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
09-16-37
5.40
Neskowin
Highway Bridge Crossing
08-15-52
10.60
Neskowin
6S, 10U, Sec. 6. NE W, SE W
08-09-73
7.44
Neskowin
6S, 10U, Sec. 6, NE W, SE W
09-06-73
5.49
Neskowin
SEW. SEW, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
05-15-73
21.50
Neskowin
SEW, SEW, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
08-20-74
16.3
Neskowin
SEW, SEW, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
10-05-74
5.37
Neskowin
SEW, SEW, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
05-28-75
21.6
Neskowin
SEW, SEW, Sec. 36 (Near Mouth)
07-02-75
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
USFWS ENDANGERED
SPECIES CONSULTATION
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
July 26, 1988
1-7-88-SP-325
jW
/'Mz
Portland Field Office
727 NE 24th Avenue
Portland, OR 97232
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,
MCEIVED
Russell D. Peterson JUlES
Plead supervisor OREGON OPERATIONS OFFICE
EPA-REGION 10
CC: R1 FWE-SE
PFO-ES
ODFW (Kongame), Portland
ODFW, Tillamook
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
r~
cc: ODFW (Nongame)
ONHP
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT
-------
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Vic Affolter, Director
D.E.O.
811 S.W. 6
Portland, i
August 5,
201 Laurel Avenue
Tillamook, Oregon 97141
(503) 842-3408
Tillamook County
Land of Cheese, Trees and Ocean Breeze
Att: Ken Vigil
This le 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 Neekowln 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 (URSA) and their attempts to secure funding.
The public facilities element does not address the location,
timing, and capacity of a sewage facility In Neskowln. However,
there is sufficient evidence of health hazards resulting from
inadequate septic systems In the area to conclude that there is
an immediate need for e system that can serve the developed
portion of Neskowln. A further benefit of such a system is its
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 infeasible. .. This means that the
C-l
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
Ken Vigil
August 5, 1987
Page 2
relatively email portion of the authority that la outside of the
Neskowln CGB could not be served without a plan anendnent. We
anticipate that thla laaue will be reaolved 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 thla opportunity to Identify remaining land use
Issues so that they say be resolved In a timely way and not serve
as an obatacle to construction of this such needed sewage treat-
sent facility. Ue strongly support this project and will do
whatever we can to aaslst In lta 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 arid Ocean Breeze
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Tillamook County Courthouse
201 Laurel Avenue, Tillamook, Oregon 97141
August 5, 1967
Ken Vigil
D.E.Q.
811 S.W. 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Dear Mr. Vigil:
He have reviewed the facilities plan report for the Neskawin
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, 19Q4ป 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 Goals.
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'e Community Growth Boundary.
Sincerely,
Dean J. Kinkade, Chairman
y c t. * ^. \ j C.. 't -4. t'Qi
Gerald A. Woodward. Commissioner
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR^TILLAMOOK COUNTY, , 0REGL0N
C-3
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
STATE OF OREGON
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 plans, consistency mist bs
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. Vhen was the acknowledgement received?
2. It the proposed project's location, timing vicO \'S^
and capacity consistent with the public >|cO. J oJtt>xVปA.
3.
facilities element of your plan? |
Does the-project conflict with any other
element of the comprehensive plan? If so, Is a . V
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 faclHtles planning area:
1. Vhen will the comprehensive plan be submitted for
acknowl edgement?
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
limits, 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 en urbanized area, provide the
reasons for this extension of service.
C-4
-------
State of Oregon
Dept of Environmental Quality
811 SW Sixth Ave
Portland, OR 97204
DEQ Office Use Only
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STATEMENT
19 NW 5th Avenue
Applicant Neskowin Regional
Sanitary Authority:KGE Inc.
DCRPTHe^NATUn^ A^tD LOCATION oW Vni PROPOSED frlCM OR EXPANDED PAilLlTY SITE
(include APPROPRIATE LEOAL DESCRIPTION AND ZONING DESIGNATION J
222-1687
NESKOWIN REGIONAL SANITARY AUTHORITY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
SEE ATTACHED QESCRIPTION--
FACILITY/SITE LOCATION (CHECK ONE)
~ '
NSIDE CITY
~
INSIDE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS
12
OUTS IDE URBAN OROWTH
BOUNDARY
STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY FROM APPROPRIATE LAND USE AUTHORITY
(An equivalent statement may be provided in lieu of this form)
IP TNE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN j.8 YlOt ACKNOWLEDGED j CHECK ONE OP THE POLLOWINO:
~
THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH
STATER IDE PLANNING GOALS
fj THE PROPOSAL 19 CONSISTENT WITH THE
_J STATEWIDE PLANNING COALS
ttach additional findings which reference statewide planning goals and state how the
roposed activity is compatible with them.
i
IP THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN {g ACKNOWLEDGEDt CHECK ONE OR MORE OP THE POLLOWINat
ME PROPOSED ACTIVITY:
q IB ALLOWED OUTRIGHT BY THE PLAN
~IS ALLOWED BY THE PLAN BUT IS SUBJECT TO
PUTURE GOAL CONSIDERATION BY AN AGENCY
H !$.ฃkt2S5D. '* SUBJECT to n ป NOT ADDRESSED OR CONTROLLED BY THE PLAN
M STANDARDS IN SITING* DESI.QN. CONSTRUCTION U
and/or operation and Conditfonaluse Procedure
~ *ZซI5fซfLAN BUT SUBJECT TO 1-1 IS PROHIBITED BY THE PLAN
JUrVsdICt'iON N the local u
~
DURING THE PERIODIC REVIEW THE PLAN WAS NOT POUND TO
BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATEWIDE PLANNINO GOALS
Attach additional findings which reference the specific plan policies criteria or standards
which 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
statewide planning goals and state how the proposed activity is compatible with them.
LAซ4b'"bSE AUTHORITY
rnnntv npnartmont. nf fnmnrnnit.^flfiv^looment
BE
D1 rector 8/3/87
USE T>ซ fT)LLOWING SIGNATURE BOX FOR CITY/COUNTY CONCURRENCE IF INSIDE URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY AND OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS
LAND UBK AUTHORITY
SICNEO
VItLK
C-5
DATE
-------
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 Location Flow (cfs)
08/29/31
T6S,
R10W,
Sec.
15
, NWij (Headwaters)
0,
.20
08/29/31
T5S,
R11W,
Sec.
36
, SE
-------
Table D-2. 1988 Neskowin Creek Drainage Measurements
Date Flow (cfs) Date Flow (cfs)
06/21
27.3*
08/15
9.3
06/22
26
08/16
27.6
06/24
21.7*
08/17
14
06/25
22
08/19
10
06/26
20
08/21
9.5
06/27
19
08/23
9.5
06/28
21.2*
08/24
9.5
06/29
19
08/25
10
06/30
19
08/27
9.5
07/01
17.2
08/29
9.5
07/04
19
08/31
7.33*
07/05
22.3*
09/02
6.49*
07/06
19
09/03
7
07/07
18
09/05
6.5
07/08
16
09/07
7.5
07/10
14
09/09
6.0
07/11
16
09/12
6.5
07/13
41.5*
09/14
5.0
07/14
26
09/17
7.0
07/15
22
09/19
8.0
07/16
20
09/22
8.5
07/17
19
09/24
9.0
07/18
19.3*
09/26
12.64
07/20
17.3*
09/28
17.6
07/25
15.3*
10/01
11.08
07/26
14
10/04
8.5
07/27
13.6*
10/06
9.52
07/30
13
10/08
8.0
08/01
12.1*
10/10
9.0
08/02
12
10/12
19.8
08/03
12
10/15
08/04
12*
10/18
35.1
08/08
10.3*
10/20
34.0
08/10
10
10/22
31.5
* Indicates discharge measurement taken, all other flows from a
stage-discharge relationship.
D-2
-------
Table D-3. Neskovin Creek Low Flows, 1988
Lowest Monthly Flow Measured Monthly Precip. (% of normal)*
June 19 cfs 79%
July 13 cfs 187%
August 7.33 cfs 35%
September 5 cfs 79%
October 8.5 cfs 34%**
* Precipitation measured approximately 7 miles SE of Neskowin.
** Precipitation measured approximately 25 miles N of Neskowin.
Table D-4. Estimated Neskowin and Hawk Creek Flood Flows
Flows fcfs^
Return Interval (years) Neskowin Creek Hawk Creek
2 1531 320
5 2180 433
10 2565 554
25 3075 675
50 3554 780
100 3871 864
Source: USGS
D-3
-------
Table D-5. Hawk Creek Discharge Measurements
Date Location Flow (cfs)
08/28/31
NE^,
S25,
T5S,
R11W
0.40
09/09/34
SEJj,
S25,
T5S,
R11W
0.30
09/11/36
SE*,
SW
S25,
T5S,
R11W
0.50
09/04/35
SE^,
swh,
S25,
T5S,
R11W
0.40
09/11/37
swh,
S25,
T5S,
R11W
0.90
06/21/88
SW h,
S25,
T5S,
R11W
10.6
07/01/88
sm,
S25,
T5S,
R11W
9.2
07/13/88
swk,
S25,
T5S,
R11W
11.9
D-4
-------
Table D-6. Bacteriological, Chemical, and Physical Data from Neskowin
Area Streams Surveyed on August 6, 1985
Number per 100 ml
mg/1
Station
#
Sampling Location
Hour
Temp.
ฐC
FC
FS N03 + N02-N
Meadow Creek
1
North of Pacific Sands Golf
Course, private road
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 Creek
11
12
Hawk St. at west side of culvert
Hawk Cr. Golf Course, bridge upstream
from practice putting greens
Hawk St. east side of road
(Butte Creek flows into Hawk Creek)
14 50' to 75' downstream from
Butte Cr. mouth
15 Off of Hawk Dr., opposite house
-- horse corral
16 Yamhill St. & Hawk Dr.
17 Between Yamhill and McMinnville
Streets
1340
1640
1040
1520
1440
1030
1515
1050
1525
1745
1100
1748
1420
1752
1125
1505
1823
1405
1650
1757
1655
1802
1700
20
20
14
8
15
17
14
18
90
60
20
10
200
170
100
40
90
90
740
150
10
<10
10
<10
1,600
1,100
2,600
770
600
700
60
70
210
170
270
340
150
270
190
610
1,300
300
830
120
60
60
4,100 3,100
1,000
520
630
460
340
300
0.03
0.02
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.63
0.62
0.89
D-5
-------
Number per 100 ml mp/1
Station
#
Sampling Location
Hour
Temp.
ฐC
FC
FS NO3 + NO2-N
18
Salem St. bridge
Button Creek f tributary to Neskowin Creeks
22 Private road crossing
Neskowin Creek
23
Estuary
21
About 0.5 miles south of
Neskowin, private bridge
About 50' downstream from junction
of Hawk Cr. and Neskowin Cr.
FC = Fecal Coliform
FS = Fecal Streptococcus
1115
1718
1815
1734
1500
1710
14 10,000 4,900
800 420
390 220
0.87
14
30
<10
530
<10
40
300
0.28
D-6
-------
Table D-7. Bacteriological, Chemical, and Physical Data from Neskowin
Area Streams Surveyed on August 19,1985
Number per 100 ml
mJl
Station
#
Sampling Location
Hour
Temp.
ฐC
FC
FS N03+N02-N
Meadow Creek
1
North of Pacific Sands Golf
Course, private road
First bridge northeast of 1st
Tee, Pacific Sands Golf Course
Butte Creek
4
Near 8th Tee at Pacific Sands
Golf Course
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
Hawk St. at west side of culvert
9 About 100' downstream from Hawk
St., yard of un-numbered home
10 About 15' upstream from Butte Cr.
mouth
Hawk Creek
11
12
Hawk Cr. Golf Course, bridge upstream
from practice putting greens
Hawk St. at east side of culvert
13 Hawk St. about 20' downstream from
culvert
1427
1100
1453
1050
1446
1458
1109
1503
1113
1245
1515
1550
0925
1524
1027
0900
1536
1355
1126
1527
0904
1529
13
13
14
13
13
15
13
120
10
10
180
270
210
190
140
360
200
180
250
380
220
220
6,100
240
<10
10
10
20
20
200
670
650
190
140
110
350
400
420
760
420
620
380
360
480
720
410
30
70
180
220
100
<0.02
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.58
0.60
D-7
-------
Number per 100 ml
mg/1
Station
#
Sampling Location
Hour
Temp.
ฐC
FC
FS N03 + NQ2-N
(Butte Creek flows into Hawk Creek)
14 About 75' downstream from Butte Cr. 0850
mouth 1532
16
Yamhill St.
(Marsh drainage just north of Wayside
parking lot)
18 Salem St. bridge
19 Opposite Neskowin Lodge, downstream
of walkway
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 About 0.5 miles south of
Neskowin, private bridge
20 Near mouth, southwest corner of
Gold Cove Restaurant
Estuary
21 100' to 150' downstream from junction
of Hawk Cr. and Neskowin Cr.
FC = Fecal Coliform
FS = Fecal Streptococcus
1215
1015
1225
1616
1003
1233
1625
14
10
20
30
40
3,800
1,700
50
100
80
80
10
330
400
20
0.27
0.88
D-8
-------
Table 0-8.
Uater Quality, March 29,
1989
Neskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
Station
1
2
3
Replicate
4a 4b
Blank
Time collected (hr)
1200
1230
1330
1350
1415
1340
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
Not Collected During This Survey
Pซ
Conductance (whos/cm)
6.319
152
6.317
125
6.541
48
6.584
51
6.555
49
6.527
1
Nitrogen, aanonia (mg/l)
Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (mg/l)
0.61
1.01
no a 0.1
0.351
1.19
ND a 0.1
0.343
1.25
ND a 0.1
0.349
2.65
ND a 0.1
0.338
2.57
ND a 0.1
0.221
0.046
ND a 0.1
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Ortho-phosphate (mg/l)
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
no a 0.1
no a 0.1
no a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
7.44
6.71
0.84
0.73
0.74
0.16
Total suspended solids (ng/l)
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
4
52
9
44
6
14
13
10
19
15
nd a i
nd a 1
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
7.6
NO a 3
7.6
NO a 3
11.94
ND a 3
12.14
ND a 3
12.17
NO a 3
11.15
ND a 3
Fecal coliform (#/100 mis)
Fecal streptococcus (#/100 mis)
52
56
78
24
1
nd a 1
3
nd a 1
4
4
nd a 1
nd a 1
-------
Table D-9. Water Duality, April 10, 1989 -- Neskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
Station 1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7 Blank
Time collected (hr)
1305
1325
1430
1500
1440
1355
1355
1340
1410
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
54
54
53
53
53
53
53
54
64
pH
6.112
6.057
6.738
6.904
3.874
6.876
6.947
6.8
7.106
Conductance (umhos/cm)
322
274
201
202
198
215
209
227
0.639
Nitrogen, ammonia (mg/l)
0.65
0.51
0.05
0.04
0.62
0.49
0.47
0.6
ND a 0.01
Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
0.615
0.728
1.28
0.996
1.03
1.81
1.8
2.18
ND a 0.05
Nitrogen, total ICjeldahl (mg/l)
0.71
0.58
0.07
0.07
0.73
0.53
0.53
0.64
ND a 0.01
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
ND a 0.1
0.1
nd a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND S 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
Ortho-phosphate (mg/l)
0.14
ND a 0.1
0.1
0.1
ND 3 0.1
0.15
0.11
nd a 0.1
ND a 0.1
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
9.4
7.6
nd a 1
nd a 1
nd a 1
nd a 1
ND a 1
nd a 1
nd a 1
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
9
3
1
6
6
15
nd a 1
nd a i
nd a 1
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
194
120
96
52
52
42
42
48
nd a 1
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
5.08
5.61
9.09
9.01
9.06
9.09
9.01
8.89
8.58
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
ND a 3
ND a 3
nd a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
nd a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
Fecal coliform (#/100 mis)
21
36
ND a 2
nd a 2
ND a 2
5
4
nd a 2
nd a 2
Fecal streptococcus (ft/100 mis)
252
68
nd a 2
ND a 2
no a 2
4
ND a 2
nd a 2
nd a 2
-------
Table D-10. Water duality, May 29, 1989 -- Neskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
Replicate
Station 1
2
3
4
5a
5b
6
7
Blank
Time collected (hr)
1245
1300
1400
1455
1400
1400
1340
1320
1500
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
54
56.5
50
SO
50
50
52
54.5
75
PH
6.139
6.069
6.615
6.672
6.63
6.674
6.587
6.615
6.745
ConAjctance (inhos/cm)
335
325
197
193
196
200
211
232
<1
Nitrogen, a*moniซ (mg/l)
0.71
1.59
0.27
0.06
0.23
0.21
0.23
0.41
0.05
Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
0.375
0.333
0.72
0.823
0.714
0.764
0.853
1.31
NO a 0.05
Nitrogen, total KJetdahl (mg/l)
1.68
1.68
1.96
0.56
1.49
1.77
1.77
2.15
ND a 0.01
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
0.25
0.27
0.19
0.08
0.1
0.24
0.61
0.33
no a 0.1
Ortho-phosphate (mg/l)
0.68
0.76
0.48
0.21
0.26
0.52
1.67
0.88
nd a 0.1
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
0.23
0.27
0.17
0.08
0.09
0.21
0.58
0.32
ND a 0.1
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
13.8
12.9
ND a 1
NO a 1
ND a 1
nd a 1
1
2.5
nd a i
Total suspended solids (Mg/l)
6
7
11
no a 1
3
9
9
11
no a i
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
174
210
50
42
56
36
36
102
nd a 1
Dissolved oxygen (ng/l)
5.58
5.55
9.5
9.72
9.6
9.19
9.24
9.47
8.02
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
NO a 3
NO a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
Fecal col i form (#/100 mis)
42
21
201
28
117
224
86
116
ND 3 2
Fecal streptococcus (#/100 mis)
1085
652
38
10
34
56
14
84
nd a 2
-------
Table D-11. Water Quality, July 10t 1989 -- Neskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
Replicate
Station
1
2a
2b
3
4
5
6
7
Blank
Time collected (hr)
1215
1230
1230
1325
1345
1310
1300
1250
1345
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
60
59
59
59
58
58
59
59
72
pH
6.099
3.281
6.249
6.76
6.899
6.774
6.709
6.856
6.556
Conductance (unhos/cm)
252
130
137
77.2
70.3
45.6
103.5
99.4
<1
Nitrogen, ammonia (mg/l)
1.25
1.68
1.64
0.36
0.15
0.43
0.76
0.65
0.1
Nitrogen, nitrate (mg/l)
0.221
ND 3 0.1
ND a 0.1
0.36
0.39
0.43
0.51
0.83
ND a 0.05
Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (mg/l)
1.31
2.42
1.68
1
1.31
1.77
2.61
2.33
ND a 0.01
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
0.88
0.21
0.17
0.16
0.1
0.23
0.5
0.29
ND a 0.1
Ortho-phosphate (mg/l)
0.74
0.74
0.31
0.27
0.13
0.3
1.41
0.7
nd a o.i
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
0.14
0.12
0.07
0.09
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
ND a 0.1
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
10.1
6.6
6.1
ND a 1
ND a 1
ND a 1
ND a 1
1.24
nd a 1
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
5
10
5
3
14
4
2
2
nd a 1
Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
192
130
128
70
64
64
84
88
nd a 1
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
7.76
7.53
7.66
9.03
8.7
8.87
9.14
8.99
8.9
Biological oxygen demand (mg/l)
NO a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
Fecal coliform f#/100 mis)
>1000
18
42
40
956
41
165
404
ND a 2
Fecal streptococcus (#/100 mis)
54
85
11
5
12
17
130
121
ND a 2
-------
Table 0-12. Hater Quality, Septcaticr 11, 1969 Neskowin Creek and Tributary Stations
Station 1
2
3
4
5
6
7a
Replicate
7b
Blank
Time collected (hr)
1230
1245
1320
1335
1325
1310
1300
1300
1345
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
59
55
54
55
54
55
55
55
75
Pซ
6.592
6.544
6.949
7.029
6.926
6.951
7.032
7.05
6.627
Conductance (utfios/ca)
386
159.1
84.8
163.5
85
107.8
99.1
101.2
0.33
Nitrogen, aanonia (ng/l)
0.94
1
0.1
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.25
0.22
NO a 0.01
Nitrogen, nitrate (ng/l)
0.377
0.245
0.503
0.523
0.508
0.618
0.944
0.948
ND a 0.05
Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (mg/l)
1.68
1.12
ND a 0.1
ND a 0.1
3.26
ND a 0.1
1
0.84
ND a 0.01
Total phosphorus (ng/l)
0.51
0.153
0.16
0.251
0.13
0.067
0.19
0.116
no a o.i
Ortho-phosphate (ng/l)
1.53
0.41
0.22
0.63
0.33
0.18
0.45
0.28
ND a 0.1
Hydrolyzable phosphorus (mg/l)
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.5
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.05
ND 9 0.1
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
39.77
9.24
1.31
1.23
1.38
1.56
1.88
1.61
nd a 1
Total suspended solids (ng/l)
10
ND a 1
1
ND a 1
4
ND a 1
ND a 1
ND a 1
nd a 1
Total dissolved solids (ng/l)
271.2
110
43.1
126.9
67.3
66
95
97.5
nd a 1
Dissolved oxygen (ng/l)
6.71
7.33
9.68
9.76
9.57
9.67
9.17
8.89
9.38
Biological oxygen demand (ng/l)
NO a 3
NO a 3
ND a 3
NO a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
ND a 3
9.48
ND a 3
Fecal colffom (#/10C nls)
272
2
80
48
49
471
975
1027
ND a 2
Fecal streptococcus (9/100 nls)
106
11
13
26
24
46
118
110
ND a 2
-------
APPENDIX E
NRSA HOOK-UP DISTRIBUTION
-------
EXPLANATION OF NRSA HOOK-UPS
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
-------
ซ
4K.CCLD1CHMOT
Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW SIXTH AVENUE. PORTLAND. OREGON 97204-1390 PHONE (503) 229-5696
June 6, 1988
David W. Powers. Program Manager
State Historic Preservation Office
525 Trade; Street SE
Saieni, Oregon 9731C
Re: St;vor.:r.i> i'*:ojcct
Soskowin. Oregon
Dear Mr. Powers:
This letter is intended to solicit comment from your office on a planned
project at Neskowin, Oregon. The N'eskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
(NRSA) proposes to construct a nev sewage conveyance system, treatment
plant, and disposal facility to replace falling septic tanks and an
inadequate private package sewage treatment plant that currently serve the
area.
The NRSA 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 the project by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
We would appreciate comment from your office on the effect that this project
may have on historic and cultural resources in the Neskowin area. Are there
any historic or archeological sices that could be impacted by the proposed
project?
Enclosed are a description and map of the project from the first draft of
the Environmental Assessment. Please call me at 229-S622 if you need
additional Information for your evaluation. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Vigil
Environmental Engineer
U'acer Quality Division
KMV:kj c
W J 620
Enclosures
-------
Department of Transportation
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
Parks and Recreation Division
525 TRADE STREET S.E.. SALEM. OREGON 973 10
June 8, 1988
Kenneth M. Vigil
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental 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.
Wator Quality Orison
Dept. of f?uaM\
On the enclosed map, 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 yo^rhave any questions, you can contact Dr. Leland
Gilsen at/378-5j623.
\l
Sinqfefelj
Ml:
D. Wฆ/-rowers^ "Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
DWP:lr
VIGIL.LTR
F-2
-------
Regional
Sanitary
mEiDElfihfn
Authority
JUL f) H 19B0
P.O. Bo* 383 Neskowin, Oregon 97149 (503) 392-3115
Water Quality Division
Opt. Of Environmental Quality
June 30,1988
Ken Vigil
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.w. 6 th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
Dear Ken,
After being contacted by you on June 20th concerning the St<~te
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
v;e 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
.T.e 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. A1 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
it the mouth of Neskowin Creek. The destruction of this
site during construction of Neskowin Locae prevented a
full delineation of the sites extent. Further, residential
c-avelopment of Neskowin makes detection of archeologica 1
-------
Page 2
material difficult'.".' She also savs". . . . 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 2*lth 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 moniccring (at
those sites) during construction". His report will ve-
to Dr. Gilsen who will apparently render judgement
what, if anything, needs to be cone. Mr. lir'..tchciri s-i:c
that "... such an obligation (monitor in .3 j i :i net tc_,
severe a constraint and hopefully wi i i not i :np i p. -
nificantly on the project".
I presume that; Dr. Gilsen will be ir. touch with you:
Respectfully,
David D. Harris
Chairman
NRSA
cc: HGE
F-4
-------
cix^rfi ui&
rimutt uM
ft** ffA-fiOJ
nwfMHrf runf
ปb>itu, n*uf tilt
cum nun
yiKtUeo* UUti
\
IJBteEtU'l
U U }'JN 1113=B
VMW 0ซ
WW, Wl I
F-5
------- |