EPA-910/9-77-047 EPA- IO/WA-KITSAP-SINCLAIR-WWTW-77
DRAFT 1
Environmental Impact Statement
November 1977
Sinclair Inlet
Wastewater Facilities Project
Kitsap County, Washington
DRAFT
¦
o
T
s
Environmental Impact Statement
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SINCLAIR INLET
SEWERAGE FACILITIES PLAN
EPA Project No. C-530559
Prepared by
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
NOVEMBER 1977
Prepared with the Assistance of
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC.
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, California 94710
SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS, INC.
6420 Wilshire IkfuTStard
Los Angelex^C^l^'fornia 90048
Approved
Date October 26, 1977
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLE
SUMMARY SHEET
Page
Section
II
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Background
Present Status
Summary
Alternative Plans
Project Costs
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Physiography
Geology
Stratigraphy
Structural and Tectonic
Activity
Geological Hazards
Soils
Climate
Precipitation, Humidity and
Evaporation
Temperature
Winds
Air Quality
Existing Conditions from Available
Inventory Data
Noise
Odors
Fresh Water Hydrology and Water Quality
Surface Water
1
1
2
5
5
11
15
15
15
15
19
19
20
21
22
22
24
26
26
27
27
28
28
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Section
(II) Water Supply and Water Rights 28
Surface Water Quality 31
Groundwater 33
Terrestrial Environment 34
Biotic Communities 35
Rare and Endangered Species 35
Sensitive Ecological Areas 37
Physical Marine Environment 37
Hydrography and Circulation 37
Marine Water Quality 39
Biological Marine Environment 41
Marine Habitats 42
Algal Production 42
Fisheries and Aquaculture 46
Archaeological, Historical and Other
Cultural Resources 48
Archaeological Resources 48
Historic Resources 48
Demography 50
Future Population Distribution 52
Future Land Use 55
Employment 57
Income 60
Business and Industry 60
Tax Base and Assessed Values 61
Land and Property Value 64
Bonded Debt 64
Kitsap County 65
City of Port Orchard ^6
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Section
(II) City of Bremerton 66
Utility Services 67
Gas 67
Electric Power 67
Storm Drains Systems 68
Transportation 68
Visual and Aesthetic Environment 69
Recreation Areas 70
III ALTERNATIVE PLANS 73
Design Flows and Quality 73
Alternative Strategies 74
Discharge to Sinclair Inlet 76
Discharge to Port Orchard Bay 76
Discharge at Manchester 76
Nutrient Removal 76
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) ¦ 79
Land Treatment of Wastewater 79
No Action Strategy 80
Strategy Evaluation by the Facilities Plan 80
Alternative Plans-Sinclair Inlet
Discharge Strategy 82
Site Descriptions for Proposed Facilities 90
Project Costs-Sinclair Inlet Discharge
Strategy 93
Revised Alternative 2 Project Costs 98
Interaction with Other Plans 100
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan 100
Central Kitsap County Wastewater
Facilities Plan 100
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
(III) Kitsap Basin Water Pollution Control
and Abatement Plan 101
The Shoreline Management Act 101
IV ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 105
Short-Term Impacts
Long-Term Direct Impacts 105
Soils and Geology 105
Air Quality 111
Odors 111
Noise 113
Fresh Water Hydrology and Water Quality 113
Terrestrial Environment 117
Physical Marine Environment 117
Biological Marine Environment 123
Archaeological, Historical and Cultural
Resources 127
Socio-Cultural and Economic Effects 127
Long-Term Indirect Impacts 139
Soils and Geology 141
Water Resources 141
Terrestrial Environment 143
Marine Environment 144
Archaeological and Historical Resources 145
Air Quality 146
Noise 146
V ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 147
Alternative Plans 147
VI IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES 151
Irreversible and Irretrievable Energy and
Economic Resource Commitment 151
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Section
(VI)
Irreversible Destruction of Soil Profile
Irreversible Loss of Wildlife Habitat
Irreversible Water and Nutrient Resource
Loss
152
152
153
VII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
155
VIII
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
159
Appendix
A
WATER QUALITY REGULATION AND STANDARDS
Appendix
B
BIOLOGICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
Appendix
C
MODELING OF WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Appendix
D
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Appendix
E
ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL AND OTHER CULTURAL
RESOURCES
Appendix
F
CITY AND COUNTY BUDGETS
Appendix
G
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
V
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1. Sinclair Inlet Wastewater Facilities Planning 3
Area
2. Sinclair Inlet Discharge Transmission/Treatment 6
Alternatives
3. Elevation Provinces of Planning Area 16
4. Geologic Formations Within Study Area 17
5. Schematic Geological Structures in the Study 18
Area
6. Mean Annual Precipitation Kitsap County 23
(1946-1960)
7. Average Monthly Precipitation For The Ten Year 24
Period 1965-1974, Bremerton Gaging Station
8. Percentage Frequency of Occurrence of 25
Hourly Average Surface Winds
9. Location of Principal Streams and Drainage 29
Areas
10. General Vegetation and Land Use Distribution 36
in Central Portion of Study Area
11. Computed Algal Biomass Concentrations in 45
Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet and Port Orchard
12. Aquacultural Resources 47
13. Developed Areas 53
14. Projected Land Use Profile Map 56
15. Estimated Untreated Waste Loads 75
16. Alternative 2 84
17. Alternative 3 86
18. Alternative 4 88
19. Alternative 5 89
20. Kitsap County Comprehensive Sewerage Plan 102
21. Percentage Exchange of Water in Sinclair Inlet/ 121
Lower Port Orchard Bay with each Tidal Cycle
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Project Costs - All Alternatives 13
2. Air Pollutant Emissions in Kitsap County (1975) 27
3. Drainage Areas and Low Flow Characteristics 30
4. Appropriated Water Rights Versus Low Flows in 31
Blackjack and Chico Creeks
5. Quarterly Monitoring of Coliform Levels 40
6. Marine Habitat Types Within the Study Area 43
7. Vertical Zones Within the Marine Environment 44
8. Average Marine Landings and Value Within The 49
Planning Area, 1972-1974
9. Population Growth, Kitsap County and Cities in 9
Study Area: 1910-1975
10. Sub-area Growth, 1960-1975 10
11. Total and Sewered Population Projections 54
12. Resident Labor Force and Employment: Kitsap 58
County Labor Market Area and State of
Washington
13. Resident Civilian Labor Force and Employment 59
in Kitsap County Fiscal Year Averages, 1973
and 1975 and Projected 1977
14. Sinclair Inlet Study Area, Major Employers 61
15. Number of Establishments, Number of Employees 62
and Annual Payroll, Kitsap County and State
of Washington, 1972
16. Kitsap County Assessed Valuation; New 63
Construction; and Historical Trend
17. Financing and Contractual Arrangements 65
18. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal, Strategies and 77
Alternatives
19. Major Marine Fauna and Usages in the Vicinity 93
of Proposed Wastewater Discharge Sites
vii
-------
Page
96
97
99
100
112
112
119
119
125
130
132
133
134
135
136
136
140
148
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Total Project Costs - All Alternatives
Kitsap County Jurisdiction Costs - All
Alternatives
Revised Project Costs - Alternative 2
Short-Term Impacts
Land Uses in the Vicinity of Treatment Plants
Affected by Potential Odors
Sites Expected to Experience Sludge Tank
Truck Traffic and Noise
Water Quality Standards and Estimated Diluted
Waste Concentrations
Percent of Time Site Provides 100:1 or More
Initial Dilution
Toxic Levels of Constituents on Marine Life
Property Tax Effects
Current Sewage Service Rates and Projected
Increases Associated with the Project
Total and Peak-Month Gas Consumption; Manette,
Charleston and Retsil Treatment Plants, 1976
Present Annual Consumption
Estimated Energy Consumption, Alternative 2,
Year 2000
Estimated Total Electric Power Demand
and Consumption
Estimated Energy Consumption, Alternatives 3-5,
Year 2000
Planning Area Population Growth and Land
Conversion
Environmental Summary of Adverse Impacts
viii
-------
SUMMARY
SINCLAIR INLET SEWERAGE FACILITIES PLAN
KITSAP COUNTY. WASHINGTON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
1. Type of Statement: Draft (X) Final ( )
2. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
3. Description of Action:
The objective of this project is to provide a wastewater treatment
and disposal system for the Sinclair Inlet Water Resource Inventory
Area (WRIA) No. 15 within Kitsap County, Washington. This Environmen-
tal Impact Statement identifies alternatives for providing wastewater
facilities designed to meet residential and industrial needs as well
as the maintenance of environmental quality. The study area covers
approximately 260 km2 [100 sq mi] and has a population of 69,300, the
majority of which is concentrated in the City of Bremerton.
Improvement of freshwater and marine water quality is a key issue
in the Sinclair Inlet study area. Many areas in Kitsap County have
experienced failures of septic tanks and drainfields due to hydraulic
overloading, high groundwater levels and soils characteristics which
are unsuitable for disposal purposes. This has led to bacteriologi-
cal contamination of surface streams, lakes and shallow groundwater
supplies in areas such as Wildcat Lake, Chico, Gorst and Blackjack
Creeks. The majority of the wastewater treatment plants experience
excessive infiltration and hydraulic overloading, which result in the
discharge of inadequately-treated sewage into the marine waters. Re-
current stream pollution and contributions from the primary treatment
plants have led to periodic bacteriological contamination of Sinclair
and Dyes Inlet, as well as algal stimulation from excess nutrients.
Sinclair Inlet is presently closed to commerical shellfish harvesting.
Facilities planning for the area began in 1975. Volume I - Plan-
ning Background was published in June 1976 and Volume II - Alterna-
tives was completed in September 1977. The analyses of this Environ-
ment Impact Statement will be based on these two documents.
ix
-------
h. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental
Effects:
The type and magnitude of potential impacts vary according to the
alternative proposed. Alternative 1 represents the no-action situa-
tion while Alternatives 2 through 5 represent different combinations
of treatment and disposal locations. The impacts have been divided
into: short-term impacts (construction), long-term impacts (opera-
tional) and long-term indirect impacts (secondary effects).
(1) Short-term impacts associated with construction include re-
moval of groundcover, loss or transfer of soil resource, localized
soil erosion, disruption of wildlife patterns, aerial pollutants,
noise, visual impact, spoil disposal, traffic congestion, utility
service disruption, safety hazards and water quality impairments.
No short-term impacts will be associated with Alternative 1 (no-
action) .
(2) Long-term impacts associated with Alternative 1 include
continued ground and surface water contamination by sewage, degra-
dation of the marine environment due to the pollution of Sinclair
Inlet, restrictions on shellfish harvesting and effects on land use
and growth patterns.
Long-term impacts associated with Alternatives 2-5 include:
a. Protection of ground and surface water quality;
b. Incremental improvement of marine water quality in
Sinclair Inlet over a period of time as compared to
present conditions;
c. Long-term contribution of excess nutrients and trace
pollutants which may stress the marine environment;
d. Increased energy demand;
e. Effects on local land-use patterns and property values;
f. Minor effects on vegetation and wildlife;
g. Impacts on the visual and aesthetic environment; and
h. Loss of water (treated effluent) and fertilizer
(sludge) resource - unless arrangements are made for
local sludge application.
(3) Long-term indirect impacts include those changes resulting
from population growth accommodated by provision of sewer services,
such as future construction in the sub-basin leading to erosion and
subsequent stream pollution, loss of natural areas and wildlife habi-
tat, loss of scenic resources, energy, utilities and service demands,
and a long-term change in life style and quality of life.
5. Alternatives Considered:
Alternative 1 - No action alternative. This alternative would in-
volve the continuation of existing treatment plant operations as well
x
-------
as the usage of individual septic tanks and drainfields. Associated
with this alternative would be the continuation of periodic septic
tank failures, as well as combined sewer overflows and hydraulic over-
loading of plants leading to pollution of Sinclair Inlet.
Alternative 2 - Charleston Regional/Retsil Regional/Manchester
facilities with ocean outfalls. Charleston regional plant handles
Manette and Charleston flows while Retsil regional handles Port Or-
chard and Retsil. Manchester is independent. Capital cost - $16,778,
000.
Alternative 3 - Charleston Regional/Manchester facilities with
ocean outfalls. Charleston facility handles Manette, Charleston, Port
Orchard and Retsil. Manchester is independent. Capital Cost -
$17,742,000.
Alternative 4 - Local treatment facilities with ocean outfalls.
Manette, Charleston, Retsil, Port Orchard and Manchester are all en-
larged. Capital cost - $17,769,000.
Alternative 5 - Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional facilities
with ocean outfalls. Charleston regional handles Manette and Charles-
ton while Manchester regional handles Port Orchard, Retsil and Man-
chester. Capital cost - $19,441,000.
6. The following state, federal and local agencies and interested
groups were invited to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement:
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Department of Agriculture
U. S. Department of Defense
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Interior
U. S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare
U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Energy Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
xi
-------
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Warren G. Magnuson, U.S. Senate
Henry M. Jackson, U.S. Senate
STATE AGENCIES
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Department of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
Department of Game
Department of Social & Health Services
Parks and Recreation Commission
Washington State Highway Department
LOCAL AGENCIES
City of Bremerton
City of Port Orchard
Kitsap County Sewer District #1
Kitsap County Sewer District #3
Kitsap County Sewer District #5
Kitsap County Planning Department
South Kitsap Planning and Advisory Council
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Bainbridge Island Planning Commission
OTHER
National Wildlife Federation
Bainbridge Island Concerned Citizens
The Bay Area Neighborhood
Kitsap Lake Neighborhood
Manette Neighborhood
Sheridan Neighborhood
Smith Neighborhood
BACON
League of Women Voters
Sierra Club
CH2M Hill
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made available to the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the public on November 25, 1977.
xii
-------
SECTION I
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Existing wastewater treatment facilities within the Sinclair In-
let drainage area of Kitsap County, Washington are under consideration
for expansion to meet projected wastewater flows, and improvement to
meet the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (Public Law 92-500). Seven jurisdictional entities in Kitsap
County signed an interlocal agreement on 20 September 1974 for the
purpose of jointly preparing a sewerage facility plan for the Sinclair
Inlet area. These entities are:
1) Kitsap County;
2) City of Bremerton;
3) City of Port Orchard;
A) Kitsap County Sewer District (KCSD) No. 1 -
Navy Yard City;
5) KCSD No. 3 - Manchester;
6) KCSD No. 5 - Retsil; and
7) Port of Bremerton.
Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton were authorized by the
remaining jurisdictions to apply for and receive funding to prepare
a facilities plan. A consultant was retained to prepare the Sinclair
Inlet Sewerage Facilities Plan of which Volume I - Planning Background,
was completed in June 1976 (Reference 1). Volume II - Alternatives, was
completed in September 1977 (Reference 2). The final Plan is under
preparation and will be ready in 1978.
EPA has determined that the proposed changes to the Sinclair In-
let wastewater treatment facilities will have significant environmen-
tal effects and has required the preparation of an Environmental Im-
pact Statement (EIS) concurrently with the preparation of the facili-
ties plan. This requirement is pursuant to Section 102(2) (c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, its amendments and the case
law ensuing therefrom.
EPA is preparing this Environmental Impact Statement as documen-
tation of: (1) the full consideration of possible courses of action
to meet and maintain federal and state water quality standards as re-
lated to the Sinclair Inlet planning area; (2) the analysis of en-
vironmental and quality-of-life impacts of the alternative wastewater
treatment systems; (3) EPA's decision-making process in determining
its course of action at Sinclair Inlet; and (4) the involvement of
-------
other agencies and the citizenry in this process. The final EIS will
serve as a statement of EPA's course of action on the Sinclair Inlet
Sewerage Facilities Plan.
PRESENT STATUS
The planning area of the facilities plan encompasses the natural
drainage basins tributary to Sinclair Inlet in Kitsap County. The
planning area boundary, as shown in Figure 1, includes sub-basins 11,
23, 24, 26 and 27 of Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) No. 15. The
Kitsap County Airport (Port of Bremerton) and its associated develop-
ment is also included in the planning area.
The population of Kitsap County has been growing at a rate greater
than the State of Washington as a whole. The construction of the Tri-
dent Submarine Support Site and the expansion of the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard have attracted substantial new development to central Kitsap
County. Many new housing developments are on temporary septic facili-
ties awaiting connection to a regional facility. In some areas, the
increased number of septic systems from new homes has led to the con-
tamination of groundwater. The immediate need for sewerage service
and treatment facilities is so pressing that a new regional treatment
plant, as recommended by the Central Kitsap Wastewater Facilities Plan
(Reference 3), will be constructed in the near future north of Browns-
vi]le. Thus the Sinclair Inlet facilities p]an will not serve the
bulk of the Trident-related growth but, nevertheless, will experience
increased growth effects. On the basis of local estimates, the plan-
ning area had a population of 69,300 in 1975. Population estimates
for the year 2000, as revised in September 1977 (Reference 2), pro-
ject 89,000 persons within the planning area. These population esti-
mates were used in the development of future wastewater flows and
wasteloads for the facilities plan.
The Sinclair Inlet planning area is presently served by six waste-
water treatment plants as shown in Figure 1. Bremerton provides sew-
age services to KCSD No. 1 and the Puget Sound Nava] Shipyard. Bre-
merton operates two primary treatment plants at Manette and Charts-
ton. The Manette plant currently handles 0.11 m3/s [2.6 mgd] which
is discharged to Port Washington Narrows, whi le the Charleston plant
treats 0.14 m3/s [3.1 mgd] and discharges to the northern portion
of Sinclair Inlet. The City also operates numerous pumping stations,
some of which overflow raw sewage to marine waters during wet weather.
Port Orchard and KCSD No. 5 operate small primary treatment plants
with outfalls to the southern portion of Sinclair Inlet. Flows in
L975 were 0.019 and 0.020 m^/s [0.44 and 0.45 mgd] respectively, for
the two plants. KCSD No. 3 operates a small primary treatment pJant
with an average flow in 1975 of 0.001 mj/d [31,000 gal/day] discharging
2
-------
KILOMETRES
LEGEND
——— STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
..... DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARIES
EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT WITH OCEAN OUTFALL
• EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT WITH LAND DISPOSAL
FIGURE I SINCLAIR INLET WASTEWATER
FACILITIES PLANNING AREA
3
-------
to Puget Sound. The Manchester Naval Fuel Depot has plans to dis-
charge its ship waste to the KCSD No. 3 system in the near future.
The Port of Bremerton operates a small secondary treatment facility
handling a daily maximum of 0.0004 m^/day [10,000 gal/day], which is
discharged to a nearby drainfield. This is the only facility which
does not have a marine discharge. It is not planned to connect this
facility to a regional treatment plant in the near future, and there-
fore, it is not considered further in the facilities plan impact as-
sessment.
The primary wastewater treatment plants within the planning area
all experience problems with liquid-handling processes due to hydrau-
lic overflows caused by excessive infiltration and inflow during wet
weather. As developed under P.L. 92-500, the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for each facility require
future secondary treatment levels. Upgrading of these facilities is
necessary in order to keep pace with growth in the area and to restore
and maintain a high-quality marine environment in Sinclair Inlet. The
treatment plant effluents historically have been a source of marine
pollution to Sinclair Inlet. High biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
suspended solids and dissolved nutrients have produced a long-term
stress upon the marine environment. Effects upon the marine system
include loss of sensitive fish and invertebrate species from the area
and selection for low-diversity ecosystems with pollutant-tolerant
species.
Another major consideration for marine water quality is the ef-
fects of nonpoint source pollutants. The planning area has experience
numerous failures of septic tanks due to hydraulic overloading, high
groundwater levels and soil characteristics which are unsuitable for
disposal purposes. Other areas of concern within the county are the
bacteriological contamination of freshwater streams, lakes and water
supplies, as well as of marine waters, in the planning area. The fa-
cilities plan identifies the following reported problem areas: Wild-
cat Lake, lower Sinclair Inlet at Gorst, the Manette peninsula facing
Port Orchard, Beach Drive between Retsil and Point Glover, Beach Drive
between Manchester and Colchester, Rocky Point, Chico and portions of
Tracyton. High fecal coliform bacteria counts, an indicator of bac-
teriological contamination, are largely attributed to septic tank fail
ures, sewer overflows and treatment plant upsets. All of the major
creeks such as Chico, Gorst and Blackjack Creeks, along with the large
lakes, have exceeded state coliform standards. Recurrent stream pol-
lution and contributions from surface runoff have led to the periodic
bacteriological contamination of the nearshore waters of Sinclair In-
let. The inlet is presently closed to commercial shellfish harvesting
4
-------
SUMMARY
Five alternative plans were evaluated. All plans are based on
the discharge of wastewater treatment plant effluents to Sinclair In-
let. This summary contains a brief description of each alternative
and addresses the major issues of the project. These issues have been
identified as: the effects on marine water quality from wastewater ef-
fluent discharged into Sinclair Inlet; construction disturbances along
the lower Sinclair Inlet shoreline; population growth permitted by ex-
pansion of sewerage service and treatment plant capacity; economic im-
pact on the community from facility construction, operation and mainte-
nance costs; and the expected benefits from implementation of a waste-
water management system. Alternative plan number 1 is designated as
the "no action" alternative. Alternative plan numbers 2 through 5 are
correlated with those developed in Volume II, Chapter II of the facili-
ties plan. The alternative treatment plant locations, pipeline routes
and outfall sites are shown in Figure 2.
Alternative Plans
Alternative Plan No. 1 (No Action)
Under the no-action alternative, the five existing primary treat-
ment facilities and marine outfalls as described in the preceeding
"Present Status" section would be retained. As each facility is pre-
sently at or above its handling capacity, future connections to the
sewer system and expansion of the service area would be greatly limi-
ted. Installation of septic tanks and leach fields for new structures
would be evaluated on an individual basis by the County Health Depart-
ment. Associated with this alternative would be the continuation of
periodic septic system failures and pollution of shallow groundwater
aquifers.
Marine water quality in the Sinclair Inlet planning area would
continue to be affected by the discharge of wastewater effluent high
in coliform bacteria, organic material, suspended solids, dissolved
nutrients and, at times, residual chlorine. Areas where water qua-
lity and the marine environment will be affected include the shallow
waters of Sinclair Inlet near Gorst, Port Orchard, Retsil and to some
extent, Dyes Inlet. Long-term pollution effects on the marine en-
vironment are reductions in the population of sensitive fish and in-
vertebrate species, overstimulation of nuisance species (i.e. algae),
contamination of shellfish resources, public health hazards and de-
terioration of aesthetic qualities. Continuance of the present dis-
charge system would also be contrary to the goals of P.L. 92-500 and
in direct violation of the NPDES discharge limitations.
5
-------
REPLACE MANETTE S.T.P
W/NEW PUMP STATION
Tf* * " ¦ PWCTA1
'+ j\ REVERSE PLOW IN
EXISTING PIPES
REPLACE EXISTING
PUMP STATION N0.4
V*xb water mam
• •// w I I •
\* REPLACE KCSD MO.3 PRIMARY S.T.P
' W/A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
24" PRESSURE LINE
20,000' TOTAL
UPGRADE « EXPAND
CHARLESTON S.T.P
NEW RETSIL S.T.P
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD S.T.P +
W/NEW PUMP STATION
<• -J/ PORT
ORCHARD
ALTERNATIVE 2
,;or$t
LEGEND
¦ TREATMENT PLANT
• PUMP STATION
¦ NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
» NEW OUTFALL
.....4 EXISTING OUTFALL
KILOMETRES
6
-------
REPLACE KCSO N0.3 PRIMARY S.T.P
W/ A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
SLUOSE TREATMENT PLANT
REPLACE KCSO NO 3 PRIMARY
S.T.P. W/ A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
8LUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD PRIMARY
S.T.P W/A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
• • vO" I JrtCi'.ARD I
ALTERNATIVE 4
REVERSE FLOW IN
¦••.Jexisting PIPES
:: »¦ .T •» l /
REPLACE MANETTE S.T.P
W/ NEW PUMP STATION
REPLACE EXISTING ^ J / \ C\
I PUMP STATION N0.43' ;NEW MANCHESTER S.T.P ; ; ; ; ; ;
; V" TT: pressure line
+ \::::::-w 112,300' total
24" PRESSURE LINE
20,000' TOTAL
W^> NEW WATERMAN •«
f M4NCrt~ PUMP STATION f
it" pressure line \\:
15,900' total \
UPGRADE a EXPAND
CHARLESTON S.T.P.
14" PRESSURE LINE^.
S.000' TOTAL
REPLACE KCSD NO 9 J.T.P.
W/ NEW PUMP STATION
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD S.T.pT ~
W/ NEW PUMP STATION ^ ^
ffj ;; •;;; \V/ port tfi
:::::: -j-js orcharo i
ALTERNATIVE 5
FIGURE 2 SINCLAIR INLET DISCHARGE
TRANSMISSION / TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
7
-------
Alternative Plan No. 2 (Charleston Regicmal/Retsil Regional/Manchester)
Wastewaters from Bremerton and portions of Dyes Inlet and Wild-
cat Lake would be collected and treated at an expanded and upgraded
secondary treatment facility at the Charleston site. The facility
would be designed using an activated biological filter (ABF) to serve
a population of 53,000 with an average flow of 0.4 m3/s [9.2 mgd].
Treated effluent will be discharged to Sinclair Inlet through the ex-
isting Charleston outfall. The Manette facility will be abandoned and
flows pumped to the Charleston facility. Port Orchard wastewater will
be pumped to Retsil where a new secondary treatment facility using
rotating biological surfaces (RBS) will be constructed. The facility
will serve 16,700 persons with an average flow of 0.11 m3/s [2.6 mgd].
Treated effluent will be discharged to Sinclair Inlet near Retsil.
The Manchester facility will be upgraded to secondary treatment with
RBS, serving 3,300 persons with an average flow of 0.02 m3/s [0.5 mgd].
The major impetus for population growth in the area and associ-
ated demands upon utilities and municipal services is related to ex-
pansion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and to a certain extent de-
velopment of the Trident Support Site. The northern portion of the
planning area has already experienced substantial uncontrolled growth
which is not served by centralized wastewater treatment facilities.
Expanded and improved sewerage facilities will therefore serve exist-
ing new development as well as anticipated growth. In the less dense-
ly populated southern and eastern portions of the planning area, ex-
panded sewerage and treatment facilities would have a tendency to
direct future growth toward sewered areas. This would facilitate
County efforts to control the location of future development. This
impact is identical for all subsequent alternative plans and will not
be addressed again.
Placement of a proposed pipeline route along roads and establish-
ed rights-of-way between Manette and Charleston will have significant
short-term impact"'! on traffic, aesthetics and utility services. On
the south shore of Sinclair Inlet, pipeline placement in the subtidal
and intertidal lands between Port Orchard and Retsil will have nega-
tive short-term impacts on small-boat navigation, marine vegetation
and benthic communities, marine water quality and aesthetics. Care-
ful construction practices could mitigate these impacts, but they are
nevertheless unavoidable. Disruption of land use and local patterns
would occur with the removal of six homes at the Charleston site.
The major treated effluent submarine outfall would be located in
Sinclair Inlet near Charleston at a 12-18 m [40-60 ft] depth. Model-
ing results indicate that first mixing and dilution of effluent would
be fair-to-poor and that subsequent dispersion and flushing would be
poor. Initial dilution could provide 100:1 dilution only 25 percent
of the time, thus effluent would be diluted poorly. Due to the poor
8
-------
circulation within this inlet, diluted effluent would be the receiv-
ing water for more effluent. Secondary-level treated effluent dis-
charged at Charleston and Retsll would improve local water quality
compared to the present situation. However, chlorine residual would
be a problem for marine life. This alternative represents an immedi-
ate solution that best accommodates the existing jurisdictional en-
tities. Pollution effects will be alleviated, but the long-term pro-
ductivity of the marine environment would not be comparable to the
complete cessation of discharge to Sinclair Inlet.
Project benefits for this and all other alternatives are basically
identical as the outlying portions of the planning area become sewered.
Substantial groundwater and potable water supply pollution from in-
adequate and failing septic tank drainfields will be greatly reduced.
Public health risks from contaminated wells will be reduced, and it
is expected that secondary level wastewater treatment with appropri-
ate disinfection measures will reduce bacterial pollution in all ad-
jacent marine waters. These project benefits accrue for all alter-
native plans and will not be repeated subsequently.
This alternative was ranked as one of the two lowest in project costs.
Alternative Plan No. 3 (Charleston Regional/Manchester)
This alternative involves a regional secondary treatment plant at
Charleston consolidating the four treatment plants in the vicinity
of Sinclair Inlet. Flows from the Manette facility, Dyes Inlet and
Wildcat Lake will be conveyed across Bremerton to the Charleston site.
Retsil and Port Orchard flows will probably be conveyed in a submerged
pipeline from Retsil west to Ross Point and then across the inlet to
Charleston. The facility would be sized to handle an average flow of
0.5 m3/s [11.7 mgd]. The facilities planner did not designate a speci-
fic treatment process. It is presumed that it would be similar to
Alternative 2. The Manchester facility will remain independent and
will also be upgraded to a 0.02 m3/s [0.5 mgd] secondary treatment
plant similar to Alternative 2.
Pipeline construction in this alternative represents the most
significant short-term impact. Land routes for pipelines through
downtown Bremerton, Port Orchard and Bay Street/Beach Drive between
Retsil and Port Orchard would cause significant traffic disruption
and interference with life styles. Alternative pipeline construction
in the subtidal and intertidal lands between Retsil and Ross Point
would cause disruptions to the marine community and shoreline areas.
Construction effects would probably be the greatest on this alterna-
tive due to greater lengths of submerged pipeline route required. Re-
moval of six homes would also be required at the Charleston site.
9
-------
All treated wastewater flows, except for Manchester, would be
discharged to Sinclair Inlet near Charleston. Dilution and flushing
conditions are similar to those described in Alternative 2. The vol-
ume of effluent discharged at Charleston would be approximately 20 -
25 percent greater than in Alternative 2 and thus would slightly in-
crease the ambient, background level of diluted effluent in the inlet.
Long-term effects of this discharge are similar to those discussed in
Alternative 2.
This alternative was ranked as one of the two lowest in total project
costs.
Alternative Plan No. 4 (Local Treatment Plants)
Under this plan each existing facility is upgraded to the secon-
dary treatment level. The Manette plant will treat and discharge 0.9
m^/s [4.4 mgd] to Port Washington Narrows. The Manchester Plant will
treat and discharge 0.02 m3/s [0.5 mgd] to Puget Sound and the remain-
ing Charleston, Port Orchard and Retsil facilities will treat and dis-
charge 0.24, 0.019 and 0.020 m3/s [5.4, 1.0 and 0.9 mgd] respectively,
to Sinclair Inlet. This alternative will involve no major new pipe-
line routes.
Localized construction impacts at each facility will be moderate
to significant, depending upon the amount of land required. Signifi-
cant disruption of land use and local patterns would result from con-
struction at the Manette site which requires the removal of 25 homes.
This would also occur to a lesser degree at the Charleston and Port
Orchard sites. The Port Orchard site is an aesthetically poor loca-
tion for a wastewater treatment facility because of its shoreline lo-
cation and high visibility.
Discharge of secondary-treated effluent to Sinclair Inlet by
the Charleston, Port Orchard and Retsil facilities will undergo simi-
lar dilution and dispersion characteristics as in Alternatives 2 and
3. Modeling results indicate that initial mixing and dilution of the
effluent would be fair and subsequent dispersion and flushing would
be poor. Effluent discharged at Port Washington Narrows from the
Manette facility would achieve good initial dilution due to the strong
tidal movements. Dispersion would be fair to good.
Alternative 4 does not involve pipeline construction costs or
land and easement costs for the pipeline. However, land acquisition
costs for each treatment plant facility, particularly Manette, can
be significant. Therefore, this alternative was ranked as one of the
two highest in total project costs.
10
-------
Alternative Plan No. 5 (Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional)
Wastewater flows from Bremerton and portions of Dyes Inlet and
Wildcat Lake would be collected and treated at an expanded and up-
graded secondary-level treatment facility at Charleston. The flows
and treatment processes would probably be similar to Alternative 2.
The Port Orchard and Retsil facilities will be demolished and flows
pumped to Manchester where a new secondary level treatment facility
will be constructed. The average flow will be 0.105 m3/s [2.4 mgd].
No treatment process was designated by the facilities planner.
Pipeline construction impacts will be the greatest with this al-
ternative due to the extensive pipeline requirements. Pipeline rout-
ing through downtown Bremerton will have short-term traffic and cir-
culation effects. Pipeline construction in the subtidal and inter-
tidal lands between Port Orchard, Retsil and Waterman will have signi-
ficant short-term negative effects on the marine environment, and may
include long-term effects in some cases. Damage to the benthic marine
environment is unavoidable; however, several construction techniques
can be employed that would not only recreate the habitat, but also sei
to partially stabilize the eroding shoreline at Beach Drive.
Treated effluent discharge from the Charleston facility would be
under the same conditions as Alternative 2. At Manchester, the sub-
marine outfall depth would be below 50 m [165 ft]. Modeling results
indicate that due to the depth and constant currents in the area, at
least 100:1 dilution could be provided 84 percent of the time, re-
sulting in excellent first mixing and dilution, and excellent subse-
quent dispersion and flushing. In terms of water quality, this alter-
native would cause the least adverse effects over the long-term as
compared to the other alternatives. Good circulation within the Man-
chester area would draw the effluent away from the shore and should
not greatly affect Clam Bay or adjacent areas. Water quality in Sin-
clair Inlet would improve moderately but not significantly due to the
reduced flow of treated wastewater impacting the area.
This alternative requires the greatest construction costs due to
the extensive pipeline construction and pumping needed for the Man-
chester facility# and is, therefore, one of the two highest in total
project costs.
Project Costs
The present worth of all costs for each alternative in January
1977 dollars is shown on Table 1. The present worth is a combination
of total capital costs less salvage values and the cumulative opera-
11
-------
tion and maintenance (O&M) costs during the project life. Alterna-
tive 1, the no-project alternative, has no associated project costs.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are the lowest with present worth values of
$24-25 milion. Alternatives 4 and 5 are the highest with present
worth values of $26-27 million. It should be noted that all alter-
native present worth costs are within 11 percent of each other.
In Volume II, Part 3 of the facilities plan a more detailed cost
estimate was made for Alternative 2 only. Additional facilities, not
costed out in the original comparison were added to this detailed
analysis. An estimate of the revised present worth for Alternative
2 is $32 million. Due to the method of cost analysis, equivalent in-
creases in total project costs cannot be made for Alternatives 3-5.
Capital Costs
Project implementation, as presented by the facilities planner,
will require physical construction during the period 1978-80. Alter-
natives 2-5 will require 12-18 months of construction some time
during this time-frame.
Total Capital costs for construction range from a low of $16,778
000 for Alternative 2 to a high of $19,441,000 for Alternative 5.
This analysis assumed 75 percent federal and 15 percent state parti-
cipation in capital funding, excluding total land and easement costs
which are not grant eligible. Total corresponding costs to local
participating jurisdiction? would range from a low of $1,846,000 (Al-
ternative 2), to a high of $2,914,000 (Alternative 4).
The salvage value for facilities and land ranges from $0 in Al-
ternative 4 to $810,000 in Alternative 5.
Operation and Maintenance
Each project alternative represents a separate series of annual
costs for the operation and maintenance of the treatment plants and
transmission pump stations. These costs are the sum of fixed annual
charges and increasing variable charges relating to increased flow
capacity. Since 0&M costs increase over time, the facilities plan-
ner has chosen the specific O&M costs for 1990, the median year of
the service life of the treatment facilities (1980-2000) as mathe-
matically representative of annual costs. The annual costs range
from $628,000 (Alternative 2) to $756,000 (Alternative 5).
12
-------
Table 1. PROJECT COSTS-ALL ALTERNATIVES
($1,000)
Alternative
Capital Costs
Total project - 16,778 17,742 17,769 19,441
costs
Local share of total - 1,846 1,921 2,914 2,108
project costs3
Annual O&M^ - 682 628 756 691
Salvage value of - 451 784 0 810
facilities and
land
Net present worth1! - 24,438 24,729 26,353 27,108
Assumes Federal participation of 75 percent and State participation
of 15 percent of total project costs
^Represents annual O&M charges plus variable costs related to in-
creased future flows. For detailed explanation of costs, see
Section III, Alternatives-Project Costs.
c
Present worth of all costs less salvage value of facilities and
land. For detailed explanation, see Section III.
13
-------
SECTION 11
-------
SECTION II
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The study area lies on the Kitsap Peninsula in western Washing-
ton. The Kitsap Peninsula includes approximately 1,500 km2 [580 sq
mi] of land bounded by the Hood Canal on the north and west, and Port
Orchard Bay in connection with Puget Sound on the east. A substantial
portion of the shoreline is irregularly-shaped with many inlets and
coves. Beaches are generally narrow and flat and set off by steep banks
and slopes. Extensions of Puget Sound into the peninsula area include
Port Madison, Liberty Bay, Port Orchard Bay and Dyes and Sinclair In-
lets (Reference 4).
The study area is approximately 260 km2 [100 sq mi] and consti-
tutes over one-third of Kitsap County. Sinclair Inlet occupies ap-
proximately 16 km2 [6 sq mi] in the center of the study area and is
connected by Port Washington Narrows to Dyes Inlet in the north-cen-
tral portion. The gross relief of the Kitsap Peninsula is characteri-
zed by north to south trending, gently rounded, low ridges which create
an undulating upland province. The ridges on the west side of Dyes
Inlet are parallel to the shoreline and rise up from the beach with an
average slope of 20 percent. The south shoreline of Sinclair Inlet is
buttressed by moderate to steep-sloped bluffs with slopes approaching
30 percent. Elevation provinces shown in Figure 3 indicate low-lying
areas (less than 60 m [200 ft] elevation) surrounding the shoreline
and including Bremerton, Manchester, the Chico Creek drainage off Dyes
Inlet, the Gorst Creek drainage at the base of Sinclair Inlet and the
Blackjack Creek Valley extending inland from Port Orchard. The remain-
der of the study area is typically an upland province with elevations
greater than 60 m [200 ft]. Mountainous areas over 180 m [600 ft] oc-
cur in the western portion of the study area. Two major lakes in the
study area are Kitsap Lake and Wildcat Lake, both located west of Dyes
Inlet. The populated portions, as well as attendant sewerage treatment
facilities, are located on the lowest elevation province. Construction
of new facilities and major interbasin pumping of wastewater would
generally be confined to this area, as pumping to higher elevations re-
quires greater cost and energy.
GEOLOGY
Stratigraphy
Geological formations underlying the study area, as shown on
Figure 4, are predominantly of glacial origin and were deposited during
15
-------
LEGEND
0 - 60m ( 0 - 200 fl)
60- 180m (200- 600ft)
180m (600 fl) AND ABOVE
©
FIGURE 3 ELEVATION PROVINCES OF
PLANNING AREA
16
-------
LEGEND
VASHON FORMATION
Source: Reference 5
MlMM PUYALLUP FORMATION
¦¦¦ KITSAP MEMBER OF ORTING FORMATION
KWWN BLAKELEY FORMATION
BASALT VOLCANIC
FIGURE 4 GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS WITHIN
STUDY AREA (SURFACE EXPOSURE)
17
-------
the last few million years. Deeper formations, some of volcanic ori-
gins from an earlier age (40 - 60 million years), also reach the sur-
face at a few exposures. The glacial deposits have been divided into
several formations from most recent to oldest and include the Vashon
drift, Puyallup formation, Orting formation and Admiralty drift. Of
these, the most dominant exposed geologic formations within the study
area are shown on Figure A.
The uppermost Vashon drift formation generally dominates the
surface exposures in the Bremerton - Port Orchard area. The older
formations are exposed only along the shoreline and in deep ravines
and creek valleys as shown in the schematic geologic structure on
Figure 5.
VASHON FORMATION
(GLACIAL DEPOSITS-CONGLOMERATES)
PUYALLUP FORMATION
(SANDSTONE)
>7^
BASALT \ XS ADMIRALTY
(METCHOSIN VOLCANICS) N FORMATION
BLAKELEY FORMATION
FIGURE 5 SCHEMATIC GEOLOGICAL CROSS - SECTION
ACROSS THE STUDY AREA
18
-------
Structural and Tectonic Activity
Studies on the geological structure of the underlying Tertiary
sedimentary and volcanic bedrock suggest a monocline, or the flank
of an anticline, dipping in a northerly direction under Bainbridge
Island (Reference 5). Based upon geophysical and seismic interpre-
tations, an alternative structure portrays the Tertiary bedrock as
the exposed remnants on the top of an uplifted fault block or horst,
such as appears at South Kitsap High. A fault has been suggested as
crossing from west to east, north of East Bremerton, the southern
portion of Bainbridge Island and through the Seattle area. This fault
has been called the Bremerton-Seattle fault. Other similar east-west
faults have been inferred in southern Kitsap County. Such a structure
of uplifted blocks would be separated by down-dropped blocks or gra-
bens, such as the Seattle low, which have been filled to present topo-
graphy by deposition of thick glacial debris.
Tectonic activity in the western Washington area normally does
not receive the attention accorded it in states such as Alaska and
California, although damaging tremors (6 -7.5 Richter Scale) have
and will probably occur in the study area, perhaps during the normal
project life of the alternative facilities. Between 1939 and 1965,
four damaging tremors occurred within 50 - 100 miles of the study area.
During the Puget Sound Earthquake of 1965, Bremerton and Seattle ex-
perienced seismic intensity of VII or greater (modified Mercalli Scale.l.
Based upon this tremor and the historic pattern of large and small tre-
mors, the Puget Sound area, including the study area, could receive ad-
ditional tremors which could result in major damage. Some tremors may
result from movements along the inferred faults bounding the Kitsap
High and Seattle Low fault blocks near Bremerton.
Geological Hazards
Land stability hazards commonly consist of landslide and slow-
moving slumps, while other aspects of settlement, lurching and liqui-
faction may also influence portions of the study area. These hazards
may occur during an earthquake or under relatively static conditions
with high rainfall and water tables. Landslides, slumps and lurching
would be of greatest concern along the steep slopes near the Manette
Plant, the crossing of Port Washington Narrows, west of Port Orchard
and various sites along the shoreline between Port Orchard and Man-
chester. Additional concern, especially during tremors, should fo-
cus on subtidal steep slopes in Sinclair Inlet, especially where water
deeper than 20 m [60 ft] passes close to Beach Drive north of Retsil.
Lurching may occur where rapid horizontal acceleration during an earth-
quake dislodges a steep bank, either above or below sea level. As an
19
-------
example, 0.8 km [0.5 mi] of a 100 m [300 ft] high cliff was dislodged
into Puget Sound near Tacoma during the 1949 Earthquake of Olympia,
Washington. Settlement and liquifaction may occur on filled land
where a high water table exists. Such areas exist along the Port Or-
chard to Retsil area and parts of the south Bremerton area. Several
large settlements occurred north of the study area during the 1946
Georgia Strait Earthquake.
SOILS
The soils of the project area originate from complex glacial de-
posits which have weathered under the influence of different exposures,
water regimes and land use. General classifications can be divided
into exposed bedrock, developed soils with hardpan or dense subsoils
and developed soils without dense subsoils. The latter two classes
are of concern where high water tables and waterlogged soils may af-
fect septic tank usage or agricultural and timber production.
Within the study area, the dominant soils are those of the Alder-
wood and Everett groups. The Edmonds, Indianola, Kitsap and Melbourne
soils also occur in the study area but usually are less common. North
of Point Washington Narrows, three types of Alderwood and two types
of Everett soils dominate lesser occurrences of the Kitsap and In-
dianola soils. The Bremerton area is largely underlain by Alderwood
soils which are gradually replaced by Everett soils towards the west.
Fringes of Indianola and Sinclair soils occur along the shorelines
and stream valleys. Southwest of Bremerton, the rocky hill lands of
the Blue Hills have little-developed soils, except along the stream
valleys which are usually Alderwood or Everett soils. Between Gorst
and Port Orchard and to the south, large expanses of both Alderwood
and Everett soils dominate scattered occurrences of other soils. The
Everett soils tend to increase in the area to the south. Along Ross
Creek and several small valleys south of Port Orchard, large swaths
of Kitsap loam soils lie along the creek valleys (References 6, 7, 8).
The distribution and composition of the soils across the study
area generally reflect the changes of geological formation beneath
the surface. Dense clay subsoils or clay lenses in the underlying
geological formations have adversely affected septic tank filter field
operations through the county. The basalt bedrock between Gorst and
Bremerton and the Blakely formation along Rich Passage reduce infil-
tration and cause perched groundwater tables. Portions of the Vashon
formation (compacted glacial tills) and many overlying soils also
have very low infiltration rates and cause ponding and perching of
surficial water tables. Generally, the Alderwood, Edmonds and Sin-
clair soils possess dense subsoils and result in filter field fail-
ures. Everett, Indianola and Kitsap soils usually do not have dense
20
-------
subsoils, although the perched groundwater table may enter into the
soil areas and cause them to become waterlogged.
Soils hazards include relatively simple aspects of erosion of
channels, shorelines and general soil surfaces, more involved features
of land stability and the most damaging and unpredictable effects of
tremors. Erosion in the study area generally involves severe creek
bank erosion caused by increasing storm runoff from new urban and in-
dustrial development. Along Sinclair Inlet and Rich Passage, wind
and ship waves have produced shoreline erosion, especially of arti-
ficial fills such as those along Beach Drive between Retsil and Water-
man. Such shore erosion is closely related to the soft character of
the glacial deposits along the shore south of Point Light (Waterman);
further north, the harder bedrock of the Blakeley formation withstands
the erosive forces more easily than the glacial deposits. Eroded sedi-
ments can also clog creeks and drainage channels; such clogging re-
duces the channel capacity and causes streams to flood more easily
than in the well-scoured creek channel. These erosional effects are
apparent in and along several creeks between Port Orchard and Man-
chester where new urban expansion and conversion has altered runoff
and erosional balances.
CLIMATE
The climate of the Puget Sound Region Is controlled largely by
air movement from the Pacific and by major landforms. The Olympic
Mountains to the west and the mountains of Vancouver Island to the
north effectively protect the region from the full intensity of winter
storms reaching the coast. On the other hand, the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, north of the Olympic Mountains, the Chehalis Valley to the
southeast and adjacent lowlands provide passages for marine air mov-
ing inland. The Cascade Range usually shields western Washington
from continental air masses and their temperature extremes. These
enclosing mountains, however, may have negative effects as they in-
duce air mass stagnation over the lowlands (Reference 9).
The Kitsap Peninsula shares Puget Sound's characteristically
maritime climate, typified by relatively short, cool, dry summers
and prolonged mild, wet winters. During summer, few major storm
disturbances penetrate into the Puget Sound area. Precipitation
during this period is generally limited to isolated shower activity,
and clear, sunny days usually prevail. In winter, most of the study
area south of Dyes Inlet is generally well-watered because of the in-
21
-------
fluence of air flow through the gap between the Olympic Mountains and
the Black Hills (Reference 10).
Precipitation, Humidity and Evaporation
Precipitation patterns in the study area are characterized by
frequent rainfalls of low intensity. The mean annual precipitation
distribution in central Kitsap County is shown in Figure 6. The mean
precipitation within the study area varies from a low of 114 cm [45
in] to a high of 167 cm [66 in] per year. Average monthly precipi-
tation for Bremerton is portrayed in Figure 7. Approximately 85 per-
cent of the precipitation occurs between October and April. Preci-
pitation in the form of snowfall is generally light, and the depth
on the ground in the lower elevations seldom exceeds 8 to 15 cm [3
to 6 in] (Reference 1).
The relative humidity ranges from 75 to 85 percent in the winter,
and in the summer from AO to 50 percent in the afternoon to 85 per-
cent at night (Reference 1).
Annual evaporation as measured by a Class A pan in the region is
estimated at 64 to 89 cm [25 to 35 in]. Annual water loss by evapo-
ration from lakes and reservoirs is estimated at 51 to 64 cm [20 to
25 in] (Reference 1). The seasonal soil moisture water deficit due
to evapotranspiration occurs between May and October.
Temperature
The monthly mean temperature at Bremerton during 1974 was 11°C
[51 °F], while the range was from -7 to 33°C [20 to 91°F]. Tempera-
tures above 38°C [100°F] or under -18°C [0°F] seldom occur. Summer
daytime temperatures average 21° to 26°C [70° to 80°F], dropping to
4° to 10°C [40° to 50°F] at night. Maximum daytime temperatures
occur from July through September. Winter temperatures average 4°
to 10°C [40° to 50°F] during the day, and -1° to 4° C [30° to 40°F]
at night. The minimum annual nighttime temperatures occur during
December and January. Extremely cold temperatures in the Puget Sound
region are usually caused by outbreaks of cold polar air from central
British Columbia. Most of the lighter frosts, however, result from
ground heat losses on calm, clear nights. Average frost-free periods,
or growing seasons, range from approximately 225 to 260 days per
year (References 1, 4 and 9).
22
-------
0 12 3 4 5 6
I—L-J—L-J-4=d
KILOMETRES
FIGURE 6 MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
KITSAP COUNTY
(1946 - I960)
23
-------
SOURCE REFERENCE I
FIGURE 7 : AVERAGE MONTHLY PRECIPITATION FOR THE TEN YEAR
PERIOD 1965 -1974, BREMERTON GAGING STATION
Winds
Within the general Puget Sound region, the fall and winter are
characterized by southwesterly prevailing winds, while those in the
spring and summer are from the northwest.
Wind sampling in the vicinity of the study area was initiated
in East Bremerton during July 1974 by the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency. A wind rose for July 1974 through December 1975 is
presented in Figure 8. The spokes indicate the relative frequency
of winds of different speeds. The number below the directional signs
on the perimeter of the wind rose indicate the percentage frequency
of winds blowing from that direction. The first number is for six
months of data and the second number, in parentheses, relates to ten
months of data.
24
-------
NORTH
3 2
NNE %
a 7 °
.ar)b
WNW
1.0
(i i)
LOCATION-PUGET SOUND AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, DEWEY JR HIGH, PERRY AVE
AND HOLMAN ST., BREMERTON, WASHINGTON
DATES- "JUL-DEC, 1974. b(JUL-APR, 1975)DIRECTIONAL FREQUENCY ONLY
OBSERVATIONS - 3,976
II- 4 0- 7.0- HA- IT.O- OVER
j« ei to.* is.» us ti»
00 so «0 to I to ISO
PERCENT
KNOTS
Source: Reference 3.
Figure 8. PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF HOURLY AVERAGE
SURFACE WINDS.
25
-------
AIR QUALITY
Air temperature inversions, which can intensify air pollution
problems, are prevalent in the Puget Sound basin, largely because of
the enclosed mountain basin setting noted earlier. Temperature in-
versions are most likely to occur during early spring and again in
late summer and early fall. Data collected on inversions during each
month of 1972 revealed that they were most frequent during October.
Temperature inversions seldom prevail more than a few days before
they are displaced by a new weather system moving into the region
(Reference 9).
Air quality is determined by the presence of many inert and chemi-
cally active substances such as carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen,
hydrocarbons, suspended particulates, photochemical oxidants and sul-
fur dioxide, as well as meteorological conditions such as temperature
gradients and wind speed.
Existing Conditions from Available Inventory Data
Pollutant emission rates appropriate for the study area have
been estimated and are summarized in Table 2 for 1975 conditions.
Countywide estimates were provided by the Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency whiih summarized the following categories of the 1972
Kitsap County air contaminant emissions: fuel combustion, industrial
sources, solid waste disposal, transportation sources and miscel-
laneous area sources such as orchard heating, agricultural burning
and slash burning. These data were updated to 1975 assuming that
only transportation and residential area sources of fuel were popu-
lation dependent. Current solid waste disposal and slash burning
are also updated in accordance with population estimates. Monitor-
ing of pollutant levels by the Puget Found Air Pollution Control
Aqency at stations in Bremerton, Seattle, Taroma and on Maury Island
indicates that Kitsap County has generally good to excellent air
quality throughout the year. The levels for 1975, although slightly
higher than those taken in 1974, were still well below the annual
standard in each pollutant category (Reference 10).
26
-------
Table 2. AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN KITSAP COUNTY (1975)
Carbon
monoxide
Hydro-
carbons
Nitrogen
oxides
Sulfur
dioxide
Particulates
Aa
Bd
A B
A B
A B
A B
64.00
0.50
15.14 0.12
6.97 0.06
4.70 0.04
2.33 0.02
etric tons per day, (1 metric ton -0.91 ton)
^Kg per person per day, (1 kg - 2.2 lbs).
A specially commissioned monitoring program was conducted during
the spring of 1975 (Reference 11) in Bremerton, a location assumed to
be highest in pollutant levels because of its greater population. The
program has shown that carbon dioxide levels are far below one-hour and
eight-hour standards. It is assumed that corollative, typical smog
constituents were also present at similarly low levels. The low pol-
lutant levels are generally attributed to few pollutant sources within
the county and frequent winds which mix and dilute any existing aerial
emissions (Reference 4).
NOISE
Data describing present noise conditions are limited. In gene-
ral, Kitsap County is quiet and rural in nature. Most noise levels
which cause the majority of long-term disturbances occur along major
arterial roads as a result of traffic. Areas with a relatively higher
degree of urban noise include the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard
and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Most of the existing wastewater
treatment plants are located in areas of higher noise levels near resi-
dential development. However, the existing treatment plant's noise
levels are low enough to be completely masked by daytime ambient noise
levels. No observations were made of nighttime conditions.
ODORS
The study area is free of widespread odor-producing sources.
Within the County, there are probably two main characteristic types
of localized odors. The first is associated with agricultural prac-
27
-------
tices where livestock and fertilizer applications produce odors typi-
cal of a farm environment. The second type of odor is that associated
with mud flats along the shorelines and is most noticeable when the
intertidal areas are exposed during low tide. When oxygen in the sedi-
ments is low and organic content high, characteristic sulfide and de-
composition odors may be emitted. Other odors of smaller significance,
are those normally associated with urban development, commercial ac-
tivities and the nearby Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
FRESHWATER HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Surface Water
The study area is drained by many small streams of which the
majority have relatively small drainage areas and flow directly into
marine waters. These streams form five drainage sub-basins which com-
prise Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (WRIA 15) and are shown in Fig-
ure 9. A summary of the drainage areas and flows is presented in
Table 3. Most of the study area is drained by three major creek sys-
tems: Chico, Gorst and Blackjack Creeks. Gorst and Blackjack creeks
maintain a sizeable base flow year around from groundwater discharges.
However, many portions of the study area are geologically and topo-
graphically unsuited for storing appreciable amounts of groundwater.
As a result, streams tend to recede rapidly after a storm and little
water is retained in the groundwater reservoir to maintain base flow
during dry periods. Thus, the majority of the creeks follow a sea-
sonal pattern of high flows in the winter and low flows in the summer,
with transition periods occurring in the spring and fall. Peak stream
discharges usually occur during the months of November through February
(Reference 12).
There are approximately 30 lakes and reservoirs in the study
area. The greatest majority are shallow and average 1.6 ha [4 ac]
in size. The primary use of these lakes is for recreation, although
a few are classified for public water supply, including Heins, Jar-
stad and Alexander lakes and Hunts Mill pond. Kitsap Lake and Wild-
cat Lake are by far the largest lakes in the study area at 96 and 46
ha [238 and 113 ac] in area, respectively.
Water Supply and Water Rights
The existing streamflows and shallow groundwater aquifers in
WRIA 15 presently meet the water supply demands of the study area.
With projected local growth related to the Trident project and the
28
-------
CHICO CREEK
DRAINAGE
LEGEND
SEASONAL GAGING STATION
PARTIAL RECORD GAGING STATION
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARIES
DRAINAGE SUB-BASIN
I 2 3 4 5 6
KILOMETRES
FIGURE 9 LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL STREAMS
AND DRAINAGE AREAS
29
-------
Table 3
DRAINAGE AREAS AND LOW FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Gaging
Drainage
Minimum discharge
station
arSah
number
Stream
U2 b
llsc
Date
Drainage sub-basin 11
KP53
Illahee Creek
3 32
11.67
8/27/47
1CP54
Unnamed trib. to Port
Orchard
1.81
7.40
8/27/47
KP55
Unnamed trib. to Dyes
Inlet
0.54
1.42
8/22/58
KP56
Mosher Creek
4.09
7.97
8/26/47
KP57
Unnamed trib. to Dyes
Inlet
1 09
0
8/26/47
KP58
Unnamed trib to Dyes
Inlet
0 70
0
8/26/47
Drainage sub-basin 23
KP65
Woods Creek
1 04
5 69
8/22/58
KP66
Unnamed trib. to Dyes
Inlet
0.44
2 28
9/25/47
KP67
Unnamed trib. to Dyes
Inlet
0 13
2.28
9/25/47
KP68
Unnamed trib. to Dyes
Inlet
0.60
1. 71
8/22/58
0720
Chico Creek Drainage
(43.26)
KP70
Wildcat Creek
6.48
3.98
9/08/61
KP70.1
Wildcat Creek
16 06
20 77
9/08/61
KP70 2
Lost Creek
7 98
20 77
9/08/61
KP71
Dickenson Creek
5.67
1.14
8/05/47
KP72
Kitsap Creek
7 07
2.28
8/21/58
Drainage sub-basin 24
Gorst Creek Drainage
(19.76)
KP73
Gorst Creek
11.24
218 50
8/28/47
KP74
Helns Creek
4.22
17.64
8/19/58
KP75
Parish Creek
4.30
23.05
8/28/47
Drainage sub-basin 26
0725
Blackjack Creek Drainage
(30 85)
KP76
Black-jack Creek
3 65
102.71
8/15/58
KP77
Blackjack Creek
27 20
135 14
8/28/47
KP78
Annapolis Creek
4.82
11 38
8/27/47
KP79
Unnamed trib. to Port
Orchard
0 52
11 38
8/21/58
KP80
Unnamed trib. to Port
Orchard
0.18
4 84
8/21/58
KP81
Sullivan Creek
2.59
10 24
8/21/58
Drainage sub-basin 27
KP82
Unnamed trib. to Port
Orchard
0 65
0.57
8/21/58
KP83
Unnamed trib. to Port
Orchard
0.83
0
8/21/58
KP84
Unnamed trib. to Port
Orchard
1 04
1 71
8/27/47
KP85
Beaver Creek
4.17
12 52
8/27/47
KP86
Duncan Creek
1.17
1.14
8/27/47
aFor location of gaging stations, see Figure 9.
^1 km2 = 0 39 sq mi.
C1 liter/second (l/s) = 0.035 cubic feet/second (cfs)
30
-------
expansion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, water supply will not be
adequate to meet future demands. The Bremerton area will probably be
the first to face a serious water shortage as this area contains the
most concentrated population and highest water demands. Other areas
supplied by stream diversions may also be subject to water shortages.
Several major surface water sources have been closed to further ap-
propriation.
Table 4 shows water rights and minimum flow characteristics for
two major water sources. Low flow in Blackjack Creek is probably ade-
quate to meet the demands of water rights holders. However, the wa-
ters of Chico Creek may have been appropriated beyond its low flow
volume. This "over-appropriation" may not be of significance during
normal rainfall years due to relatively higher flow volumes and subse-
quent usage by downstream water rights holders. But during abnormally
dry years such as 1976 and 1977, it may have serious consequences for
both available water supply and water quality parameters.
Table 4. APPROPRIATED WATER RIGHTS VERSUS LOW FLOWS IN
BLACKJACK AND CHICO CREEKS
Total appropriated
Low flow
Creek Name
quantity, £/sa
characteristics, l/s
Blackjack
111
136
Chico
625
477
3(1 l/s = 0.035 cfs)
bFrom Table 2.
Source: Reference 12.
Surface Water Quality
In accordance with the State of Washington water quality stand-
ards, all streams which feed into lake systems have been classified
AA (Extraordinary) and all other surface waters have been classified
A (Excellent). A special "lake" classification has been established
for lakes and impoundments. A summary of these classifications and
their criteria is presented in Appendix A.
Water quality sampling for selected waters in the study area has
been conducted by DOE, the U.S. Geologic Survey (U.S.G.S.) and the
Bremerton-Kitsap County Department of Public Health (Reference 1).
31
-------
Water quality of streams in Kitsap County is generally considered
suitable for most purposes throughout much of the year, with the ex-
ception of those waters in and immediately below heavily urbanized
areas. Water quality of the county's lakes is also generally satis-
factory for most uses, including domestic water (Reference 10).
The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have reported that
past logging activities in some areas of the Kitsap Peninsula have
damaged fishery resources through slash dumping, yarding through
streams, clear-cutting streambanks, roadbuilding and improper road
and culvert construction. Logging on small, scattered tracts is a
significant activity in Kitsap County, though not to a great extent
within the study area (Reference 12), While the extent of agricul-
tural activities on the Kitsap Peninsula is not great, local condi-
tions may present water quality problems. There are no significant
agricultural water pollution sources within the study area.
The lakes and streams of the study area are similar in chemical
character to the region's groundwater. Calcium, magnesium, bicar-
bonate and silica are the principal dissolved mineral constituents.
Surface water, however, generally contains less dissolved material
than groundwater, especially during periods of high surface runoff.
With few exceptions, the dissolved solids contents of surface water
are less than 100 ppm, even during periods of low flow (Reference 12)
Small streams and lakes often exhibit brown water coloration during
the high flow period due to organic solutes derived from swamps and
poorly drained marshy areas.
Ongoing sampling conducted from January 1974 by the Kitsap Count;
Health Department for several streams and lakes indicates that most
fresh water in the study area meets DOE classification standards for
class A, AA and Lakewaters. However, total coliform levels have ex-
ceeded standards more than once in the following streams and lakes
(References 1 and 12),
The high coliform counts have been largely attributed to wide-
spread septic tank failure in the region (Reference 1). The pre-
sence of coliform bacteria is an indication that disease-causing or-
ganisms may be present in the tested waters.
Streams
Blackjack Creek
Chico Creek
Gorst Creek
Wildcat Lake
Deep Lake
Lakes
Kitsap Lake
32
-------
Groundwater
The Groundwater System
The complexity of the glacial materials found underlying most
of Kitsap Peninsula makes it difficult to determine the exact loca-
tion and extent of porous geologic formations, but there is evidence
that many are continuous beneath several local watersheds, as illus-
trated in Figured. In some cases, the direction of groundwater move
ment is independent of surface topography, and, under such conditions
some of the precipitation received in one watershed could be trans-
ferred as groundwater to adjacent watersheds. If stream channels in
the adjacent areas intercept such groundwater, some of the water will
eventually be discharged into their surface water systems (Reference
12).
Well hydrographs in the study area have indicated that ground-
water in storage, including that in deep, water-bearing strata, is
closely related to the amount of annual precipitation (Refetence 13).
Shallow groundwater or seasonal groundwater tables, which are gene-
rally found at low elevations or adjacent to streams, rise to their
highest level within a month following peak precipitation - normally
in early winter. The shallow groundwater levels recede rapidly fol-
lowing the decline of rainfall. The lowest water levels, or periods
of depletion, occur in late summer.
High seasonal groundwater, 0.6 to 1.2 m [2 to A ft] below the
ground surface, occurs in approximately 20 different soil types dis-
tributed throughout the area. This is especially the case in the
Bremerton area, where soils are underlain by consolidated till, and
in the Port Orchard/Retsil area, where soils are predominantly loam
or silt loam (Reference 1).
Groundwater for domestic purposes is available in nearly all
parts of Kitsap County. In many places, particularly in the western
portion of the peninsula, shallow wells have been dug to obtain per-
ched groundwater from the till or outwash materials which overlie
the relatively impermeable Vashon till (Reference 14). Several large
capacity wells have been drilled in the Bremerton/Port Orchard area,
taking advantage of both the relatively high seasonal water table and
deeper confined groundwater. Generally, water-bearing strata are
found within 30 m [100 ft] of the land surface, as evidenced by water
levels in wells throughout the county, particularly in the central
portion (References 1, 12 and 13).
33
-------
Groundwater Quality
In general, groundwater in the study area appears to be of good
chemical quality (Reference 1). According to State standards, ground-
water quality problems are confined primarily to isolated instances of
high iron and high chloride concentrations. Little correlation ex-
ists between geologic formation and iron concentration, although the
higher concentrations are found in water from formations below Colvos
sand. Instances of high chloride concentrations, an indication of
salt water intrusion, are confined to areas of the peninsula and ad-
jacent islands outside of the study area at the present time (Ref-
erences 1 and 12).
Other chemicals of minor significance found in the region's
groundwater include fluorides, nitrates and hydrogen sulfide. Fluo-
ride content is extremely low with all analyses for the region show-
ing less than 0.40 ppm. Nitrate concentrations are relatively low
and typically found in water from shallow wells that have been affec-
ted by septic tank seepage or percolation of polluted surface waters
(Reference 12).
Groundwater of the Kitsap Peninsula area is characterized by a
low dissolved solids content and moderate water hardness. Increases
in dissolved solids, water hardness and silica generally correlate
with deeper water-bearing zones in older formations. If future water
demand requires the utilization of deeper aquifers, then the increased
presence of solids, water hardness and silica are unsuitable for certain
industrial uses such as boiler feed, ice production or paper produc-
tion .
TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
The Kitsap study area is located within the Western Hemlock
Forest Zone, which is characterized as being the most extensive vege-
tation zone in western Washington and Oregon and the most important
in terms of timber production. The Puget Sound area is a sub-unit
within the Western Hemlock Zone and contains slight differences in
vegetation distribution and dominance, as related to localized cli-
mate and soil factors (Reference 15). The area lies in the rain
shadow of the Olympic Mountains, receiving 114-167 cm [45-66 in.] an-
nual precipitation, with at least 85 percent of the precipitation
falling between October and April. This greater amount of moisture
over the winter and spring months plays an important role in the dis-
tribution and abundance of local vegetation.
34
-------
Biotic Communities
Conifers originally covered almost the entire study area. Since
western settlement commencing in the 19th Century, the vegetation has
been altered by successive land use changes. The present biotic com-
munities, which are characterized by the dominant vegetation type, con-
sist of: (1) Woodland Forest, (2) Pasture/Meadow, (3) Freshwater
Marsh, (4) Residential and (5) Marine Shoreline. The Woodland Forest
can be sub-divided into Coniferous Forest, Broadleaf Forest and Mixed
Coniferous Broadleaf Forest. There is considerable intergrading of
species within these units, and they should not be viewed as distinct
entities. The distribution of these units is largely a function of
climate, relief, substrate and the occurrence of fire, grazing, log-
ging and other human activities. The Woodland Forest is the predomi-
nant unit with the maritime climate being favorable to the growth of
conifers. Broadleaf forests are limited in distribution and occur most
frequently in recently disturbed areas, specialized habitats such as
riparian zones or in marginal areas unsuitable for conifers (Reference
16). Examples of the five biotic communities within the study area
are shown on Figure 10 and are described in Appendix B. The charac-
teristic vegetation and wildlife of each community is presented in Ap-
pendix B-l. Species lists of vegetation and wildlife probably occur-
ring within the biotic communities are given in Appendices B-2, B-3,
B-4 and B-5.
Rare and Endangered Species
No rare or endangered plant species are found within the plan-
ning area (Reference 17). The American peregrine falcon (Falco pere-
grinus anatum) is the only wildlife species considered to be en-
dangered within the study area (Reference 18). Due to urbanization,
forest clearing and other changes in land use, this bird is probably
transient and does not depend on specific parts of the study area as
a permanent or primary habitat. Outlying regions beyond the study
area which are less disturbed and closer to their natural habitat
may attract and support a small peregrine falcon population.
No endangered mammalian species are recognized within the study
area (Reference 19); however, several rare species which may exist
in the study area have been identified by the Washington State Game
Department. These are the mountain lion (Felis concolor), sea otter
(Enhydra lutris), fisher (Martes pennanti) and western gray squirrel
(Sciurus griseus). The Game Department definition of rare is: "A
rare species or subspecies... that, although not presently threatened
with extinction, is in such small numbers throughout its range that
it may be endangered if the environment worsens" (Reference 19).
35
-------
iS
m
NLET
KILOMETRES
w^\voxx^
N\\x
v"
-N\
S>\\
\\v^
Itl^
Nn^
v- ^N v ^?\^vcC\^\V >SW\'
wilwl
=E3 URBAN - DEVELOPED
fcVjfoj GRASSLANDS*
V V V V
V^Vv\v
\N VN N \>
FOREST-WOODLAND
NAXvV-V NjlRsNVs >>v >5
*v>.x o, v\\ v\\ \ \\w\\\ O. 4
FRESH WATER MARH
AND/OR LAKE
MARINE SHORELINE
* INCLUDES OCCASIONAL
STRUCTURES
FIGURE 10 GENERAL VEGETATION AND LAND USE
DISTRIBUTION IN CENTRAL PORTION
OF STUDY AREA
36
-------
Sensitive Ecological Areas
Human settlement has greatly changed the local ecology of the
Kitsap area through alterations in land use and the introduction of
non-native vegetation and animals. Urbanization has removed some
wildlife habitat areas from the region. Most areas retain their ori-
ginal vegetation community characteristics except for the second-
growth characteristics shown in forested areas.
Within the Kitsap planning area, sensitive ecological areas are
generally associated with watercourses and water bodies. Stream sys-
tems provide valuable wildlife habitat. Alteration of streambeds oc-
curs mainly near populated areas and has not greatly reduced habitat
along more remote stream sections. One of the most serious impacts
upon streams in the last few decades is the development of roadways
and structures across stream mouths as they empty into the Puget Sound
system. Obstruction of stream mouths degrades the estuarine zone and
can block seasonal upstream migrations of anadromous fishes.
PHYSICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Hydrography and Circulation
The study area is surrounded by Puget Sound and its inlets and
canals. Puget Sound is connected to the Pacific Ocean by the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and Admiralty Inlet, through which most of the Sound's
oceanic waters enter. Puget Sound is a deep fjord-like embayment
covering approximately 6500 sq km [2,500 sq mi]. Water depths of 180
m [600 ft] are typical in the central basin near Seattle, and maximum
depths extend to 280 m [930 ft]. Tidal exchange of Sound waters with
incoming ocean waters varies with depth and density characteristics.
Theoretically, the entire volume of the Sound's waters is replaced
about twice a year. Considerable variation occurs between the ex-
tremities and the central basin, however, and flushing efficiency
varies widely on a monthly basis.
The shallow sills are critical in controlling the mixing and the
nature of the water which contributes to the deep waters in the in-
ner basins of Puget Sound. Mixing by surface cooling during the win-
ter and by flow across sills tends to equalize dissolved oxygen and
nutrient salts vertically through the water. Because of this mixing
and the tidal exchange that occurs with waters of the open ocean,
the water u.. ^uget Sound is well supplied with oxygen and mineral salts
necessary to support aquatic ecosystems. Consequently, Puget Sound
provides a rich habitat for a diverse community of organisms.
37
-------
The portion of Puget Sound most affected by the alternative de-
signs under consideration is the Port Orchard subsystem, which includes
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets, the Port Washington Narrows and Rich Pas-
sage. Puget Sound enters the embayments in the study area through
Port Orchard Bay and Rich Passage. Port Orchard Bay is approximately
1.2 km [0.75 mi]-wide and 19 km [12 mi] Jong. Midchannel depths aver-
age 27 m [90 ft] at mean lower low water (MLLW). Rich Passage is
narrowest at the wesL end 0.4 km [0.25 mi] and widens to meet Puget
Sound at the east end. Depths range from 12 to 30 m [40 to 100 ft]
(MLLW). Sinclair Inlet is a shallow bay approximately 1.2 km [0.75
mi] wide and 8 km [5 mi] long. Mean lower low water (MLLW) depth
varies from 6 to 7.6 m [20 to 25 ft] at the west end to over 15.2 m
[50 ft] at the east end of the inlet. Dyes Inlet is approximately 1.6
km [1 mi] wide and 8 km [5 mi] long. The inlet is deepest at the cen-
ter, approximately 40 m [130 ft] (MLLW), and shallowest at the north
and south ends (MLLW depth of 12 m [40 ft]). Port Washington Narrows
is a shallow 6.4 km [4 mi] channel connecting Sinclair Inlet to Dyes
Inlet. The narrows has a depth of under 9m [30 ft] (MLLW) and aver-
ages about 0.4 km [0.25 mi] wide.
In the course of facilities planning within Kitsap County, two
modeLs were used to study water quality and mixing: a mathematical
ecological model applied by EPA to a part of Puget Sound and the Uni-
versity of Washington's physical model of Puget Sound. Descriptions
of the models and a discussion of their capabilities and limitations
are presented in Appendix C. Generalizations about currents and dis-
persions characteristics of marine waters in the planning area based
on the models are difficult to make. Conditions vary not only by lo-
cation, but are also relative to tidal cycle and the period of year.
The University of Washington model (Reference 20) describes three re-
ceiving water sites pertinent to the Sinclair Inlet facilities plan:
Enetai, Located off the east side of Manette Point; the Puget Sound
waters off Manchester; and Sinclair Inlet. The following descriptions
are from model operations under ideal conditions, however, actual
field conditions, particularly wind speed and direction, will alter
to some degree the current and dispersion characteristics observed
in the model.
At the EnetaL site, no field data were gathered by the facilities
planner to confirm the tidal cycles run on the University of Washing-
ton model. However, based on Lhe model's reliability nearby, the
predicted results can be assumed to be reasonably accurate. At this
site, flood tides produce strong currents and turbulence, but ebb-
tides create a calm area near shore with much less mixing.
The Manchester site is adjacent to the main body of Puget Sound.
Field data generally verify the results of the physical model, al-
though somewhat stronger currents, to 0.5 knots as opposed to 0.3
knots, were measured in the field. Direction of flow is predomin-
38
-------
ately north and northeast at virtually all phases and ranges of tides.
Only at the ebb of a spring tide was any southerly flow noted at the
point of observation. It is difficult to quantify the absolute mag-
nitude because of tidal cycle variations and strengths, but a general
conclusion about the flow at the Manchester site is that it shows a
net movement into Puget Sound. Small amounts of flow from the Man-
chester site can be carried into Rich Passage on floodtides, but these
flows are not visible at the west end of the passage and are flushed
out again on the ebb.
The currents at the Sinclair Inlet site were verified by field
data to test monitoring accuracy. Currents at this site are weak
(0.2 to 0.3 knot) with a slow, oscillating flow, giving a net trans-
port to the east.
Marine Water Quality
Port Orchard System General Conditions
The Port Orchard system, particularly with reference to the wa-
ters in Sinclair Inlet and Dyes Tnlet, exhibits seasonally high coli-
form and nutrient levels, low dissolved oxygen levels and a typical
lack of stratification.
High coliform bacteria levels are found in the waters immediate-
ly following periods of heavy rainfall. The coliform level is an im-
portant public health indicator of bacterial and viral contamination
of waters. High coliform levels in surface waters indicate sources
of inadequately treated domestic sewage in contact with the waters.
In the study area, coliforms may be contributed by either combined
sewer overflows and bypasses or septic drainfield seepage. Coliform
levels from quarterly monitoring surveys are shown in Table 5. Levels
beyond DOE standards appear frequently.
Levels of nutrients are generally high year-around with an oc-
casional depletion of nitrates in early summer. The waters of the
Port Orchard Bay system are nutrient rich, a characteristic shared
with Puget Sound. Abundant quantities of nitrogen, phosphorous and
other nutrients are available at all depths throughout the system,
with one notable exception. In the early summer the increase in day-
light hours triggers algae blooms, which are limited mainly by the a-
mount of nitrate-nitrogen in the upper 5 m [15 ft] (the photic zone)
of the water. During this period, rapid algae growth depletes the
level of nitrate from the upper zones and, therefore, Port Orchard
waters are referred to as "nitrate-limited".
High dissolved oxygen levels are found in the spring and summer
months within the Port Orchard system. Algal photosynthetic activi-
39
-------
Table 5. QUARTERLY MONITORING OF COLIFORM BACTERIA LEVELS3
(Number /100 ml)
o
N
r»
m
r>-
rn
r-
vr
r.
1100
<4
>1100
240
"
43
150
23
15
4
>1100
23
23
240
2.
Off Port Orchard STP
150
11
>1100
4
460
9
>1100
460
15
4
460
75
¦"4
9
240
23
43
460
3
Off Port Orchard
Yacht Club
40
]100
240
4
240
290
23
15
23
75
<3
15
240
4
Gorst (off Rock Quarry)
230
23
1100
1100
>1100
<4
>1100
1100
93
240
460
>1100
460
<4
150
23
93
240
5
Off Charleston STP
90
<4
210
93
<4
9
>1100
43
4
75
-1100
240
23
9
150
1100
43
43
6
Off N Y. Crane at
Naval Shipyard
40
23
>1100
93
15
1100
>1100
93
4
7
240
43
23
1100
43
240
23
460
7.
Off Manette STP (Port
Washington Narrows)
-
-
1100
1100
4
14
>1100
>1100
-
~
-
>1100
"
~
~
43
Washington State DOE Classification of Sinclair Inlet "A - special condltons" - total conforms not to exceed median values of 1000/100 ml. When
associated with any fecsl source, less than 20 percent should exceed 2400/100 ml
Sewage* Treatment Plant (STP)
Source* Kitsap County Department of Public Health
-------
ties during bloom periods produce high dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions, often up to the saturation level. On the other hand, algal
decomposition after the bloom period consumes large amounts of dis-
solved oxygen. Oxygen depletion causes odors and can adversely af-
fect marine organisms.
There is a general lack of stratification throughout the Port
Orchard Bay system. Stratification is the layering of water of dif-
ferent densities. This can be water of different temperatures or com-
positions, e.g., salt versus fresh water. Stratification reduces the
volume available for mixing of a discharged effluent.
General Mater Quality Conditions Within the Study Area
Information on the quality of waters in the planning area has
been recorded since 1932. Marine water quality conditions in the
study area may be described as excellent but with local bacteriolo-
gical problems in areas that are subject to poor flushing. The ap-
plicable marine water quality regulations and standards are given in
Appendix A. The DOE classifications and general water quality condi-
tions within the study area are summarized below:
Sinclair Inlet. Classified "A-special conditions" allowing higher
coliforms; considered acceptable, but frequent violations of the coli-
form standards.
Dyes Inlet/Port Washington Narrows. Classified "A-special con-
ditions"; acceptable water quality with frequent violations of coli-
form standards and occasional violations of dissolved oxygen standards.
Rich Passage. Classified "AA"; acceptable water quality, with
only occasional violations of standards, probably due to natural causes.
Port Orchard. Classified "AA"; considered acceptable with fre-
quent violations of bacteriological and turbidity standards in the
Burke Bay/Brownsville area north of Sinclair Inlet planning area.
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The marine environment within the waterways, inlets and passages
of the Port Orchard system is a complex ecosystem that is susceptible
to changes induced by human activities. The Port Orchard system forms
part of the larger Puget Sound system along the Washington coast. The
Kitsap County marine environment has been described in detail in Basic
Data and Related Sources to Shorelines (Reference 24).
41
-------
Marine Habitats
The marine shoreline and nearshore waters can be divided roughly
into three types of habitat based upon bottom type and distance from
the shore. These are: (1) River-Creek Mouth; (2) Open-Mud Bays and
(3) Sand-Gravel-Cobble Beach. A brief description of each habitat
along with locations and characteristic associations is given in Table
6. A more detailed discussion of these units is found in Appendix
D-l. Species lists of aquatic organisms probably occurring within
the study area are given in Appendix D-2. The most common shoreline
type within the study area is the Sand-Gravel-Cobble Beach which is
typically inundated during high tide and covered with rockweed and
sea lettuce. Eel grass in the subtidal areas plays an important role
in the nearshore ecology.
Plant and animal life within the marine environment normally ex-
hibit a vertical stratification representing three ecological niches.
They are the benthic, water column and surface zones, which are dis-
tinct and yet interact with each other. The benthic zone includes
the bottom sediments and the associated immediately overlying areas.
The water column zone is that portion of the marine environment where
the water column meets the benthic zone up to 0.7 m [2 ft] under the wa-
ter surface. The surface zone is that portion of the water environ-
ment above the water column zone to 2 m [6 ft] above the surface of
the water body. A brief description of each zone along the locations
and characteristic associations is given in Table 7. A more detailed
discussion of these units is found in Appendix C.
Algal Production
Algal concentration studies for Sinclair and Dyes Inlet were
performed in Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters
(Reference 22). Algal concentrations were studied for their value as
an indicator of productivity in the marine environment and as an in-
dicator of other factors, such as nutrients, light, certain growth
coefficients and zooplankton. Computed algal biomass concentrations
in Dyes and Sinclair Inlets are shown in Figure 11. A species non-
specific algal biomass was computed, based on 80 mg biomass corre-
sponding to one mg chlorophyll a.
In winter, the model computed the lowest algal biomass with an
average of 800 ug/1 in Port Orchard. Spring values were higher,
presumably due to increased light (heat) energy and upstream nu-
trient inputs. Concentrations exceeding 1,500 ug/3 were computed
for Sinclair Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, Dyes Tnlet and Liberty
42
-------
Table 6. MARINE HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Habitat
Description
Locations and Examples
Characteristic Associations
River-Creek Mouth
Estuarine zone where creek mouth
meets marine waters. This zone
extends to several meters below
the low tide level and Js subject
to tidal and seasonal salinity
changes.
Open systems-with direct creek
outlet tn marine waters-such as
Chlco Creek at Dyes Inlet.
Closed systeras-creek mouth en-
closed seasonally or permanent-
ly by sand spits or man-made
obstructions, such as Annapolis
Creek and other small creeks
tributary to Sinclair Inlet.
Anadromous fish nursery areas-At
depths greater than 1 ft below
mean lower low water are produc-
tive eelgrass beds. Associated
fish may include starry flounder,
stickleback, eulachon, surf perch,
sculpln and sole.
Important waterfowl and shorehird
habitat-sandy, silty bottom sup-
ports march grasses and irverte-
brateb. During extreme climatic
conditions, serves as important
waterfowl shelter and feeding area.
Open-Mud Bays
Sand-Gravel-
Cobble Beach
Bays with limited circulation
due to restricted inlet/outlet.
The marine environment has no
subslantial fresh-water source
and typically has an extensive
intertidal zone, large mud flat
areas and marsh grasses around
the periphery.
Typical shoreline type within
Kitsap County. Shoreline is
predominantly gravel and cobble
gradating to semi-sandy substrate
in the intertidal areas.
Dyes Inlet system-including
Oyster Bay, Ostrich Bay and
Phinney Bav. Also includes
lower end of Sinclair Inlet.
Major shoreline areas along
Sinclair Inlet and Port
Orchard.
Subtldal eelgrass beds provide
important feeding and spawning
areas for Pacific herring, starry
flounder, stick]eback, eulachon,
surf perch, sculpln and various
flounder and sole species. Dun-
geness crabs, oysters and oyster
drills are found In Chico Bay.
Smelt spawning areas are along
western Dyes Inlet shoreline.
March grass limited or absent,
rockweed and sea lettuce typical
In intertidal areas some eelgrass
in subtidal areas. Typical in-
vertebrate fauna consists of butter,
littleneck and bent-nose clams,
barnacles, shore and butter clams,
tube worms, mussels and peri-
winkles.
-------
Table 7. VERTICAL ZONES WITHIN THE MARINE ENVIRONIIEKT
Zone
Description
Locations and Examples
Characteristic Associations
Benthlc Zone
bottom-dwelling plant and animal
community, includes lnfauna which
may burrow several feet Into sub-
strate, eplfauna which inhabit sur-
face of substrate and demersal fish
species.
Water Column
Zone
Mid-depth waters that may show
gradations in temperature with
moderate-to-good circulation.
Some areas may be filled with
kelp fronds forming a forest-
llde environment.
Shallow portions of Dyes Inlet
where bottom depth is less than 6
m [20 ft] deep.
Southeastern end of Sinclair Inlet
where bottom depth Is less than 9 m
[30 ft] deep.
Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, Port
Orchard, Rich Passage and Puget
Sound.
Washington and manila clams, cockles,
lean dog whelk and over 15 species of
polychaetes dominated by lumberinerids,
amphaietids, orblnllds and trichobran-
chids. For fish species, see Sinclair
Inlet below.
Washington and other small rlams:
Axinopsis semcatus and Psepludla lordi
are found in Sinclair Inlet, also lumber-
inerid and cirratulld polychaetes and
cumaceans. Benthls fishes include*
splng dogfish; bay goby; great, rough-
back and Pacific sculpins; speckled sand-
dab; starry flounder; and flathead, rock,
slender, English, c-o and sand sole.
important local fish species in the water
column include stickleback, eulachon, bay
pipefish, prlcklebacks, shiner and pile
perch, striped and white seaperch,
sturgeon and pygmy poacher. Fishes favor-
ing algal and other vegetative associa-
tions Include northern clingfish, plain-
fin midshipman, blackbelly eelpout,
whitespotted greenllng and longspine
combfish. Other pelagic fishes Include
Pacific herring, salmon, Pacific cod,
Pacific hake, walleye pollock and
Pacific tomcod.
Surface Zone Surface waters which are strong-
ly influenced by light, wind,
temperature and human activities
such as boating.
All marine waters within study
area.
Important zone for phyroplankton and
zooplankton production. Plankton popula-
tion forms first step of food chain for
benthlc invertebrates and fishes. Fishes
in surface zone are similar to water
column zone with a preference for those
tolerating warmer waters.
-------
©
BIOMASS CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
^ 901 Spring
941 Summer
SOURCE REFERENCE 22
0 12 3 4
KILOMETRES
FIGURE II COMPUTED ALGAL BIOMASS
CONCENTRATIONS
45
-------
Bay. Model results show that summer algal concentrations dropped to
approximately 500 pg/1 in the bays and inlets while remaining rela-
tively high in Port Washington Narrows and near Bremerton. By con-
trast, the main channel of Puget Sound, near Bainbridge Island, ranges
from 5 |Jg/l in the winter to 348 Mg/1 in the spring. Model results
can only approximate true conditions, which could vary from those
predicted.
The seasonal pattern of variation in algal concentration tends
to imply that phytoplankton in Puget Sound are primarily limited by
light and secondarily by the input of nutrients. Continuously high
concentrations from spring to summer in Port Washington Narrows re-
flects the nutrient loading from the Manette Sewage Treatment Plant
wastewater outfall on the western shore of East Bremerton and the
return of much of that wastewater at each tidal cycle.
Fisheries and Aquaculture
There are two major salmonid-producing stream systems in the
study area which support limited runs of coho salmon, chub salmon and
steelhead trout. They are the Chico Creek system with its Dickenson,
Lost and Kitsap Creek tributaries and the Blackjack Creek system which
enters Sinclair Inlet. Smaller creeks with less than 3 km [2 mi] of
potential salmon-spawning areas are: Illahee Creek off of Port
Orchard; Mosher Creek off of Dyes Inlet; and Anderson, Ross, Annapolis
and Sullivan Creeks which drain into Sinclair Inlet. Adult salmon
runs normally occur in the fall, while steelhead migrate upstream in
the fall and spring. The shoreline areas of central Kitsap County are
also important for overall salmon production for much of Puget Sound.
Juvenile salmon descending from inland waters to the ocean in the
spring and summer typically remain close to the shoreline for food and
protection from predators. Salmon are also commercially reared in
floating pens by a private firm at Clam Bay near Manchester and off
Fort Ward on Bainbridge Island.
Puget Sound also produces major groundfish resources, including
several flatfish, rockfish, herring, smelt and other species. Some
of the species present are dependent on shallow shoreline reaches for
spawning and/or nursery areas. The commercial and sport harvest of
shellfish in the area is relatively intense, with emphasis on oysters,
hardshell clams, crabs and shrimp. Limited commercial production of
Pacific oysters occurs in lower Dyes Inlet. Aquacultural resources
are shown generally on Figure 12.
Commercial fishing statistical areas for Kitsap County are seg-
gregated by port. Within the planning area, marine landings are
grouped into: (1) the Bremerton port which includes Sinclair Inlet,
Dyes Inlet and lower Port Orchard up to Point White and (2),
46
-------
0 12 3 4 5 6
KILOMETRES
LEGEND
— ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS
OYSTERS
COMMERCIAL SALMON PENS
i
GEODUCK CLAMS
HARDSHELL CLAMS
FIGURE 12 AQUACULTURAL RESOURCES
hi
-------
Fletcher Bay port which essentially covers the central portion of
Port Orchard Bay. The three-year average commercial weight and dollar
value of marine landings within these statistical areas are given in
Table 8. The statistics reflect commercially valuable and harvestable
species but do not necessarily reflect all resident species, annual or
seasonal abundance of species or Fisheries Department Harvest restric-
tions. Salmon were not included in individual port catch statistics
because they were categorized as a wide-ranging species not specific
to particular areas.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL AND OTHER CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeological Resources
Existing archaeological site data within the study area are limi-
ted and cover only a few localized areas. Documentation of archaeo-
logical sites is largely a product of opportune surveying along road-
cuts, excavations and selected areas such as promontories, rock-shel-
ter areas and water bodies. Areas identified with a potential for con-
taining archaeological remains include all of the shoreline along Sin-
clair Inlet, Dyes Inlet, Port Orchard Bay and Puget Sound. Other sen-
sitive areas are along the banks of lakes, large ponds and major stream
such as Blackjack and Gorst Creeks. A detailed discussed is presented
in Appendix E. Four archaeological sites have been recorded within
the study area by the State Historic Preservation Officer (Washington
State Department of Parks and Recreation). No recorded sites lie with-
in the alternative sites for treatment facilities and pumping stations
or within a 100 m [300 ft] wide corridor along the alternative pipe-
line routes.
A literature search and field survey conducted in April 1977 did
not reveal any further sites or artifacts of archaeological signifi-
cance. The treatment plant sites and proposed pipeline corridors a-
long roads have been severely disturbed in the past and many areas have
been covered by layers of dirt fill. However, the possibility of burie
sites or artifacts in the project area exists, particularly along the
shores of Dyes and Sinclair Inlets.
Historical Resources
The historic resources of the study area are centered around the
older portions of Bremerton and Port Orchard which contain structures
from the late 1800's to the early 1900's. Central Kitsap County has
two historical sites listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. They include: The U.S.S. Missouri moored in the west end
of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Navy View Apartments (Sid-
48
-------
Table 8. AVERAGE MARINE LANDS AND
VALUE WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA, 1972-1974
Bremerton
Species
(kg)a
($)
(kg)
($)
Pelagic fish
Herring
9,887
4,350
15,414
6,782
Silver smelt
33
14
106
46
Ling cod
11
6
-
-
True cod
2
-
-
-
Rockfish
-
-
32
7
Blue perch
208
36
3,287
570
Silver perch
-
-
142
48
White perch
957
415
10,118
4,383
Pelagic total
11,098
4,828
29,099
11,829
Benthic species
Butter clam
60,449
12,218
236
47
Horse clam
9,631
1,065
-
-
Littleneck clam
33,798
17,845
9,490
5,011
Pacific hard clam
259
84
455
148
Sea cucumber
976
537
976
537
Geoduck
193,497
41,871
-
-
Benthic total
298,510
73,530
11,157
5,757
TOTAL
309,708
78,358
40,256
17,586
al kg = 2.2 lbs.
Source: Reference 21
49
-------
ney Hotel) at Prospect and Frederick Streets, Port Orchard. Both
landmarks have been brought from other areas to their present loca-
tions .
Numerous structures have been recognized by the Kitsap County
Historical Society in Bremerton and surrounding towns. Most build-
ings listed by the Society were built from 1885 to 1916 and are four-
to eight-room residences. A large number of these residences are
concentrated in the easterly portion of Bremerton south of the Port
Washington Narrows. A potential pipeline corridor between Manette-
and Charleston may pass by structures currently listed by the Society
or pass through areas with residences of equal or greater historic
interest which have not been nominated for the Society's list.
DEMOGRAPHY
The study area is the urbanized portion of a semirural county.
Only two incorporated cities are located within the study area: Bre-
merton with 37,000 persons and Port Orchard - the Kitsap County seat—
with 6,000 persons. Small unincorporated communities, include Anna-
polis/Retsil, Orchard Heights, Manchester, Gorst, Navy Yard City and
other small clusters of urban development.
The population of the area has grown substantially in the last
few decades and is continuing to grow. This growth has been largely
related to the operation of local military installations. The loca-
tion of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton in the late 1800's
two World Wars and two limited conflicts, with their accompanying in-
creases in shipyard and other military installation activity, and the
recent selection of Kitsap County for the site of the Navy Trident
Nuclear Submarine Base have all produced population surges as shown
in Table 9.
Sub-area growth figures presented in Table 10 reflect the in-
creased densities in the central portion of the county from 1960 to
1975, particularly around Bremerton. Population figures for Bremer-
ton may vary by as much as 5,000, depending on the number of ships,
and aircraft carriers, at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at any time
(Reference 23).
The data in Table 10 also indicate increasing growth in the area
south of Sinclair Inlet (South Kitsap) in recent years. This repre-
sents, in part, a southward migration of Kitsap County residents to-
ward Port Orchard and the Southworth-Colby communities along Puget
Sound. In part, it also results from an influx of former Seattle
and Tacoma residents. In some respects, Port Orchard is becoming a
50
-------
Table 9. POPULATION GROWTH, KITSAP COUNTY
AND CITIES IN STUDY AREA: 1910-1975
Kitsap County
Total
Bremerton
Port Orchard
1910
14,000
3,000
700
1920
30,000
8,900
1,400
1930
29,000
10,000
1,100
1940
46,000
15,000
1,600
1950
77,000
27,700
2,300
1960
84,000
27,000
2,800
1970
102,000
35,300
3,900
1975
116,000
37,100
4,000
Sources: Reference 23
Table 10. SUB-AREA GROWTH, 1960-1975
Area
Census
Division
1960
1970
1975
North
1-3
9,600
12,100
14,000
Central
4-8
24,800
24,100
28,800
South
12, 14-16,
and 18
16,300
21,700
26,700
Bainbridge Island
9-11
6,400
8,500
9,500
Bremerton (in-
corporated area)
B
27,000
35,300
37,100
County Total:
84,100
101,700
116,100
Source: Reference 23.
51
-------
"bedroom" community for Tacoma, due to its easy access by highway.
Its current growth rate is estimated to approximate that of Bremerton.
In addition, persons outside of Washington, including families of re-
tired military personnel are moving to the area (References 23 and 24)
Total 1975 population for the study area, defined as sub-basins
11, 23, 24, 26 and 27 of Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 15,
was estimated as 69,300. Approximately 49,500 of these people were
in the Bremerton drainage area, which includes the East Bremerton-
Illahee-Tracyton-Fairview communities and the area between Port
Washington Narrows and lower Chico Creek. The balance of nearly 20,
000 was concentrated in the Port Orchard-Annapolis area. The Gorst
and Manchester areas accounted for approximately 4,500 of these 20,
000 persons. These figures represent revised estimates provided by
Arthur D. Little, Inc., in conjunction with the Kitsap County Plan-
ning Department. The population concentration generally correspond
with the developed portions of the study area, as shown in Figure 13.
According to the 1970 census, 96.1 percent of the population was
white, with blacks accounting for 1.6 percent and other groups, 2.9
percent. The population characteristics of the county population
tended to differ from the state in general. As an example, 10.0 per-
cent of the population was 65 or older in 1970, compared to a state-
wide average of 8.2 percent. Because of this fact, a higher than
average number (15 percent) of county population receives Social Se-
curity payments. Due to the presence of the military (the economy
of the county is heavily dependent on employment related to the U.S.
Navy), the percentage of males (51.2 percent) was higher than the
state average of 49.5 percent. Approximately 15 percent of the 1970
population was military personnel and dependents, and this proportion
increased significantly whenever large ships were in port. Approxi-
mately 25 percent of 1970 county population was of school age.
FUTURE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Four recent estimates for Kitsap County in the year 1985 ranged
from 141,000 to over 166,000. All of these projections assumed that
Trident-related growth would be the most important single factor in
expansion, accounting for an increase of 27,000 to 32,000 persons
(Reference 23). As a result, a significant upsurge in population
in Central Kitsap north of Bremerton can be expected, with continu-
ing spillover southward.
The most recent projections of population growth in the study
area for the design period have been supplied by Arthur D. Little,
Inc., with revisions by Bremerton and Kitsap County planners. These
are presented in Table 11. The figures in Table 11 represent a down-
ward revision of total population for the study area and for Bremer-
52
-------
KILOMETRES
FIGURE 13 DEVELOPED AREA
53
-------
Table 11. TOTAL AND SEWERED POPULATION PROJECTIONS
WRIA
1975
2000
Drainage Area
Sub-basin Totalb
Seweredc
Total
d Sewered^
Bremerton3
11,23
49,842
37,000
59,800
56,600
Wildcat Lake
23
912
750
0
Subtotal
50,754
37,000
60,550
56,600
Gorst
24
1,545
0
2,250
1,000
East Gorst
400
0
400
400
Subtotal
1,945
0
2,650
1,400
Port Orchard
26
9,677
4,900
8,200
7,450
Retsil
4,399
3,141
12,800
9,300
Subtotal
14,076
8,041
21,000
16,750
Waterman
27
500
0
550
0
Manchester
2,025
503
4,250
3,300
Subtotal
2,525
503
4,800
3,300
TOTAL
69,300
45,544
89,000
78,050
Includes Fairview, Tracy ton, Illahee, Kitsap Lake and Dyes Inlet
^Source: Revised Population Projections, March 1977 by CH2M Hill
(Unpublished)
c
Source: Reference 1.
d
Source: Reference 2.
54
-------
ton in the design year, 2000. Earlier estimates had placed the to-
tal for that year at 97,000, with the Bremerton drainage area ac-
counting for 72,000 of the total. Population in the Study Area is
now projected to increase from an estimated 69,300 in 1975 to ap-
proximately 89,000 in the year 2000 (Reference 2). All subregions
within the Study Area have also been projected to increase 19 per-
cent to 60,550 in 2000; the Port Orchard/Retsil area by 49 percent
to 21,000; the Waterman/Manchester area by 90 percent to 4,800 and
Gorst area by 36 percent to 2,650 persons.
FUTURE LAND USE
Wastewater treatment plants are constructed to meet projected use
demand and water quality standards. The study area will continue to
show increasing population densities, centering around Sinclair In-
let. Future land use plans, as expressed in the Kitsap County Com-
prehensive Plan put forth a goal to concentrate urban development in
and around existing urban areas, while preserving to the maximum pos-
sible extent the rural and semi-rural life style of the county.
(Reference 26). The Plan designates "Urban," Intermediate" (or Tran-
sitional), and "Rural" areas, with "Intermediate" being either "Semi-
urban" or "Semi-rural," depending upon the extent of utilities and
services demanded by growth pressures. The proposed Urban, Intermedi-
ate (Semi-urban or Semi-rural) and Rural areas within the study area
are shown in the Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan projected land use
profile map shown in Figure 14.
Urban areas are those areas which have utilities, transporta-
tion facilities and other urban services which would permit highest
intensity uses consistent with applicable planning policies, ordi-
nances, performance criteria and state and federal regulations. Ac-
cording to the Plan, the study area is expected to be increasingly
urban around the shores of Sinclair Inlet. Most of the Bremerton
drainage area is classified as Urban or Transitional. The Manchester,
Gorst and Port Orchard-Retsil/Annapolis areas are also classed as
Urban, with the latter being surrounded by a large Transitional area.
Different intensity uses may be recommended with each of these
land use classifications. In Transitional areas, development will
be treated on a case-by-casc basis, depending on need for and proxi-
mity to services, character of the surrounding area, and on exist-
ing and potential land use. A Semi-rural area has a development in-
tensity designed primarily for a low density residential use (maxi-
mum density of 5 dweHing units (d.u.)/ ha [2 d.u./ac]), an intensity
that would require the provision of full public services. Semi-ur-
ban areas are Transitional areas which could be expected to develop
into urban areas over time. The airport and industrial park are con-
55
-------
LEGEND
U URBAN
I INTERMEDIATE
SU SEMI URBAN
SR SEMI RURAL
R RURAL
M MILITARY AND INDIAN RESERVATIONS
FIGURE 14 PROJECTED LAND USE PROFILE MAP
56
-------
sidered Transitional, as are areas to the south of Manchester, around
the Colby and Southworth communities, and the southern perimeter of
Bainbridge Island.
The balance of the study area is classed as Rural for planning
purposes (Reference 26). Rural areas are those areas beyond the In-
termediate areas where urban or semi-urban development should not oc-
cur. The County will discourage development of more than one dwelling
unit per 4 ha [10 ac] in areas used, or having the potential to be
used, for agriculture or forestry, with limited development in other
areas and limited provision of public utilities. Rural residential
development densities, where unrestricted by agriculture or forestry,
are a maximum of 2.5 d.u./ha [1 d.u./ac]. Only very low intensity
commercial activities would be permitted in rural areas.
At present, it is not envisioned that Rural areas or the Semi-
rural portions of Transitional areas will receive sewer service (Re-
ference 24).
EMPLOYMENT
Employment for residents of the Sinclair Inlet study area is
spread throughout the whole Kitsap County area. In addition, there
is some cross-commuting between Kitsap County and Seattle to the
west and Tacoma to the south. A specific breakdown of employment
for the Sinclair Inlet study area is not available. However, because
the work force is highly mobile in its commuting patterns, such sta-
tistics would not be particularly meaningful.
The City of Bremerton is the major urban area in the study area,
Governmental employment, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in particular
dominates the economy in the area. The remaining federal employment
is mainly associated with the Naval Supply Center and the Keyport Na-
val Torpedo Station, and at agencies supporting defense activities.
Presently, construction at the Trident Submarine Base is also pro-
viding employment for many people in the area.
In January 1977, the Kitsap County labor force was estimated at
43,790, with an overall unemployment rate of 8.2 percent compared
with 9.5 percent in January of 1976. Table 12 presents a further
breakdown and comparison with State of Washington statistics. Table
13 shows a comparison of the Kitsap County resident civilian labor
force and unemployment for 1973, 1975 and estimated 1977. Contract
construction unemployment remained fairly consistent from 1973 througV
1975 at about 3.1 percent. It is projected to increase to 6.2 percent
in 1977. The employment characteristics indicate an unusually high
proportion of federal government employment in the region, reflecting
57
-------
Kitsap County's reliance on Defense Department employment to sustain
the local economy.
A general economic decline in the period 1970 through 1976 was
experienced in the Bremerton area (Reference 27). Kitsap County did
not recover as fast as other northwest areas because job opportuni-
ties were limited by lack of industrial diversification. During 1974
and 1975, government employment rose as both federal and local govern-
ment made significant additions. Most of the gain in the federal
sector during 1973-1975 period was caused by a work force increase
of 1,400 people at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. The increase in lo-
cal government employment followed substantial hiring in the local
school districts (Reference 27).
Construction was relatively unaffected by the recession of the
early seventies. Construction employment rose during 1974 and 1975.
It is projected that employment in this industry will continue to
grow in the 1977, as a direct result of the Trident Project. In ad-
dition, the Navy is planning to spend $30 million building a medi-
cal center and $10 million on other construction projects at the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Keyport Naval Torpedo Base (Re-
ference 27).
Table 12. RESIDENT LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT: KITSAP COUNTY
LABOR MARKET AREA AND STATE OF WASHINGTON
Kitsap County State of Washington
Labor force
January 1976
January 1977
42,580
4 3,790
1,523,300
1,555,700
Employment
January 1976
January 1977
38,540
40,220
I,36?,000
1,417,000
Unemployment
January 1976
January 1977
4,040
3,570
160,400
138,700
Unemployment Rate
January 1976
January 1977
9.5
8.2
10.5
3.9
Source: References 27 and 28).
58
-------
Table 13. RESIDENT CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE & EMPLOYMENT IN KITSAP COUNTY FISCAL YEAR AVERAGES
1973 AND 1975 AND PROJECTED 1977
TOTAL
Manufacturing
Stone, Clay, & Glass Products
Other Durable Goods
Food & Kindred Products
Other Nondurable Goods
Non-manufacturing
Mining
Construction
Transp., Comm., & Utilities
Trade
Fin., Ins., & Real Estate
Services, exc. pvt. household
Government
Federal
State
Local
Fiscal Year Averages
Percent Percent Percent
1973
Of Total
1975
Of Total
1977
Of Tot;
29,410
33,380
35,350
1,030
3.4
1,010
3.0
1,070
3.0
70
.2
80
.2
90
.3
540
1.8
530
1.6
580
1.6
90
.3
100
.3
110
.3
330
1.1
300
.9
290
.8
28,380
96.6
32,370
97.0
34,280
97.0
150
.5
160
.5
160
.5
950
3.2
1,040
3.1
2,200
6.2
960
3.3
990
3.0
1,010
2.9
4,980
16.9
5,420
16.2
5,580
15.8
810
2.8
930
2.8
970
2.7
3,580
12.2
3,970
11.9
4,320
12.2
16,950
57.7
19,860
59.5
20,040
56.7
12,020
40.9
14,430
43.2
14,280
40.4
1,320
4.5
1,520
4.6
1,540
4.4
3,610
12.3
3,910
11.7
4,220
11.9
Source: Reference 27.
-------
Trade and services increased between 1973 and 1975. Although
much of this employment is seasonal in nature, increases in these
categories, are anticipated in the 1975-1977 period (Reference 27).
INCOME
The most comprehensive county-level income information is avail-
able only for the year preceding the decennial census year. The fol-
lowing information on income levels for 1969 was derived from the put
lication "Manpower Profile" from the U.S. Department of Labor (Ref-
erence 29). Median annual family income in Kitsap County in 1969 was
$10,541, which as 12 percent higher than the national median family
income of $9,430. A large segment of the population was categorized
in the middle income level, while several localized areas contained
both higher and lower income levels. Median white family income was
$10,617, compared with $8,273 for blacks and $7,946 for other groups.
More than $15,000 per year per family was earned by 5,525 families,
which as 21 percent of the county total. In 1969 most county house-
hold earned income from direct wages and salaries, with 9 percent de-
pending on self-employment and 15 percent receiving social security
payments.
A total of 8,828 persons (9.1 percent of all county residents),
comprising 1,936 families (7.3 percent of all households) received
less than poverty level income. The "near poor" — persons earning
less than 75 percent of poverty level income — numbered 5,925 (6.1
percent). Mean income of families below poverty level was $1,602.
Public assistance provided income for about 4 percent of county hous<
holds.
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
Kitsap County's employment structure is dominated by federal
employment, primarily at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Table 14
indicates the breakdown of employment by industry.
The private sector of the Kitsap County economy is predominate-
ly retail trade. Table 13 indicates a total of 614 retail firms witl
payrolls. These firms employ about 4,575 persons, with a total pay-
roll of over $24 million (Reference 30).
In 1972, service industries employed about 1,000 persons with a
total payroll of $4.9 million (Reference 31) There were 60 manufac-
turing establishments in 1972, employing 700 persons, with a total
60
-------
Table 14. SINCLAIR INLET STUDY AREA, MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Employer
Percentage
Federal Government
49.6%
Retail & Wholesale Trade
13.4%
Local Government
5.5%
Construction
3.5%
Manufacturing
3.3%
Finance
3.2%
Transportation
3.1%
Other
0.5%
Source: Reference 26.
payroll of $5.6 million (Reference 32). Wholesaling provided employ-
ment for 375 persons with total payroll of $3.5 million. Comparable
statistics for the State of Washington are included in Table 15.
TAX BASE AND ASSESSED VALUES
Property tax collections in Kitsap County are based on the ap-
plication of a levy (tax rate) to every $1,000 of assessed valuation
(AV). In 1975, the AV rates changed to 100 percent of market value.
All taxing jurisdictions except schools and the State of Washington
have a budgetary limitation. This limitation, imposed by the State,
restricts their revenue collections to not more than 106 percent of
thp highest amount collected in any of the previous three years (Re-
ference 33).
The restriction does not apply, however, to increases in valu-
ation resulting from new construction. The recent increase in resi-
dential and commercial building activity, counted with recent assessed
evaluation increases, has generated additional revenue for the cities of
Bremerton and Port Orchard. Total new construction in the County rose
by 93 percent in 1975. For information on construction trends, see
the section on "Land and Property Values." (Reference 34).
61
-------
Table 15. NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS, NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES & ANNUAL
PAYROLL, KITSAP COUNTY AND STATE OF WASHINGTON, 1972
Kitsap County State of Washington
Manufacturing Industries
No. of Establishments 50 5,343
No. of Employees 700 224,700
Payroll $5,600,000 $2,299,000,000
Retailing
No. of Establishments^" 614 21,596
No. of Employees 4,575 180,481
Payroll $24,179,000 $959,811,000
Wholesaling
No. of Establishments 77 6,532
No. of Employees 375 65,285
Payroll 3,531,000 $607,037,000
Service Industries
No. of Establishments'*" 260 75,897
No. of Employees 1,013 12,060
Payroll 4,925,000 $465,011,000
1. Excludes establishments which do not have payroll
Source: References 30, 33, 34 and 35.
62
-------
Table 16. KITSAP COUNTY ASSESSED VALUATION, NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND HISTORICAL TREND
Total
assessed
valuation
New
construction
Net
assessed
valuation
Percent
increase
1970
$ 629,189,100
$17,251,870
$611,937,230
17.7%
1971
736,239,562
24,851,825
711,387,737
16.3%
1972
772,260,264
22,834,746
749,425,518
5.3%
1973
894,292,468
35,514,411
858,778,057
14.6%
1974
965,143,188
36,088,389
929,054,799
8.1%
1975
1,033,793,823
69,701,345
964,092,478
3.8%
1976
1,424,606,834
(1)
(1)
(1) These figures were not available as of April, 1977.
Source: Reference 34.
-------
Residential land and improvement represents approximately 88
percent of total assessed valuation in Kitsap County. Rural valuation
represents 66 percent of the total. City and town valuation repre-
sents 22 percent of the total. In 1974, the rural/city proportions
were 62.6 percent and 26.8 percent respectively, indicating a trend
away from new construction in urban centers (Reference 34).
LAND AND PROPERTY VALUE
Property values in Kitsap County have been rising at an average
annual rate of 11 percent in recent years (References 33, 34). This
trend is reflected in total county assessed valuations, which are
currently at 100 percent of market value. Table 16 presents the in-
creased in value of both existing properties and new construction for
the years 1970 through 1975. The assessed value of new construction
has increased from $36 million in 1974 to $69 million in 1975, a 93
percent, rise. This reflects the influx of Trident personnel and re-
lated support employment (Reference 34). Rising property values and
increased new construction are expected to continue through the com-
pletion of the Trident project.
Sales of existing properties are already occurring at an increas-
ing rate. Although the Trident base will not be completed until late
in 1978 (Reference 36), representatives of companies, which will ser-
vice the facility, are already moving into central Kitsap County, in-
cluding the Bremerton area. These people are generally more affluent
than the Navy personnel and are coming from areas where housing costs
are much higher than in Kitsap County. The resultant increased demand
for homes has raised the value of existing property. Many local resi-
dents are selling property for speculative purposes and relocating to
the Port Orchard area, where prices are still relatively low. This
secondary effect is creating population pressure south of Sinclair
Inlet (References 37, 38).
BONDED DEBT
In order to finance the local portion of construction costs for
the various facilities, it will be necessary to issue revenue bonds.
On Table 17 there is a breakdown of the agencies which will contract
to the bonding parties to guarantee repayment of their portion of
the improvement.
Revenue bonds may be used by an entity to finance major facili-
ties when an adequate method of levying and collection service charges
64
-------
Table 17. FINANCING AND CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS
Bonding Entity
Contracting Agencies
Wastewater
Facilities
Kitsap County
Kitsap County
Manchester
City of Port Orchard
City of Port Orchard
Sewer District #5
(Retsil/Annapolis)
Port Orchard
KCSD //5
City of Bremerton
City of Bremerton
Kitsap County
Sewer District it 1
Charleston
Manette
Source: Reference 39.
to secure payment of the bonds can be developed. Unlike general obli-
gation bonds, payment of revenue bonds is secured solely by the reve-
nues derived from, or as a result of, the improvement constructed with
bond proceeds. Because of the increasing difficulties faced by many
communities and public agencies attempting to finance an increasing
number of services within their general obligation bonding capacity,
this type of bond is becoming increasingly popular.
Major advantages of revenue bonds can be summarized as follows:
(1) revenue bonds are payable solely from the revenues of the project
and can never become a lien or charge against real property; (2) pay-
ment of the bonds is derived solely from users of the facilities of
the project for which the bonds were issued; and (3) a referendum is
not required.
Kitsap County
The administration of the Manchester facility has recently been
taken over by Kitsap County (Reference 36). Previously, improvements
had been financed through the establishment of Local Improvement Dis-
tricts (LIDs) approved by residents of the service area. Property as-
ssessments established by an independent engineering firm were used as
a basis for direct billing. Some portion of the debt is financed
through user charges (Reference 40). A breakdown of the County bud-
get is given in Appendix F.
65
-------
Outstanding current debt established by these LIDs was $191,000,
as of April 1977. Debt service in 1977 will total $22,875, including
$13,000 retirement of principal. A reserve fund is maintained which,
by covenant, amounts to one year's debt service. There is no minimum
ratio for debt coverage.
City of Port Orchard
The City of Port Orchard will act as fiscal and administrative
agent for the construction of improvements at the Port Orchard and Ret-
sil facilities. Kitsap County Sewer District #5 (Retsil/Annapolis)
will contract with the City for repayment of its portion of the finan-
cing. As of the end of fiscal year (FY) 1976, outstanding issues tot-
alled $502,000. Debt service in 1977 will amount to $51,325, includ-
ing approximately $19,000 in principal. Revenues are currently cover-
ing debt service by a ratio of 2 to 1, although the bond covenant re-
quires only 1.4 to 1. A breakdown of the city budget is given in Ap-
pendix F. There are no state or city charter restrictions limiting
the Port Orchard City Council in the issuance of revenue bonds (Re-
ference 41).
City of Bremerton
The bonding entity for construction in the Bremerton system will
be the Water/Sewer Fund of the City of Bremerton. It is anticipated
that Sewer District //1, Kitsap County, and the City of Bremerton will
contract to participate in repayment of the debt. The Water/Sewer
Fund reported $4,853,000 in outstanding bond obligations as of Decem-
ber 31, 1976. Total debt service on these issues for fiscal year 1977
will be approximately $346,000, including $109,000 for repayment of
principal. A breakdown of the city budget is given in Appendix F.
There is a debt limitation on the Water/Sewer Fund of 5 percent
of the applicable assessed valuation, including utilities, which cur-
rently allows a margin of debt available of $7.3 million.
User charges are adjusted according to the appropriate depart-
mental expenditures, including salaries, capital costs and debt ser-
vice. The debt ratio required by covenant on the outstanding issues
is 1.4 times the debt service. The 1976 annual report of the City of
Bremerton states that the average annual debt service coverage in 1975
was 1.68 (Reference 42).
66
-------
UTILITY SERVICES
Gas
Natural gas is provided to Kitsap County by Cascade Natural Gas
Company. Service connections have been limited primarily to the Bre-
merton and Port Orchard areas.
Electric Power
Puget Sound Power and Light Company provides electric power to
the study area. Since Puget Sound Power and Light Company relies on
a hydroelectric-based generating system for 82 percent of its power
supply (Reference 43), shortage of electrical energy could result dur-
ing dry years with low streamflow. At present, there is a voluntary
program to reduce consumption by 10 percent in Kitsap County (Ref-
erences 44,45). The company is now moving toward a combination of
hydro and thermal power. Its first coal-fired generating p.lant went
into operation in 1975, with a 330,000-Kw capacity. The company's
combined capability, including purchases from other systems, stood
at 2,900 megawatts at the end of 1975 (Reference 43).
Standby generators at both the Manchester Naval Fuel Depot and
the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (Bremerton) are capable of supplying
sufficient power for all operations at those facilities '(Reference
46).
Water Supply
Water in the study area is supplied by several types of systems.
Bremerton's primary water source is the Bremerton Watershed, the Coun-
ty's largest single source, with a reserve capacity of 106,000 m3 (28
mil gal.). The Port Orchard system, in comparison, relies primarily
on wells and has a reserve capacity of only 133 m3 (35,000 gal.)
(Reference 10).
Aside from the city systems, most of the study area's population
is served by five local water districts, with a combined reserve ca-
pacity of approximately 14,000 m3 (3.7 mil gal.). A small percentage
of the population receives water from community systems or from pri-
vate wells.
67
-------
Storm Drain Systems
Less than one half of the developed land within the study area
is served by storm drains. Substantial portions of the older storm
drain systems were constructed to flow into the sanitary sewer sys-
tem. These are known as combined sewer overflows (CSO). Where new
land development has taken place, or older portions of the system
have been upgraded, separate drains have been constructed for storm
water and sewage. With a few exceptions, maintenance of drains
throughout most of the study area has been fair to poor. Rural areas
have no engineered storm drain systems, nor, in most areas are they
needed. During periods of heavy runoff, inflow of stormwater causes
the treatment plants to exceed their hydraulic capacity and raw sew-
age is discharged through outfall to marine waters.
Bremerton is presently served by separate systems throughout
much of its area; approximately 25 percent of its 180 km [113 mi]
of sewer line are combined with storm drains. The Retsil/Annapolis
community also has separate drains in most of their system. Port
Orchard's two systems are now almost entirely distinct, as a result -
of a concerted effort in the last five years to prevent inflow of
stormwater into the sewage collection systems. The Navy Yard City
lines are in fair condition, at best. Kitsap County Airport and the
continguous industrial park are served by separate storm drains.
TRANSPORTATION
Since Kitsap County is located on a peninsula, the Hood Canal
Bridge near the northern tip of the peninsula, the bridge to Tacoma
on State Highway 16, and the State Ferry System are the main auto ac-
cess routes to the area. Four ferry terminals at Kingston, Winslow,
Bremerton and Southworth connect the County with greater Seattle.
Traffic is heaviest on the Winslow run, followed by Bremerton, King-
ston and Southworth. The ferries handle 400,000-600,000 passengers
and 200,000-330,000 autos per month (Reference 47). Trident construc-
tion, increased shipyard activities, and normal growth have accounted
for a recent marked increase in ferry passengers and auto traffic
(Reference 37). Ferry service is currently operating near or at ca-
pacity during peak hours; and, due to lack of funding, no new equip-
ment purchases are foreseen at present.
Major highway routes, as shown in Figure 14, include: State
Route (SR) 303 from East Bremerton across Port Washington Narrows to
Bremerton; SR 3 which follows along Dyes Inlet through Bremerton a-
long Sinclair Inlet and southwest to the county airport; SR 16 from
Gorst south through the Blackjack Creek Valley; and SR 160 which
68
-------
follows along the south shore of Sinclair Inlet through Port Orchard
and eastward. Beach Drive runs from Port Orchard eastward along the
shore of Sinclair Inlet over to Manchester and along the edge of Pu-
get Sound.
Heavy traffic areas include: portions of downtown Bremerton and
Port Orchard; the junction of SR 3 and SR 16 at Gorst, the junction
of SR 160 and Beach Drive immediately east of Port Orchard; and peri-
meter streets along Manette which access bridges crossing the Port
Washington Narrows. The most heavily travelled route is SR 3 from
Bremerton along Sinclair Inlet to the junction with SR 16 at Gorst.
Peak hour traffic volumes approach road capacity and lead to severe
congestion. The existing Charleston treatment plant is located with-
in this heavy traffic area near the main intersection where the branc!
of SR 3 from the shipyard joins the branch of SR 3 from Oyster Bay.
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
Visual and aesthetic qualities within the Sinclair Inlet area
can be divided into three categories: water-related, urban and rural
The spatially dominant waterways and passages such as Sinclair
Inlet, Port Orchard Bay, Dyes Inlet and Puget Sound constantly pre-
sent the sights, sounds and smells of the marine environment. The
inlets and passages also provide a visual and psychological link with
Puget Sound and the ocean. Shoreline areas are considered to have
high aesthetic qualities and are typically lined with residences and
recreational facilities.
The most visually dominant urban area is Bremerton. The activi-
ties associated with the Naval Shipyard present a busy industrial and
commercial atmosphere. Probably the most well-known visual landmarks
on the ferry approach to Bremerton are the massive hammerhead cranes
towering over the shipyard.
Rural areas generally play the largest role in the visual and
aesthetic environment. Large stands of Douglas firs, thick brush
and ground cover, and open meadow areas provide a natural setting
with high aesthetic appeal. Small communities and individual resi-
dences generally blend in with the rural setting. The relaxed na-
tural setting has also attracted many city dwellers to this area in
more recent years for recreation and homesites.
69
-------
RECREATION AREAS
There are four basic types of recreation areas that may be af-
fected by the proposed project. They are: proposed bicycle routes
piers and boating facilities, shorelines and marine waterbodies, and
parks. The proposed project has the potential to affect the use of
these areas by eliminating aesthetic nuisances, improving water qua-
lity, creating construction disturbances and expanding existing treat-
ment facilities.
There are two bicycle routes planned for in the Kitsap County
Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan, which are located in
potential project construction and operation areas. The first route
is between Retsil and Waterman Point. The second route is through
an area of chronic septic tank failure situated between Annapolis
and Waterman Point along the shoreline. This area has an Intermedi-
ate land use classification assigned by the Kitsap County Comprehen-
sive Plan. As discussed in the Future Land Use Section, this classi-
fication calls for the provision of sewerage facilities as develop-
ment densities warrant them.
Effluent discharges are presently having various degrees of
minor to moderate adverse aesthetic effects, thus limiting recrea-
tion uses to an undetermined extent, at the Manchester boating pier,
the Annapolis pier, the Port Orchard Marina and the boating facili-
ties at Retsil. Also, treatment facilities compete for space with
recreation uses at the Port Orchard Marina.
Existing marine water quality in Sinclair Inlet discourages
many persons from engaging in activities such as fishing, clamming
and beachcombing. The intensity of water-related recreation ac-
tivities in the Sinclair Inlet system can be affected by changes
in water quality brought about by modifications in pollutant dis-
charges to marine waters.
There is a park adjacent to the Manchester Plant and a main-
tained, open area adjacent to the Retsil plant. Changes in land
needs at both plant sites could modify the usable open space of
the two parks, thus affecting their attractiveness for recreation
activities.
70
-------
SECTION 111
-------
SECTION III
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
The facilities plan contains provisions for the transport of
sewage from sewered population areas, treatment of sewage to levels
compatible with receiving water quality criteria, and discharge of
treated wastewater to the final disposal sites. Wastewaters would
be collected from drainage sub-basins 11, 24, 26, 27 and parts of
23 as shown in Figure 1. Detailed descriptions of the sub-basins
are provided in Section II, Environmental Setting.
DESIGN FLOWS AND QUALITY
The facilities planning consultant has estimated that the study
area population will rise from an estimated base of 69,300 in 1975
up to approximately 89,000 persons in the year 2000. In 1975, an es-
timated 45,000 persons, or 66 percent were served by sewers. By 2000
it has been predicted that 78,000 persons or 88 percent of the popula-
tion will be connected to the ultimate sewerage system. Sewers will be
extended to those areas presently naving septic tank failures. Sew-
er service eventually will be extended to all areas developed to a
density of five dwelling units (d.u.)/ ha [2 d.u./ac]. Thus, desig-
nated rural areas will not be sewered under present plans, but semi-
urban areas will be connected to proposed sewerage facilities when
they reach urban densities.
Tne 20-year design flow for 2000 was estimated at 0.55 m3/s
[12.8 mgd]. This value includes 0.38 m3 [100 gal]/cap.day of ground-
water infiltration into sewer^ and inflow of storm water through
openings such as manhole covers. Commercial and institutional flows
are estimated to total 0.08 m3/s [1.82 mgd]. Further details may be
found in Appendix H of the facilities plan (Reference 1). The sewer
system is not intended to collect storm water runoff, and sewer design
would attempt to minimize t>uch inflow. The division of sewage flows
in 2000 is estimated to be as follows: Bremerton, Wildcat Lake and
Gorst (sub-basins 26) at 0.11 m3/s [2.6 mgd] and Manchester (sub-basin
27) at 0.03 m3/s [0.56 mgd].
Wastewaters generated through 2000 are expected to be of typical
domestic sewage quality. The facilities planner estimated that the
current sewer system receives a flow of 0.31 m3 [80 gal]/cap.day with
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) and suspended solids loading.;
(SS) of 0.08 kg [0.17 lb]/cap.day each. For future development,
however, the facilities planner developed higher values to reflect
73
-------
greater usage of automatic appliances and increased disposal rates.
For areas developed after 1975, flow was based on estimates of 0.38 m3
[100 gal]/cap.day and corresponding BOD5 and SS loadings of 0.09
kg [0.20 lb]/cap.day each. A graphical presentation of untreated
waste loads generated by the planning area is shown in Figure 15.
Typical domestic wastewater presents no problems to the standard sew-
age treatment processes.
Commercial contributions to the system will generally be low.
Commercial flows originate primarily from Bremerton and Port Orchard
and will comprise approximately eight percent of the total flow.
Industrialization within the study area consists of the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard, the Manchester Fuel Depot and the Olympic View
Industrial Park/Kitsap County Airport. The design year flows and
waste loads take into account three new special waste treatment/col-
lection systems under construction. The first two are at Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard and the third will be at the Manchester facility. The
first is an industrial waste treatment system to be completed in 1977
with a small 0.003 m3/s [0.072 mgd] flow to the Bremerton system. The
second is a ship waste collection system to be completed in 1979 with a
0.035 m3/s [800,000 gal/day] flow to Bremerton. The third new sys-
tem at the Manchester Naval Fuel Depot will be a ship waste collection
system and an oily waste separator system operating by 1980. Only
the ship waste collection system with a holding tank of 715 m3 [189,
000 gal] will be discharged to the Kitsap County Sanitation District
(KCSD) No. 3 (Manchester system). Flows from the Olympic View Indus-
trial Park/Kitsap County Airport will be relatively small and will
probably continue to be treated by the existing small treatment la-
goon and drainfield system.
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) exist to some degree in every
sewerage system in the area. The flows used herein for developing
design data assume the cost-effective removal of excessive I/I. In
KCSD No. 3, whether I/I is excessive depends on the alternative se-
lected. The facilities planner has assumed probable removal of I/I.
However, the magnitude of these flows is not significant enough to
affect the choice ,of alternatives in the later phases of analysis.
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
Discharge strategies are general approaches to wastewater treat-
ment and disposal, and are described in terms of discharge location
and effluent quality. Within each strategy, several alternatives are
usually possible for meeting discharge requirements. For the Sinclair
Inlet study, four action strategies were developed, plus the fifth
strategy of no action. For the four action strategies, existing com-
74
-------
7,000 -
»
o
¦o
5,000 -
o
<
O
I-
z
<
I-
D
O
a.
4,000 -
3,000 -
ASSUMED UNIT WASTE PRODUCTION
bod5
0 09
KG/CAPITA/DAY
SOLIDS
0.09
KG/CAPITA/DAY
NITROGEN
00135
KG''CAPITA/DAY
PHOSPHORUS
0 0045
KG/CAPITA/DAY
COMMERCIAL
35%
STRENGTH OF
RESIDENTIAL
2,000 -
1,000 -
NITROGEN
1970
2000
FIGURE 15 ESTIMATED UNTREATED WASTE LOADS
75
-------
bined sewer overflows that have detrimental effects on the use of
receiving waters will be controlled to reduce these impacts to ac-
ceptable levels. Excessive infiltration/inflow will also be re-
moved from the systems.
Discharge to Sinclair Inlet
The main discharge area with this strategy would be Sinclair In-
let and/or Port Washington Narrows. Under this strategy, five alter-
natives were defined. Potential treatment sites and features are
shown in Table 18. The alternatives ranged from upgrading all exist-
ing plants to secondary treatment with individual outfalls, to re-
gional treatment plants at Charleston or Manchester.
Discharge to Port Orchard Bay
The major discharge in this strategy would be to Port Orchard
Bay either from the Bremerton side or the Waterman side. This stra-
tegy would likely result in a regionalization of the area's sewerage
system. All discharges would receive secondary treatment. The two
alternatives possible with this strategy are presented in Table 18.
Discharge at Manchester
The major discharge with this strategy would be to Puget Sound.
A single treatment plant, requiring regionalization, would serve the
study area under this strategy. Primary treatment, although current-
ly an unacceptable treatment level for discharge to receiving water,
was considered by the facilities'planner for comparison purposes. The
alternatives possible with this strategy are defined in Table 18.
Nutrient Removal
With this strategy algae stimulating nutrients would be removed
from the treated wastewaters either by advanced waste treatment (AWT)
or land treatment of effluent. Nutrient removal processes are rela-
tively expensive compared to primary and secondary treatment. To be
cost-effective, a main regional treatment facility would be required
with this strategy. Due to the small volume and cost-effectiveness
reasons, the Manchester facility would be upgraded to the secondary
level and remain independent. The two alternatives considered are
shown in Table 18.
76
-------
Table 18. WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL, STRATEGIES
AND ALTERNATIVES
Strategy
Plan
number
Treatment
sites
Discharge
Features
Discharge to
Sinclair
Inlet
Charleston
Port Orchard
Retsil
Manchester
Charleston
Retsil
Manches ter
Charleston
Manchester
Manette
Charleston
Port Orchard
Retsil
Manches ter
Charleston
Manchester
All of Bremerton's wastewater will
receive secondary treatment at Charles-
ton. Port Orchard, Retsil and Manchester
will maintain individual secondary treat-
ment plants discharging to Port Orchard
Bay and Puget Sound, respectively.
This alternative differs from Sinclair
Inlet Alternative 1 in that Port Or-
chard and Retsil join in a single secon-
dary treatment plant at Retsil
Port Orchard and Retsil would consolidate
their sewerage systems at a secondary
treatment facility at Charleston. Trans-
mission costs to a central treatment fa-
cility are lowest with the Charleston lo-
cation The Manchester facility remains
independent.
Port Washington All existing plants will be upgraded to
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
Narrows
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
Sinclair Inlet
Puget Sound
secondary treatment capacity and expanded
as necessary at their present locations.
Pumping and transmission line costs are
lowest with this svstem.
Regional treatment facilities will serve
the north and south sides of Sinclair In-
let at Charleston and Manchester, respec-
tively. Port Orchard and Retsil are ser-
ved at Manchester.
Discharge to
Port Orchard
'v'aterman Port Orchard A new regional treatment facility will be
Manchester Puget Sound constructed with a discharge at the junc-
tion of Rich Passage and Port Orchard Bay
The discharge location has good mixing prop-
erties and would be outside of Sinclair In-
Let
Discharge at
Manchester 2
Enetal
Retsil
Manches ter
Port Orchard
Port Orchard
Puget Sound
Manchester Puget Sound
Regional treatment facilities at Retsil
(serving Port Orchard and Retsil) and EneLal
(serving Bremerton) will discharge into Pore
Orchard Bay. Manchester remains independent.
A regional facility serving the entire study
area will be constructed at Manchester [n
addition to secondary treatment, primarv treat-
ment is considered, with a deep-water dis<.narge
77
-------
Table 18. (Cont'd) WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL, STRATEGIES
AND ALTERNATIVES
Plan Treatment Discnarge
Sr-qtegv numoer si tes sites
4 Manchester Puget Sound
Features
Central Kitsap County will snare secon-
dary treatment facilities with Sinclair
Inlet ac a new regional plane In Manchester.
Flows and the attendant transmission costs
will be i"ucn greater.
N'ucrient
Elenoval
Charleston Sinclair Inlet A regional facilitv serving all areas ex-
Manchester Puget Souna cept .Nlanchescer, will be constructed at
Charleston. In addition to secondary treat-
ment, nitrogen will be removed from waste-
water to reduce algae stinulation in Sinclair
Inlet. The Mancnester facility regains in-
dependent
Charlescon Land applica- Charleston is ungraded to secondary treatment
Retail tion south of Port Orcnard consolidates with Retail which
Long Lake is upgraded to secordary treatment also. Ef-
Mancnester Puget Sound fluent froa ootT plants is oumoed to a lar.a
application site south of Long Lake. The uan
cnester facility remains inaepencent. Ground-
water suoplies will be rscnarged with high
quality renovated water and Sinclair Inlet
vater quality will oe protected from effluent
discharges.
78
-------
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT)
The secondary treatment processes at the regional plant would be
supplemented by new facilities to remove nitrogen from wastewaters.
Nitrogen contributed from wastewater effluent can overstimulate algal
growth in marine waters. AWT processes can reduce nitrogen, generally
in the forms of ammonia-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen, by 95 percent
through mechanical and biological processes. However, AWT systems en-
tail high capital costs, are extremely energy intensive and performance
has not been documented over long periods of time for large systems.
Where possible, land treatment of wastewaters - which usually involves
lower capital costs and energy usage - is often considered desirable.
Land Treatment of Wastewater
Nutrient removal strategy alternative No. 3 considered land treat-
ment of effluent. Land application of wastewater is highly dependent
upon local climatic conditions, soils type and the quality and quanti-
ty of wastewater. This technique uses the assimilative capacity of
plants, the soil surface and the soil matrix to remove nutrients and
other constituents from the wastewater. Usually some degree of pre-
treatment is required before the wastewater is applied to land. Two
types of land application were analyzed for the study area: irriga-
tion and infiltration-percolation. The assumed flow was 0.52 m^/s
[12.0 mgd].
Land Treatment by Irrigation. The irrigation method uses waste-
water to supply the water requirements for crops. Due to the rainy
climate, the annual net irrigation requirement is only 13 cm [5.1 in.]
compared to 100-125 cm [40-50 in.] in a dry climate. With low irriga-
tion requirements, large amounts of land will be needed to handle 0.52
m3/s [12.0 mgd]. Disposal of the wastewater through the irrigation
method would require approximately 8500 ha [21,000 ac]. Within the
study area, the Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ev) is the most suitable
for this method of application. However, according to Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS) personnel, there is no contiguous area of Everett
soils of this size withLn or near the study area; therefore, this
method of application was eliminated from further consideration.
Land Treatment by InCiltration/Percolation. The infiltration-
percolation process involves high loadings of wastewater and uses the
capacity of crops to remove nutrients to only a limited extent. In
forested areas, the naLural vegetation may die under the high appli-
cation rates used Ln this method. Without vegetation, the uptake of
nutrients will be lessened. If there are strict limitations on
79
-------
discharge of nutrients into the groundwater, this process may become
infeasible, depending on the assimilative capacity of the soils.
Two rates of application were reviewed for the infiltration-
percolation method: (1) low (5 cm [2 in.] per week total wastewater
+ precipitation) and (2) high (25 cm [10 in.] per week total waste-
water + precipitation). Both of these application rates would require
storage to hold the wastewater during periods of intensive rainfall
when wastewater could not be applied.
The Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ev) was determined to be the
most suitable soil for the low rate infiltration-percolation process
and would require approximately 1,000 ha [2,500 ac] to accommodate
projected flows. Because of the small contiguous acreage of this
soil type available near the study area, low rate-infiltration-per-
colation was eliminated from further consideration.
The high rate infiltration-percolation process requires approxi-
mately 138 ha [340 ac] of suitable soil with an additional 32-40 ha
[80-100 ac] for attendant uses. The Everett gravelly sandy loam (Ev)
was also determined to be the most suitable soil for this method of
application. By using available SCS soil mapping, one contiguous
area of Everett gravelly loamy sand (Eg) was identified south of the
Long Lake area.
No Action Strategy
The facilities plan also examined the option of continuing pre-
sent operations with no changes. Currently, the existing treatment
facilities in the Sinclair Inlet area do not meet state and EPA stan-
dards. In addition, discharges and overflows into the inlet season-
ally degrade the bacteriological quality of Sinclair Inlet to below
Class A standards, causing a ban on shellfish harvesting in the area.
These conditions could only be expected to worsen as flows from the
area increase, causing further degradation of the water quality of
Sinclair Inlet. For these reasons, the no action alternative was
considered unacceptable by the facilities planner.
Strategy Evaluation by the Facilities Plan
The facilities plan evaluated each strategy primarily on the
basis of cost-effectiveness and comparative improvements effected
upon the local water quality. Projected water quality improvements
were analyzed with the aid of the Ecologic Model of Puget Sound as
30
-------
developed for EPA. The model was calibrated for Port Orchard and
Sinclair Inlet conditions for the years 1980 and 2000. Modelled
parameters focused on dissolved oxygen, nutrients and algal concen-
trations. The following model runs were made on a coarse grid:
1) Existing Conditions: primary treatment facilities
at Manette, Charleston, Port Orchard, Annapolis and
Manchester;
2) Sinclair Inlet Discharge Strategy: Secondary treatment
facilities at Charleston and Manchester for 1980 and 2000.
This strategy was also modeled with a fine grid;
3) Port Orchard Bay Discharge Strategy: Secondary treatment
facilities at Enetai and Manchester for 1980 and 2000;
4) Nutrient Removal Strategy: AWT at Charleston and Secon-
dary treatment at Manchester for 1980 and 2000.
The Manchester regional discharge strategy was discarded from
consideration due to its high cost, the high degree of local coopera-
tion required and the fact that Central Kitsap County will be con-
structing a separate treatment facility in the near future. The
strategy involving no marine discharge with land treatment-nutrient
removal was evaluated to be similar to AWT-nutrient removal in terms
of nitrate effects on waters. Since the model was run primarily to
simulate algal growth in Sinclair Inlet, only the reduced nitrogen
condition in AWT was computed.
The results of the computer runs indicated that only small incre-
mental improvements in Sinclair Inlet water quality were achieved
over present conditions with secondary-treated effluent outfalls in
either Port Orchard Bay or Sinclair Inlet. Similar slight benefits
also resulted with the nutrient removal strategy.
According to the ecological model, algae blooms would continue
to occur annually in Sinclair Inlet. Secondary treatment does not
remove nutrients; therefore, algal activity would increase slightly
(less than 10 percent of measured chlorophll a) with increased waste-
water flows. With the nutrient removal strategy, algal activity was
projected to be less than that with secondary-treated effluent and
approximately equal to present levels of algal activity in Sinclair
Inlet. Thus, nutrient removal would allow Sinclair Inlet to retain
approximately the same or a small percentage higher algal activity.
The Port Orchard Bay discharge, Manchester discharge and nutrient
removal strategies in each case were more energy intensive and cost-
ly than the Sinclair Inlet discharge strategy and thus were elimina-
ted from further consideration.
81
-------
Based primarily upon these evaluation, the facilities planner
recommended the Sinclair Inlet discharge strategy. This strategy
was the least expensive, while providing water quality capable of
meeting "A" standards. Although Sinclair Inlet is a shallow embay-
ment with a slow flushing rate, it was envisioned to have adequate
dilution volume for wastewater discharges. The higher degree of
treatment would also produce a lower unit wasteload thus improving
present water quality. Also, the proximity of the inlet to the
major population concentrations in the planning area made it a prime
location for effluent discharge.
Under the Sinclair Inlet discharge strategy, four of the five
alternatives initially proposed were examined in greater detail in
order to select a preferred alternative. The first alternative as
described in Table 18, was eliminated immediately because all reason-
able treatment options for each entity could be described by the
remaining four alternatives.
Alternative Plans - Sinclair Inlet Discharge Strategy
Alternative 1 (Ho Action)
For the purpose of this EIS, Alternative 1 was defined as the
no action alternative. The five existing primary treatment facilities
and marine outfalls as described in the "Present Status" section would
be retained. As each facility is presently at or above its capacity,
future connections to the sewer system and expansion of the service
area would be greatly limited. Installation of septic tanks and leach
fields for new structures would be evaluated on an individual basis
by the County Health Department. Associated with this alternative
would be the continuation of periodic septic system failures and
pollution of shallow groundwater aquifers.
Common Features - Alternatives 2-5
Alternatives 2-5 have a number of common features, namely:
1. The Port of Bremerton will continue to operate a separate
treatment facility serving the Kitsap County Airport and the Olympic
View Industrial Park. The Port currently has the only secondary treat-
ment facility in the area and the system appears to perform satisfac-
torily. The flow from the port is small and the cost of pumping it
to another facility in the area would be high.
2. KCSD No. 3 (Manchester) will be served by a treatment fa-
cility in the vicinity of Manchester. This is because Manchester
82
-------
is separated by 6 km [4 mi] of hilly terrain from the center of the
study area population, which makes pumping and pipeline costs very
high. Also, the assimilative capacity of the local receiving waters
(Puget Sound) off Manchester is higher than that of any other loca-
tions, providing adequate dilution and dispersion.
3. At present, Sinclair Inlet is a Class A water with a special
condition allowing higher-(.lian-normal coliform level. Upgrading
treatment levels to secondary treatment should cause more effective
solids removal, thereby allowing more effective disinfection. Also,
elimination of serious overflows and bypasses presently discharging
into Sinclair Inlet and Port Washington Narrows would remove major
sources of fecal contamination. Thus all alternatives will remove
the special discharge condition from the Class A rating of Sinclair
Inlet and Port Washington Narrows.
4. Excessive infiltration/inflow will be removed from the sewer
systems in the study area. Preliminary evaluations of the sewer sys-
tems have indicated excessive inflltrat ion/inflow in many areas, which
will be removed before any treatment facilities are designed'.
5. Bremerton must agree to serve KCSD No. 1 and all entities
must agree to serve undeveloped areas draining to their facilities.
Thus, Gorst and other areas are projected to be sewered by the year 2000.
6. Wastewater solids (sludge) from each facility, will be de-
watered in covered drying beds at each site and disposed to a private
or county landfill. Hauling of liquid sludge for reuse on land appli-
cations was considered cost-effective within a 32-km [20 mi] haul dis-
tance for Charleston and a 20-kni [12 mi] haul distance for Retsil and
Manchester. Land application would be an attractive alternative if an
acceptable agreement can be reached with a local landowner(s) to handle
the material.
Alternative 2 (Charleston Regional/Retsil Regional/Manchester)
The treatment plant locations and pipeline routes in Alternative
2 are depicted in Figure 16. With thls alternative, three treatment
plants will be operated: a 0.42 m3/s [9.8 mgd] facility at Charleston;
a 0.08 m3/s [1.9 mgd] plant at Retsil, both discharging to Sinclair
Inlet; and a 0.02 m3/s [0.5 mgd] plant at Manchester, discharging to
Puget Sound. The existing treatment plant at Charleston will be up-
graded to secondary treatment and expanded to the design capacity in
order to handle all of the flow diverted from the Manette plant. The
existing Manette facility wil] probably be retained in the event that
additional capacity is needed in the future. From the Manette pump-
ing station across Port Washington Narrows, wastewater will flow
33
-------
INLET
REPLACE MANETTE S.T.P
W/NEW PUMP STATION
+ r+ • * ¦ fwrrA,
'+ k REVERSE FLOW IN
l«J EXISTING PIPES
REPLACE EXISTING
PUMP STATION N0.4
p. . . X T T . . . 0
orchard
~ T^P
V,yV
*~ &JILtLil
SREMERtI24" PRESSURE LINE
1 , t J"* 20,000' TOTAL
+
UPGRADE a EXPAND
CHARLESTON S.T.P
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD S.T P + * .
W/NEW PUMP STATION f
J J PORT +-
3?
f1 NEW RETSIL
•TSIL
REPLACE KCSD N0.3 PRIMARY S.T.P
W/A NEW PACKAGE ACTIVATED
SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT
MANCHESTER
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMP STATION
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
NEW OUTFALL 0 12 3 4
G
EXISTING OUTFALL kilometres
FIGURE 16 ALTERNATIVE 2
84
-------
through the existing pipeline; however, new pipeline construction will
be required through the City of Bremerton to the Charleston Plant.
The pipeline will be a force main 6 km [3.8 mi] long. The cross-city
pipeline route, as shown in Figure 16 is approximate and subject to
revision by the facilities planner. The plant site at Charleston
presently occupies 2.24 ha [5.52 ac] and will require approximately
an addition 1.94 ha [4.8 ac].
The plant at Retsil will also be upgraded to secondary treatment,
and will treat all flows from Retsil and Port Orchard. The existing
facility at Port Orchard will be removed and a pump station will be
built at that site to pump all flows through a force main 2.4 km [1.5
mi] long to the Retsil plant. The pipeline route will be constructed
across the mtertidal beach. The Retsi] plant site currently covers
0.38 ha [0.94 ac] and will need an additional 0.60 ha [1.47 ac].
The existing Manchester plant will probably be replaced by a
package system or custom-built secondary treatment facility. The
plant site currently occupies 0.63 ha [1.55 ac] and will require an
additional 0.31 ha [0.76 ac] of land. This alternative requires
Port Orchard and KCSD No. 5 (Retsil) to negotiate an interlocal agree-
ment on joint treatment.
Alternative 3 (Charleston Regional/Manchester)
With Alternative 3, the Charleston plant will be expanded to
0.51 m3/s [11.7 mgd] and will treat all wastes from Bremerton, Port
Orchard and Retsil. The Manchester plant will be enlarged to 0.022
m3/s [0.5 mgd] with an outfall to Puget Sound. This alternative is
shown in Figure 17. Both plants will be upgraded to secondary treat-
ment .
This alternative requires replacing the present plants at Manette,
Retsil and Port Orchard with pumping stations and constructing force
mains to transport wastewater to the Charleston plant. The existing
Manette facility may be retained for future additional capacity. A
6 km [3.8 mi] pipeline across Washington Marrows and through Bremerton
will convey wastewater from Manette, and a 5.3 km [3.3 mi] pipeline
will be built from Retsil through Port Orchard and across Sinclair
Inlet at Ross Point to the Charleston plant. Portions of this pipe-
line may be built onshore or across the intertidal beach offshore.
Expansion of both the Charleston and Manchester plants will require
the same amount of land as in Alternative 2.
To implement this alternative, Port Orchard, KSCD No. 5 and
Kitsap County must negotiate jn interlocal agreement on treatment
with Bremerton.
85
-------
INLFT
REPLACE MANETTE S.T P
W/NEW PUMP STATION
REVERSE FLOW IN
EXISTING PIPES
\ Vt.i A'-'b
REPLACE EXISTING t
PUMP STATION NO.4 ,
QwAT t RUJ-i
¦/y REPLACE KCSD NO 3 PRIMARY S.T.P
¦J/ W/A NEW SECONDARY S.T.P 0.5 MGD
24 PRESSURE LINE
20,000' TOTAL
i—ll
UPGRADE 8 EXPAND
CHARLESTON PLANT
TO SECONDARY S.T.P.
11.7 MGD
REPLACE KCSD N0.3 S.T.P.
-i" UBPCCHRP LINE ^ NEW PUMP STATION
SU8MERGED PIPELINE
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD S.T.P
W/NEW PUMP STATION
sCS.is" pressure line r r-j—i
11,000' total fDr|
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMP STATION
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
NEW OUTFALL
EXISTING OUTFALL
KILOMETRES
FIGURE 17 ALTERNATIVE 3
86
-------
Alternative 4 (Local Treatment Plants)
Alternative 4 retains all of the existing plant sites. Charles-
ton, Retsil, Manchester, Manette and Port Orchard will all be upgraded
to secondary treatment. The Charleston plant will have a capacity of
0.26 m^/s [5.9 mgd]. The Charleston, Port Orchard and Retsil plants
all discharge to Sinclair Inlet, Manette discharges to Port Washington
Narrows and Manchester discharges to Puget Sound. This alternative
is depicted in Figure 18.
All the plant sites except the Charleston site will need addi-
tional land. The Manette plant will require an additional 2.3 ha
[5.7 ac] for a total of 2.8 ha [6.9 ac]; the Retsil plant will need 0.6
ha [1.4 ac] for a total of 2 ha [5.0 acj; the Port Orchard plant will
need 0.5 ha [1.2 ac] for a total of 0.5 ha [1.3 ac]; and the Man-
chester plant will need 0.3 ha [0.8 ac] for a total of 1.0 ha [2.A ac].
No pipelines, other than new collection sewers for newly developed
areas, will be constructed under this alternative.
No interlocal treatment agreements are required with this alter-
native. Sludge will be disposed to the county landfill unless a lo-
cal landowner as described earlier, is willing to accept the
material.
Alternative 5 (Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional)
Alternative 5 involves the use of two secondary treatment plants;
one at Charleston and one at Manchester. The Charleston plant will
by a 0.43 m3/s [9.8 mgd] facility discharging to Sinclair Inlet, and
will treat all wastes from Bremerton. The Manchester regional plant
will treat the wastewaters from Retsil, Port Orchard and Manchester.
It will be a 0.105 m3/s [2.4 mgd] plant discharging to Puget Sound.
This alternative is depicted in Figure 19.
Additional land will be required by both plants for their ex-
pansions. The Charleston plant will require an additional 1.3 ha
[3.2 ac]. The Manchester plant will require an additional 0.97 ha
[2.4 ac]. Two new force mains will be required: the first, a 6 km line
[3.8 mi] line from the current Manette plant site through Bremerton
to the Charleston plant; the second a 7.4 km [4.6] line from Port
Orchard through Retsil to the Manchester plant. The second pipeline
has been proposed to be either constructed onshore, offshore across
the intertidal beach, or a combination of the two. Pump stations
will be constructed at the sites of the present Manette, Port Orchard
and Retsil treatment plants. The primary facilities at the latter
87
-------
LEGEND
¦ TREATMENT PLANT
• PUMP STATION
— NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
• •••• EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
—* NEW OUTFALL
• •••~ EXISTING OUTFALL
FIGURE 18 ALTERNATIVE 4
88
-------
REPLACE MANETTE SIPSTT14 C I '. '. : : '. V: • ¦/ (• ;1 •
W/ NEW PUMP STATION .REVERSE FLOW IN L 7??—^ >" I . L . . .
" j n v¦ n i v• • ^V«Je*isting pipes 'j/y
:M Mmw M-
"v/rlR _. , ,+ -t ^4. [Mreplace existing* ::::::r/ V
V---1 1+4 PUMf> STATI0N N043 :NEW MANCHESTER S.T.f y
i^>>+ .Vt Ui + T-l \y • ^~~y.112,500' total
V" fl—. BU'vt RT124 PRESSURE LINE- "• : ^ "*•) i
iVJ P . r J™ 20,000' TOTAL : '.]¥^.V / ;
W^> NEW WATERMAN
1 MANCHEJpUMp STAT|0n
is" pressure line i\:
15,900' TOTAL \\ ! 1 :: I !
UPGRADE 8 EXPAND
CHARLESTON S.T.P.
14 PRESSURE LINE
8,000' TOTAL V
REPLACE KCSD NO 5 S.T.P
W/ NEW PUMP STATION
REPLACE PORT ORCHARD S.T PT 4
W/ NEW PUMP STATION
'J/ PORT ++
•y^i' ORCHARD
LEGEND
TREATMENT PLANT
PUMP STATION
NEW TRANSMISSION LINE
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE
NEW OUTFALL
EXISTING OUTFALL
FIGURE 19 ALTERNATIVE 5
89
-------
two sites will be removed. An additional pump station will be con-
structed at Waterman.
Port Orchard and KCSD No. 5 must negotiate an interlocal agree-
ment on treatment with Kitsap County in order to implement this al-
ternative. All sludge disposal will be to the existing landfill at
the county airport until the new county landfill at Mansford Road
can accept it. Alternate arrangements for sludge recycling, as de-
scribed earlier, can be made if an interested recipient can be found
within a 32 km f20 mi] haul distance of Charleston and another within
a 20-km [12 mi] haul distance of Manchester.
Site Descriptions for Proposed Facilities
Proposed Treatment Plant Sites
Charleston. The existing site lies at the confluence of the
Old Navy Yard Highway and the new section of Highway 3, approximately
2 km from Bremerton. Hillside grading has terraced the original gully
terrain into a valley with two troughs. The two sides of the valley
are disproportionate in height, with the existing treatment plant
lying in the lower trough and the highway overlooking it to the east.
The Charleston facility was constructed over dirt fill material.
Along the western edge of the site lies a small creek which is
wooded along the western side. The wooded area is characterized by
second-growth vegetation and is predominately Douglas-fir and mixed
conifers with evergreen shrubs forming the understory. Slope increases
rapidly forming a precipitous ridge some 32 m [100 ft] high making the
western 0.8 ha [2 ac] of the site unusable.
To the west and north, twenty-one residences exist in the vicinity
of the treatment plant. Six residences are within the treatment plant
expansion site. Immediately to the south and also within the plant
expansion site is a small building maintained by the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Sinclair Inlet lies approxi-
mately 320 m [1000 ft] downhill from the Charleston Plant. Access to
the site is via Highway 3. This portion of the Highway between Navy
Yard CLty and Gorst is one of the most heavily travelled and congested
roads in the study area.
The Charleston site includes a small sludge-dewatering lagoon.
Digested sludge from the Charleston and Manctte facilities is placed
in a well-screened area behind the Charleston plant. The dewatered
sludge is then trucked to a landfill. In recent years, a private
operator has been combining a portion of the sludge with wood chips
90
-------
and using the material as a soil amendment. Few odor complaints have
been made about the sludge handling process. The lagoon and sludge/
wood chip mixing area will be eliminated with the plant expansion.
Manette. The existing site is located in East Bremerton just
to the west of the Washington Narrows Bridge. Situated within a
city park on the edge of a developed residential/commercial community,
the site has extensive grassy plots and a few shrubs. Few trees
screen the plant from the service road, the Highway 303 Bridge or
Port Washington Narrows. A residential neighborhood surrounds the
park except on the south-west side which slopes down approximately
50 m [160 ft] directly to Port Washington Narrows. Expansion of
the treatment plant, under Alternative 4, would involve the removal
of up to 25 houses and reduction of the park area. The site is on
an excavated shelf which may require further grading for plant
expansion.
Port Orchard. The present facility is situated in downtown
Port Orchard at the site of the City's marina and boat dock on Sin-
clair Inlet. The structure housing the treatment plant is on pil-
ings some 5 m [15 ft] above the water's edge at low tide.
Extensive fill operations have greatly altered the natural en-
vironment. The shoreline contour has been extended by the construc-
tion of a commercial area over a 0.4-0.8 ha [1-2 ac] filled area at
the foot of the marina. The sides of the fill have been stabilized
with riprap. Little natural vegetation is present along the bay but
many aquatic organisms have colonized the pilings and riprap. There
is little vegetation screening the treatment plant, however, the ex-
terior appearance has been constructed to appear like other commer-
cial structures in the area. The plant is visible both from down-
town Port Orchard and Sinclair Inlet.
The treatment plant is less than a block from the major business
street of the town, Bay Street or Highway 160. Expansion of the
facility would require 5100 m2 [55,000 sq ft] of adjacent commercial
space, which is presently a parking lot. Approximately 1400 m2
[15,000 sq ft] of commercial development surrounds the expansion site.
Retsil. The present 0.4-0.8 ha [1-2 ac] site is approximately
1 km [1 mi] east from Port Orchard on Highway 160 or Beach Drive.
Sinclair Inlet lies approximately 24 m [80 ft] to the north. The
plant is set back approximately 15 m [50 ft] from the road and is
constructed over fill material. The Retsil Veteran's Home is situated
upon a promontory to the west and overlooks the Retsil plant. Resi-
dential homes border the plant to the east. To the south, Annapolis
Creek flows through a wooded canyon composed of mixed Douglas-Fir
and broadleaf trees and empties into Sinclair Inlet through a culvert
91
-------
approximately 6 m [20 ft] south of the plant. Some trees and shrubs
line the stream. The area around the treatment plant is also land-
scaped with grass, shrubs and small trees, thus achieving a little
screening. Nevertheless, the plant is visible from Sinclair Inlet,
Beach Drive, the Veteran's Home and surrounding residences.
Expansion of treatment facilities would require property acquisi-
tion of 0.60 ha [1.47 ac] and 760 m3 [1,000 cu yd] of excavation.
The 0.35 ha [0.86 ac] of the land needed is presently owned by the
State of Washington as part of the Retsil Veteran's Home. Representa-
tives of the state indicate that property required for the reasonable
expansion of the treatment facilities can be made available to the
district.
Manchester. The existing site is located between Beach Drive
and Puget Sound, approximately 0.62 km [1.0 mi] north of Manchester.
The plant is some 9 m [30 ft] off the road and 90 m [300 ft] from
Puget Sound. Sludge-drying beds are adjacent to the plant. An
extensive screen of secondary-growth trees and shrubs forms a barrier
to the east which shields views of the plant from Puget Sound. Scat-"
tered stands of trees lie to the north dnd south. No vegetation
screens the plant to the west; thus the plant is extremely visible
from the road. The plant lies in a marshy meadow with characteristic
vegetation in unaltered areas.
Five to ten houses are along the slope flanking the western side
of the site. The slope rises to a plateau generally running north-
south. Few houses lie to the north. Twenty to thirty homes are lo-
cated along the shore of Puget Sound within one kilometer of the plant
and some 50 homes are in the town of Manchester to the south.
Proposed Marine Disposal Sites
The outfall sites under consideration for future marine disposal
of wastewater are the existing sites at Charleston, Port Orchard,
Retsil and Manchester. Limited data are available on the benthic en-
vironment of the marine outfall sites. Some sampling was conducted
at the Charleston and Manchester sites in conjunction with the Cen-
tral Kitsap County Facility Plan (Reference 3)¦ However, no exten-
sive diving or sampling studies have been conducted in the vicinity
of the outfalls. A summary of the probable marine fauna and known
usages associated with the Sinclair Inlet and Manchester outfall sites
is given in Table 19.
Charleston Site. The existing Charleston outfall discharges
to Sinclair Inlet at a 10 m [32 ft] depth. Effluent is dispersed
through twenty 16.5 cm [6.5 in.] diffuser parts at 6-foot intervals.
92
-------
Table 19. MAJOR MARINE FAUNA AND USAGES IN THE VICINITY
OF PROPOSED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SITES
Sinclair Inlet Manchester
Marine environment summary outfall sites outfall site
Mussels
X
X
Barnacles
X
-
Cockles
X
-
Manila clam
-
X
Bentnose clam
X
-
Butter clam
-
X
Geoduck (subtidal)
X
X
Littleneck clam (subtidal)
X
Mixed shellfish
X
X
Herring spawning areas
-
X
Surf smelt spawning areas
—
X
Major waterfowl areas
X
X
Eelgrass beds
X
-
General fishing area (sport salmon)
X
X
Concentrated fishing area (sport salmon)
X
X
Commercial salmon fishing (gill net)
X
-
Nonsalmon sports fishing
Cutthroat
X
-
Bottom fish
X
-
Commercial otter trawl
Regularly fished
-
-
Historically fished
X
-
Closed to trawl
-
X
Commercial herring fishing
X
-
College of Fisheries research areas
X
-
State tidelands
a
-
Aquatic land use allocations
Bedlands: aquaculture
-
X
commercial
X
-
Tidelands: Commercial
-
-
Marine terminals
X
X
Marine fuel stations
-
X
Shoreline zoned business/commercial
X
-
Presence of existing outfalls
X
X
Source: Reference
Note: "a" indicates nearby.
93
-------
The present outfall discharges east of the Puget Sound Naval Yard and
experiences indirect effects of the Naval Yard cooling water and ship
discharges. Programs are currently underway to complete an industrial
wastewater treatment system and ship waste collection system at the
Naval Yard by 1977 and 1979, respectively. These two systems will dis-
charge to the Charleston treatment plant. However, cooling waters will
continue to be discharged directly to Sinclair Inlet. This typically
produces a slightly warmer surface and water column zone which is at-
tractive to some shorebirds and fishes. Shellfish numbers are probably
limited in this portion of Sinclair Inlet and shellfish harvesting is
generally not allowed due to high levels of coliform bacteria indicat-
ing possible fecal contamination.
Port Orchard Site. The Port Orchard outfall follows the exist-
ing wharf and extends beyond the marina. The construction of the
marina and filling of the shoreline has greatly altered the marine
ecology of the shoreline. Wooden pilings and structures offer inter-
tidal and subtidal substrate for the attachment of mussels, barnacles
and various types of marine algae. The concentration of small boats
may slightly decrease the local water quality through discharge of
small quantities of wastewater, gasoline and oil.
Retsil Site. The outfall from the Retsil plant passes through
a relatively wide sand-gravel-cobble beach area before discharging
into Sinclair Inlet. Although the inlet is closed to commercial shell-
fish harvesting, some recreational clam digging was observed in the
intertidal area below the Retsil treatment plant by the EIS survey
team in April 1977. This probably represents a significant recrea-
tional and potential commercial resource and should be recognized in
any plan that would improve or degrade local water quality. In ad-
dition, Annapolis Creek, which flows past the treatment plant and
empties across the above-mentioned beach, has historically been noted
for runs of steelhead trout. Degradation of water quality at the
mouth of Annapolis Creek and in the nearshore waters may have an
adverse effect on returning and down-migrating trout.
Manchester Site. Very little is known about the marine environ-
ment in the vicinity of the Manchester outfall. However, Orchard
Point and the adjacent Clam Bay have been noted for their excellent
water quality. The National Marine Fisheries Service conducts research
at Manchester focusing on feed and growth of salmon stock, stock de-
velopment and fish genetics (Reference 49). The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency also maintains a regional support lab to monitor water and
sediment quality, and study oyster embryo responses (Reference 50).
Because of the good water quality, Clam Bay is used as a control station
for comparison with other pollution studies in the Port Orchard system
and Puget Sound (Reference 51). In addition, juvenile salmon are reared
for commercial sale in Clam Bay. The effluent discharge point for the
planned oily waste treatment facility at the Manchester Naval Fuel Sup-
ply Depot will extend approximately 50 m [150 ft] from shore, directly
on-line with the end of the fuel pLer located southwest from Orchard
Point.
94
-------
Project Costs-Sinclair Inlet Discharge Strategy
Capital Costs
Project implementation, as presented by the facilities planner,
will require physical construction during the period 1978-80. Al-
ternatives 2-5 will require a 12-18 months construction period some-
time during this time frame. Salvage values are projected in the
year 2000. Detailed alternatives representative of the Sinclair
Inlet discharge strategy were evaluated using "high order-of-magni-
tude" estimates based on Part 2 of the facilities plan. Approximate
error is estimated by the facilities planner to be +40 percent to
-20 percent. The design period allows for 20 years of operation from
first phase completion. Therefore, the design year is the year 2000.
A 6-1/8 percent discount factor was used by the facilities planner to
arrive at present worth and capital recovery calculations, with costs
presented in January 1977 dollars. All costs in this analysis include
costs of construction of primary and secondary treatment facilities,
and engineering, legal and administrative costs (Reference 1).
Total capital costs for construction as shown in Table 20, range
from a low of $16,778,000 for Alternative 2, to high of $19,441,000
for Alternative 5. This analysis assumed 75 percent federal and 15
percent state participation in capital funding, excluding total land
and easement costs which are not grant eligible. Capital costs for
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are fairly close - within six percent of each
other. Total corresponding costs to local participating jurisdic-
tions, as shown in Table 21, range from a low of $1,846,000 for Alter-
native 2, to a high of $2,914,000 for Alternative 4.
The net present worth of all capital costs, annual operation
and maintenance (0&M) costs, and salvage, discounted at 6-1/8 per-
cent annually, range from a low of $24,438,000 (Alternative 2), to
a high of $27,108,000 (Alternative 5). Net present worth for each
alternative is presented in Table 20.
Two rankings of project costs, based on analyses in Tables 20
and 21, are presented below. The first method ranks according to net
present worth of all capital costs, annual O&M costs, and salvage value.
The second method ranks according to average annual equivalent cost to
the local Kitsap County Jurisdictions. In general, present worth for
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 were within 10 percent of each other and con-
sidered the same rank. Average annual equivalent costs for Alterna-
tives 2, 3 and 5 were within 10 percent of each other and considered
the same rank.
95
-------
Table 20. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS - ALL ALTERNATIVES
($1000)
Alternative
Capital
cost
Land &
Easement
Cost
Annual
O&M
Present*5
Worth
of all
Costs
Salvage
Value of
Facilities
and Landc
Net
Present
Worthd
Ranking
(Net
Present
Worth)
2
$16,778
$ 187
$682
$24,889
$451
$24,438
1
3
17,742
163
628
25,513
784
24,729
1
4
17,769
1,263
756
26,353
0
26,353
1
5
19,441
186
691
27,918
810
27,108
2
3
Operating and maintenance costs are calculated on the basis of certain fixed charges per year plus
variable costs which are affected by increased flow. This method does not create a linear yearly
increase. Therefore, O&M costs for the year 1990 were selected because it is the median year over
the service life of the treatment facilities (1980-2000)
^The present worth (in January 1977 dollars) is the sum of 20 years of operation and maintenance
costs discounted at 6-1/8 percent plus the total capital costs.
c
Because the useful life of transmission lines - 50 years - exceeds the evaluation period of 20
years, a straight-line depreciation was used to determine the salvage value at the end of the
evaluation period. The salvage value was 60 percent of the construction cost.
^Present worth of all costs less the present worth of the salvage value of the transmission lines.
Source: Reference 1.
-------
Table 21. KITSAP COUNTY JURISDICTION COSTS - ALL ALTERNATIVES1
($000)
Ranking
Alternative
Capital
Cost a
Capital
Recovery^
Annual
0 & Mc
Average Annual
Equivalent Cost
(Average Annual
Equivalent Cost)
2
$1,846
$188
$682
$870
1
3
1,921
196
628
824
1
4
2,914
297
756
1,053
2
5
2,108
215
691
906
1
aKitsap County Jurisdictions include: the County of Kitsap, the City of Bremerton, and the City of
Port Orchard.
^Assumed federal participation of 75 percent and state participation of 15 percent on total capital
costs less total land and easement costs which are not grant eligible.
CAnnual payment required to recover local Kitsap County jurisdictions' share of the capital costs
at 8 percent for 20 years.
dFrom Table 17.
Q
Represents 0 & M charges plus capital recovery costs to participating local jurisdictions.
-------
Alternative
Net Present
Worth
Average Annual
Equivalent Cost to
Kitsap County Jurisdictions
2
3
4
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
Operation and Maintenance
Each project alternative represents a separate series of annus
costs for the operation and maintenance of the treatment plants and
transmission pump station. These costs are the sum of fixed annual
charges and increasing variable charges relating to increased flow
capacity. Since O&M costs increase over time, the facilities plan-
ner has chosen the specific O&M costs for 1990, the median year of
the service life of the treatment facilities (1980-2000) as mathe-
matically representative of annual costs. These annual costs range
from a low of $628,000 (Alternative 3) to a high of $756,000 (Alter-
native 4). Costs for each alternative are presented in Table 20.
Revised Alternative 2 Project Costs
In Volume II, Part 3 of the Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Facilities
Plan, a preliminary design and detailed cost estimate was made for
Alternative 2 only. These detailed estimates reflect increased costs
due to the addition of new pump stations, sewers and service areas,
pump station modifications, finalization of treatment processes, and
other miscellaneous costs not identified in Part II - Development of
Alternatives.
Capital costs and O&M costs for the treatment plants, pump sta-
tions and transmission lines were evaluated for the most cost effectiv
systems. However, a net present worth, similar to that calculated in
January 1977 dollars in Table 20, was not made. The facilities plan-
ner instead compared capital cost allocations in inflated 1980 dollars
for each treatment facility according to the funding entities. For
the purposes of comparison with Table 20, a net present worth was
calculated based on capital cost and O&M present worth values as de-
veloped for each facility in Chapters 16 and 17 of Volume II of the
facilities plan. The revised total project cost, as presented in
Table 22, is approximately $31,800,000. This figure represents a
$7,000,000 increase over the amount shown for Alternative 2 in Table
20. A percentage change cannot be estimated because the revised figur
contains new items, some of which are specific to this alternative
98
-------
Table 22. REVISED PROJECT COSTS-ALTERNATIVE 2a
(SEPTEMBER 1977)
Cost Component Value ($1000)
Capital Cost 22,771
Land and Easement cost*5
Annual 0 & MC 859
Present worth of all costs^ 32,523
Salvage value of facilities 674
and land
Net Present Worth^ 31,849
Does not include present worth of any delayed construction wich may be
required before year 2000, nor capital cost of Manchester collection
system which was not given (and has separate funding).
^Assumed by facilities planner to be an insignificant cost item which
amounts to less than 1 percent of capital cost.
CTreatment Plants: Average O&M costs for mid-design-year 1990; pump
stations and transmission lines: O&M costs for 1980
^See Table 17, footnote b
6
See Table 17, footnote c
^See Table 17, footnote d
Source: Reference 2.
99
-------
only, and were not calculated in the first analysis. Therefore, equi-
valent increases in total project costs cannot be made for Alterna-
tives 3 through 5. It is fairly certain, however, that if a similar
detailed analysis were performed for the remaining alternatives, the
resultant total project costs would be higher than those presented in
Table 20.
INTERACTION WITH OTHER PLANS
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive planning for sewerage facilities was established
with the 1970 "Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plans for Kitsap
County" (Reference 52) Projected sewerage service areas for 1975
and 1990 within the planning area are shown in Figure 20.
The county comprehensive plan indicated four wastewater treat-
ment facilities by 1990. The present wastewater facilities plan for
Sinclair Inlet incorporates the two Bremerton facilities into one at .
Charleston and the Port Orchard/Retsil facility will probably be at
Retsil instead of on Blackjack Creek. Population projections and
resultant flows are overall slightly lower than the comprehensive plan.
Also, in contrast to the comprehensive plan, Sunnyslope, between 6rst
and the county airport, and small portions below Port Orchard, above
Tracyton and around Wildcat Lake will not be included in the 2000 sewei
service areas of the facilities plan.
The comprehensive plan for the portion covering central Kitsap
County was amended in May 1976 (Reference 53) to incorporate the
Central Kitsap County Facilities Plan. Areas within the Sinclair
Inlet planning area that are now excluded from the facilities plan
are shown in Figure 20. These areas will not be serviced by the
central Kitsap treatment facility.
Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities Plan
The recently completed Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facili-
ties Plan (Reference 3) examined a regional treatment facility for
sub-basins 9 and 10 north of the Sinclair Inlet planning area which
included Silverdale, Meadowdale, Brownsville, the Bangar Naval Reser-
vation and the proposed Trident Support Site. Poulsbo and Keport to
the north also have the option to join the central Kitsap regional
system.
The Central Kitsap Facilities Plan selected a site for a region-
al plant approximately 3 km [2 mi] north of Burke Bay on Highway 303.
100
-------
The plant will be able to provide urgently needed service to several
recent housing developments which are all on interim sewage disposal
systems. Some of these housing developments fall within the northern-
most portion of the Sinclair Inlet planning area; however, they are
planned to have their sewage pumped into the central Kitsap regional
facility. These areas, which will in the future by served by the cen-
tral Kitsap facility, are shown in Figure 20.
Kitsap Basin Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan
An area-wide program of pollution control for the waters of the
Kitsap Basin (Reference 54) was conducted by the PACE Corporation in
1973 to conform to the Washington State Department of Ecology's "Sew-
age Drainage Basin and Urban Area Planning Guide for Water Pollution
Control and Abatement" (September 1970) and the EPA's "Water Quality
Management" guidelines (January 1971). This program reviewed all non-
point pollution sources as well as point sources and in effect ful-
filled section 208 of Public Law 92-500 on the Clean Water Program.
The final report: Kitsap Basin Water Pollution Control and Abatement
Plan (KBWPCAP) (Reference 54) was published in 1975 with five treat-
ment alternatives for the Sinclair Inlet planning area. Three alter-
natives are incorporated into the Sinclair Inlet facilities Plan. A
fourth alternative with a regional plant and discharge at Enetai was
considered during the discharge strategy development. A fifth alter-
native with a regional plant at Bainbridge Island serving central Kit-
sap County and Sinclair Inlet was not considered in the Sinclair In-
let Facilities Plan.
The Shoreline Management Act
In 1971, the State of Washington enacted the Shoreline Management
Act (SMA), a comprehensive program to coordinate coastal development
with protection of natural resources. The SMA designated two cate-
gories of management areas: 1) A "resource area", over which SMA has
permit authority, composed of all sub-tidal and tidal lands up to 60
m [200 ft] beyond the mean high water line; and 2) a planning and ad-
ministrative area composed of the fifteen coastal counties. SMA re-
quired all coastal counties to inventory their coastal resources and
identify all relevant planning goals and policies. In response, Kit-
sap County developed a Shoreline Master Program and a shoreline inven-
tory (Reference 55) in 1973. The following policies, relevant to the
Sinclair Inlet Facilities Plan, were developed by the Shoreline Master
Program and SMA planning activities for Kitsap County:
101
-------
KILOMETRES
LEGEND
0.2 m3/sl975)
#->0.4 m*/si990) TREATMENT PLANT
0.9 mVs ULTIMATE)
1975 SERVICE AREA
llll;! 1990 SERVICE AREA
V///A AREAS TO BE SERVED BY CENTRAL KITSAP FACILITY
FIGURE 20 KITSAP COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
SEWERAGE PLAN
102
-------
1) Preferences to shoreline uses should be given to the follow-
ing categories in order of priority:
Water-dependent uses including intakes and outfalls as
approved by existing legislation
Water-related uses
Nonwater-related uses including utility right-of-way
and sewage treatment plants
2) Gorst Estuary - Water-dependent and water-related uses as
defined above are prohibited from railroad trestle on north
shore westward to Gorst and from Gorst eastward on the south
shoreline to and including the urban area located at Section
33.
3) Other general policies that would affect facilities planning:
Restoration of shorelines after construction
Use minimal amount of shoreline in development and provid
multiple use opportunities
Parking areas and facilities located inland and screened
from shoreline
Floodplains, storm flooding areas, steep slopes, marshes,
estuaries, and bogs should not be developed
Development encouraged to locate away from immediate
shoreline
Vegetative buffer provided between normal high water mark
and upland use.
4) Use activity policies:
Whenever utilities must be placed in a shoreline area,
the location should be chosen so as not to obstruct or
destroy scenic views. Whenever feasible, these facilitie
should be placed underground, located away from the
water's edge and/or designed to do minimal damage to the
aesthetic qualities of the shoreline area.
Utilities should be located to meet the needs of future
populations in areas planned to accommodate this growth.
103
-------
Development that requires utility services should not
be approved until such utility services are programmed
for operation.
Developments that require utility services should not be
utilized until such utility services are in operation.
104
-------
SECTION IU
-------
SECTION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Each alternative wastewater treatment system will have both bene-
ficial and adverse impacts upon the natural environment as well as on
institutions, the economy and energy utilization rates. These impacts
were assessed on the basis of available scientific knowledge, the pro-
fessional experience of individual project team members, consultation
with local experts in specific fields, and familiarity with local con-
ditions gained by the project team during data collection and investi-
gation of the study area.
The Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for the prepara-
tion of the Environmental Impact Statements (AO CFR, Part 6, § 6.304
(c)) require that primary and secondary environmental impacts for
short and long-term duration, be evaluated. This draft EIS identifies
the short-term, long-term direct and long-term indirect (secondary)
impacts related to all project alternatives.
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
The direct short-term impacts of this project are related to con-
struction activities. These impacts are relatively minor in effect
and magnitude, and in most cases the adverse impact can be effective-
ly mitigated, though not completely eliminated. The impacts are sum-
marized and evaluated as to their positive, neutral or negative ef-
fects in Table 23. Mitigation measures, which are recommended for con-
struction grant approval, are presented for each adverse impact. Sup-
porting discussions for some individual impacts can be found in Appen-
dix G.
LONG-TERM DIRECT IMPACTS
Soils and Geology
The alternative projects will have little direct impact either
upon the soils or geological features of the study area. Geological
hazards may cause pipe failures or other system problems. Potential
effects of strong seismic tremors may be of importance, although the
actual effects or probability of occurrence cannot be estimated. Pipe-
line connectors and pump stations would respond differently from the
pipelines and the surrounding fill material during stress situations.
105
-------
NOTE: This corrected page should
replace Page 106 in the Draft EIS
for Sinclair Inlet.
Table 23. SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Alternative
Impacts
Recommended Mitigation Measures
1) Soli erosion from
construction dis-
turbed sites
2) Dust generation
3) Aerial pollutants
0 Q J O ©
CD 0
0
o a
" s 0 O ® 0 ©
bances during
construction
5) Loss of groundcover/ (T) (¦ (¦# (l^
disruption of wildlife vL' v*
habitats
6) Disruption of wildlife fT}
patterns and aquatic vlx \W
fish migrations
7) Increased noise and
vibrations
S) Visual Impact of
construction equip-
ment and site
9) Soil disposal from
excavation
0 (5
0
0
10j Stockpiling and storage (Tj
of spoil vix
11) Safety hazard
(5 CD Cfc
0 »
0>
0 3 0 0®
• Schedule construction to dry season
• Confine surface disturbances to
immediate construction areas
• After construction, exposed soil
areas should be reseeded with
native grasses
t Keep soil vetted down in construction
area
• All vehicles and equipment should be
fitted with properly maintained
pollution coatrol devices
o Interceptor ditches around construc-
tion site to catch run-off
o Care should be taken not to discharge
petroleum or other pollutants to
stream
• Limit construction near streams to
low-flow periods (late summer)
• Replanting with native vegetation
where possible
• Vegetation near pipelines should be
flagged or fenced to minimize
construction damage
• Vegetation removal in natural areas
occur during late summer or fall
when nesting birds are not present
• Avoid construction near streams
during fish migration periods.
Sept-Nov, March-May
• All equipment should have mufflers
properly installed and maintained
• Limit activities to daylight hours
• Equipment should be stored in de-
signated areas, all litter picked up
• Fence or otherwise screen construc-
tion maintenance area
• Disposal of soil material should be
coordinated with other ongoing pro-
jects requiring fill
• Spoil material not needed for back-
filling should be spread on ground
and seeded or covered to prevent
dust and erosion
• All open trenches should be covered
or fenced at end of work day
• All construction equipment should be
secured against unauthorized use
• Construction area should be well
marked and access restricted wnere
possible
106
-------
Table 23. SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Cont'd)
Impacts
Alternatives
Recommended Mitigation Measures
12) Construction-related
tratfic
13) Disruption of through
and local traffic
14) Utility service
disruption
15) Disturbance of marine
benthic communities
during pipeline
construction
16) Marine vater quality
17) Potential for dis-
ruption of
archaeological/
historical resources
18) Employment, direct
and Indirect
19) Economic activity,
direct and indirect
0 3 3 3 3
0 • • 3 •
0 3 3 0 3
0
0
0 3 3 0 3
0 0 0 0 0
0OOOO
0 O O O O
• Scheduling to avoid peak traffic
periods in area
• Barricades and flagmen posted as
necessary to guide traffic through
construction zones
• Notify local residents as to loca-
tion, nature and duration of con-
struction
• Advance notice of utility service dis-
ruption should be given
• If disruption occurs over a long
period, utility bypasses should be
provided
• Locate pipeline/outfall to avoid signi-
ficant shell fish and flnfish areaa
• Avoid identifiable critical spring and
summer use periods
• Care should be taken not to discharge
petroleum or other pollutants to
inlets
• Upon discovery of remains, constructioi
should be halted and State Historic
Preservation Officer contacted to de-
termine appropriate measures
• None necessary
None necessary
o
0
3
Beneficial impact
No change or minor adverse impact
Moderate adverse Impact
Significant adverse impact
107
-------
Differential movement between the connectors and pumps and the pipe-
lines may cause leakage and ruptures at these points during strong
tremors.
Alternative 2
Consolidation o£ the Manette with the Charleston plant and the
Port Orchard with the Retsil plant would require 8,400+ m [28,000+ ft]
of pressurized pipeline. The Manette-Charleston pipeline would con-
tain many joints and turns through the Bremerton area. The pressuri-
zation, long distances and sharp angle turns of this pipeline may in-
crease the potential for leakage and rupture during a strong tremor
(e.g., 7.0 Richter scale with a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.5g).
Construction techniques such as installation of sand beds prior to
laying pipe in the trench, backfilling with fine soil and thorough
compaction should lessen adverse effects from tremors. The signifi-
cance of such induced effects during the tremors should be judged a-
gainst the greater effect upon surface structures, both of the alter-
native facilities and the urban area in general. Treatment facilities,'
as would be constructed at the Charleston and Retsil sites, have gene-
rally withstood tremors with little damage. Normal foundation require-
ments for the heavy structures of treatment facilities are sufficient
to reduce or eliminate problems arising from ground instability during
tremors. However, some additional consideration should focus on the
presence of the Kitsap clay member of the Orting formation found un-
der the Charleston plant site. Groundwater saturation of this clay
would increase pore-pressure and allow movement during the shaking
or lurching which would accompany a strong tremor. The highway and
railroad embankments on the east side of the site may contain any move-
ment, but the clay, it's overlying fill and structures may be affec-
ted by differential movement. Structures partially located on fill
and on bedrock clay or other glacial deposits may respond to a tremor
differentially and cause breakage of facilities passing across the
boundary between the two foundation materials.
The Port Orchard-to-Retsil pipeline would have fewer sharp
angle turns and would be only about 2,400 m [8,000 ft] long. As such,
the pipeline would generally be less affected than the longer, more
angular Manette-Charleston pipeline. The replacement of the exist-
ing treatment facilities at Port Orchard with a pump station would
lessen possible damage to the alternative system. The location of
the existing facilities over a deep fill, even with adequate founda-
tions may permit differential movement of pipes entering the facili-
ties and rupture could be anticipated at the connections during a
strong tremor. Furthermore, failure of the surrounding fill may oc-
cur at a location adjacent to the inlet.
The corridor between the Port Orchard and Retsil sites would
lie close to the underlying glacial bedrock. A subtidal pipeline
108
-------
route from Port Orchard to Retsil would cross large mudflats into
zones of steep, subtidal slopes. Strong tremors may dislodge poor-
ly compacted alluvium, and slumping and lurching could cause leaks and
ruptures of the pressurized pipeline. The Beach Drive roadway along
Sinclair Inlet would act to contain the fill for the Retsil plant
site. The new Retsil plant would be smaller than the Charleston
plant and, therefore, less subject to potentially damaging tremors.
The expansion of the Manchester plant would occur on or near clay
deposits of the Kitsap member of the Orting formation. Such mate-
rials with unconfined fill along a small creek may allow for ground-
water saturation of both the fill and the clay. Such conditions may
allow substantial differential movement and ground instability during
a strong tremor.
Alternative 3
This subregionalization alternative would involve about 11,890
m [39,000 ft] of new pipeline and the Charleston and Manchester plants.
The 6,100 m [20,000 ft] of the Manette-Charleston pipeline and the
3,350 m [11,000 ft] of the Port Orchard-Charleston pipeline would in-
crease the probability of pipeline rupture during strong tremors. The
Manette-Charleston pipeline hazards have been discussed in Alterna-
tive 2, but the Retsil-Port Orchard-Charleston pipeline may be more
hazardous than the Bremerton pipelines. From Port Orchard west along
Highway 160, the pipeline would lie within clay deposits of the Kitsap
member of the Orting formation. Because of the high water table and
seepage along the adjacent bluff, these deposits may be saturated
throughout most or all of the year. During a tremor, differential
movement may dislocate the roadbed and the pipeline. Rupture or leak-
age of the pipeline may induce further movement of the Highway 160 road-
bed. At the west end of the inlet, crossing the steeper subtidal slopes
may pose a similar instability hazard for the pipeline and adjacent
roadbed. The subtidal route between Ross Point and Retsil may be sub-
ject to greater seismic hazards than along the road. Seismically-in-
duced lurching of the subtidal slope and roadbed could cause ruptures
or leakage of the pressurized pipeline.
Effects on the Manchester plant expansion, the Retsil-Port
Orchard pipeline, the Manette plant replacement and the Manette-
Charleston pipeline would be the same as Alternative 2.
Alternative 4
Expansion of existing local treatment plants would generally
increase possible damage to pipes within the facilities but would
reduce possible hazards of long pressurized pipelines. Expansion
109
-------
of the Manette plant would expose the facility to an increased po-
tential for slope failure. The 9-15 m [30-50 ft] high slope des-
cends directly to the water of the narrows and may be supported below
water level by the clay deposits of the Kitsap member of the Orting
formation. Constant water submergence may allow saturation of the
clay which may prove unstable during st>rong tremors. Even with proper
foundations for the treatment facilities, pipeline and outfall leak-
age and rupture could be anticipated during a tremor.
Various effects and responses of the Charleston, Port Orchard,
Retsil and Manchester plants have been discussed in the preceding al-
ternative discussions. Expansions of the present Port Orchard and
Manchester plant may substantially increase the adverse effects of
strong tremors on the plants and the resulting malfunctions and spill-
age.
Alternative 5
Subregionalization in this alternative would require 16,900 m
[55,500 ft] of pressurized pipeline and would generally increase the -
potential for adverse effects resulting from strong tremors. A po-
tential for lurching and differential settlement or liquification
may exist between the Port Orchard aod Retsil plants and along Beach
Drive. Along Sinclair Inlet, the Pott Orchard-Manchester pipeline
may lie on the inland side of the roadway and would be protected from
wave erosion, but the large amount of fill, the softer clay deposits
of the Kitsap member (Orting formation) and the steep subtidal slopes
along the inlet would suggest that some potential exists for lurching
or differential settlement during strong tremors along the pipeline
route. A subtidal route would be subject to wave erosion. Softer
alluvial sediment of Little Clam Bay and clay deposits of the Kitsap
member underlie the pipeline route along Little Clam Bay north of the
Manchester plant.
This alternative would contain more pipeline than Alternatives
2, 3 and 4, and may have longer subtidal routes than 2 and 3. The
Manchester plant expansion would be greater than in other alterna-
tives. Overall effects upon this alternative could be greater than
those upon Alternative 2 but may be quite similar to, if not some-
what less than, the level of those on Alternatives 3 and A.
Mitigation Measures
Potential for system failures during the operation of project
facilities and associated extension of collector sewers would be
reduced by adequate soils investigations, especially for the Charles-
ton and Manchester plants in Alternatives 2-5. Facilities should
110
-------
be designed to minimize ruptures along the shore roadways north of
the Charleston, Port Orchard, Retsil and Manchester plants, where
waterlogging could endanger the stability of the roadbed. Some analy-
ses and planning should also focus on the stability of foundations
and pipelines during tremors with a horizontal acceleration of 0.5 g.
Air Quality
The present air quality in the study area is generally good to
excellent throughout the year. Because none of the project alter-
natives will contribute significant emissions of photochemical smog
components to the local air basin, there will be no adverse impact
on the region's air quality. However, the potential for localized
odor nuisances is present in the areas surrounding the various treat-
ment facilities.
Odors
Generally, properly operated sewage treatment facilities of
the proposed designs do not produce nuisance odors, nor does the di-
gested sludge. The normal condition in any well-operating treatment
plant is the production of a musty or earthy smell. While this smell
is not offensive to most people, there are some persons that are sen-
sitive to it and may consider it to be a nuisance.
Nuisance odors resulting from treatment processes or plant
operation imbalances sometimes occur because of drastic changes in
sewage quality due to shockloading, high or low pH, toxic substances
or high temperature. Also, odors may be noticed around a treatment
plant when tank trucks deliver undigested septic tank sludge, or when
a malfunction in the sewage collection system delays flows to the
plant. At the Charleston, Retsil and Manchester sites where sludge-
drying beds will be operating, odor generation may occur under warm
weather conditions. The coincidental occurrence of air stagnation,
or temperature inversion, during an odor-production episode can pre-
vent the rapid dispersal and dilution of odors, thus worsening the
degree of impact.
Table 24 summarizes the odor potentials for each of the alter-
natives and notes the land uses most likely to be affected.
Mitigation Measures
One means of reducing the likelihood of odors resulting from
sewage treatment, is to utilize air injection in all force mains con-
Ill
-------
Table 24. LAND USES IN THE VICINITY OF TREATMENT PLANTS LIKELY TO
BE AFFECTED BY POTENTIAL ODORS FROM EACH ALTERNATIVE
Treatment Plant Sites
Alternatives
Bremerton/Manette3
Bremerton/Charleston'5
Port Orchard0
Retsild
Manchester6
Alternative 2
0f
0
X
Alternative 3
0
0
X
Alternative 4
0
0
X
X
X
Alternative 5
0
0
X
^111 affect park users
''Will affect 15 to 20 residences
Srill affect commercial district
'Hull affect Veterans' Home
Slill affect residences
f0 - Anaerobic digestion proposed—Less potential for odor production
X " Aerobic digestion proposed—Greater potential for odor production
References: 3 and 56
Table 25. SITES EXPECTED TO EXPERIENCE SLUDGE TANK TRUCK TRAFFIC
AND NOISE
Alternatives
Treatment Plant Sites
Bremerton/Manette
Bremerton/Charleston Port Orchard
Retail
Mancheo _er
Alternative 2
X
X
X
X
Alternative 3
X
X
X
Alternative 4
X
X X
X
X
Alternative 5
X
X
X
-------
veying raw sewage to the treatment plant. This air injection should
guarantee that sewage influent will not be in a septic condition and
therefore will not release odors upon entering the treatment plant.
Another means is the use of deodorizing mists during period of parti-
cularly bad odor formation or during malfunctions. This method would
be particularly useful for controlling odors from anaerobic sludge
digestors at the Port Orchard and Retsil plants (Alternative 4), and
the Manchester plant (Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5), all of which uti-
lize anaerobic digestors. Transfer stations for tank trucks deliver-
ing undigested septic tank sludge should be designed to minimize sludge
contact with the air.
Hauling of liquid sludge to private operators, as discussed in
Section III - Alternative Plans, would greatly reduce the need for
drying beds and hence the odor potential.
Noise
Sewage treatment facilities are relatively quiet, and the facili-
ties under consideration should not significantly increase daytime am-
bient noise levels. However, some electric motor noise may be detected
immediately outside all facility locations at night when the ambient
noise level drops. Slight, intermittent noise episodes during the day
will be attributable to truck traffic to and from the plants. Table
25 summarizes the facility sites that would experience truck noise un-
der the four alternatives. The same land uses near the alternatives'
facility sites will be affected as are shown in Table 24.
Mitigation Measures
Landscaping techniques, including vegetation screens, berms and
fences, should be used to conceal noise sources, if not actually to
diminish the volume of their emissions. It is especially important
that such techniques be used at the Charleston and Manchester plants
under Alternatives 2 through 5, and at the Retsil plant under Alter-
native 4. These three plants are adjacent to residential and insti-
tutional land uses. In general, noise levels from treatment facili-
ties should not be allowed to exceed existing conditions by more than:
3 dBA for residential properties; 5 dBA for commercial properties; or
10 dBA for open space, agricultural or industrial properties.
Fresh Water Hydrology and Water Quality
Surface Water Hydrology
Generally there will be no new, long-term direct impacts of any
113
-------
significance to the study area's surface hydrology. The increase in
impervious surface area created during construction will produce re-
latively miniscule volumes of additional runoff. Further, the situa-
tions of the facility sites preclude basinwide, or substantial local
runoff-induced channel alterations because each sites is in close proxi-
mity to the marine shoreline. The closeness to the shoreline limits
the areas that can be affected by increased runoff to a very small
portion of each impacted basin. Lastly, there will be no direct dis-
charges into any streams from the facilities which could increase
stream flows and thus induce channel alterations.
Although the projects do not pose any long-term problems for the
study area's surface hydrology, storm flow events over the life of the
projects could conceivably cause damage to sewer lines crossing streams
particularly from such processes as streambed scouring. Damage to
sewer lines could result in the spillage of raw or partially-treated
sewage into streams. There is only a slight to moderate chance of this
type of impact occurring unless runoff volumes are increased signifi-
cantly by urban conversion of undeveloped land. This probability of
impacts is low due to the relatively mild precipitation and runoff
rates experienced in the area.
Mitigation Measures. The slight amount of additional runoff like-
ly to be generated at the facility sites will be handled by drainage
improvements designed into the individual projects. Water quality im-
pacts resulting from site specific runoff is a minor, avoidable impact.
Some new sewer lines are likely to cross creeks and streams, thus,
they will be subject to the possibility of storm runoff damage. The
facilities planner should take this impact and its water quality rami-
fications into consideration to design sewer line creek crossings with
the strength necessary to provide an adequate safety margin. This is
an avoidable impact.
Groundwater Hydrology
The hydrologic balance of each sewered basin, and possibly some
unsewered basins (see Section II-Groundwater), will continue to be ad-
versely affected, as it is now, by the exportation of extracted ground-
water to the Puget Sound marine system through treatment facility dis-
charges. This includes the deep aquifers tapped by wells in the Bre-
merton/Port Orchard area.
High groundwater levels, common throughout much of the study area,
would continue to cause infiltration problems to the existing sewer
system, and potentially for new sewers and interceptors. With the
hazards of rupture during seismic events, groundwater may be locally
contaminated by leaking sewage.
114
-------
Mitigation Measures. The land treatment and disposal concept, if
carried out in the study area, could minimally limit the volume of
water presently being exported from the area's groundwater basins
to Sinclair Inlet. The land disposal site that is considered in
the facilities plan is located outside of the study area, thus, its
use could not reduce the volume of groundwater being exported out
of the study area's groundwater basins. This strategy was considered
infeasible by the facilities planner.
In order to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination
from seismic events, the facilities would be designed to minimize
catastrophic physical damage. Since a large portion of the inter-
ceptor system will be constructed in areas subject to high ground-
water, it will be necessary for sewers to meet stringent leakage tests
following construction to help ensure against groundwater infiltration.
Surface Water Quality
A long-term effect of the expanded sewage collection and treat-
ment capabilities of the proposed project will be the reduction of
nutrients from malfunctioning septic systems which enter streams situ-
ated in urban/suburban developed drainage basins. This will be accom-
plished by increasing the number of sewer hookups in these areas and
channeling sewage to treatment facilities. By the year 2000, almost
86 percent of the population is anticipated to be sewered. This ac-
tion transfers the nutrient problem directly from the source, bypass-
ing the area's streams, to the Port Orchard Bay System.
The episodes of excessive coliform levels which have occurred
in the study area's major streams and lakes may be reduced, both in
frequency of occurrence and severity. However, the magnitude of the
beneficial effect of this or the preceding impact is dependent on
many factors, not the least of which is the total number of present
septic system users who will retire their systems and hook up to an
available sewer line.
The possibility of wastewater from sewer line ruptures dis-
charging sewage into streams was mentioned earlier in the section
on Surface Water Hydrology.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigations are necessary for benefi-
cial effects of expanded sewage collection and treatment capabilities.
Mitigations for sewer line ruptures were discussed previously in Sur-
face Water Hydrology.
115
-------
Groundwater Quality
The primary anticipated long-term impact on groundwater quality
will be a reduction in the contamination of local groundwaters by nu-
trients and pathogens released by malfunctioning septic systems. As
stated earlier, the magnitude of beneficial effect for this type of
impact is heavily dependent on the total numbers of septic system
users hooking up to an available sewer line.
Sludge-drying beds are proposed for the Charleston, Retsil and
Manchester facilities. Specific design details for sludge-drying
beds have not been made yet by the facilities planner. If the drying
beds have impermeable, lined bottoms, there will be little or no
threat to local groundwater quality. If the beds are unlined, de-
gradation of local groundwater could result to some degree. The de-
gree would be determined by such factors as the design of the beds,
the physical properties of the underlying soils, microclimatic evapo-
ration rates, the volume of supernatant in the sludge and the depth
to groundwater.
The facilities planner recommended that all sludge be dried
and disposed to a landfill. However, cost comparisons were also made
for sludge hauling distances that would be competitive with sludge-
drying and disposal. In the Facilities Plan: Volume II-Part 3, it
was determined that hauling of liquid sludge to distances of within
32 km [20 mi] of the Charleston plant and 20 km [12 mi] of the Retsil
or Manchester plants was cost competitive. This assumes that an ac-
ceptable agreement can be reached with one or more landowners' to re-
ceive liquid sludge in a storage lagoon on their property. With this
method, the sludge may be recycled to the land as a fertilizer and
soil amendment.
A liquid sludge storage lagoon and indiscriminate application
upon land surfaces may have a potential for groundwater contamination
through leaching of nitrogen and heavy metals into the soil. A degree
of impact cannot be estimated without site-specific and operational
details.
Mitigation Measures. Infiltration of dissolved solids and trace
pollutants into the groundwater table under the sludge-drying beds
can be avoided with design techniques. An impervious liner in the
drying beds will eliminate percolation and perimeter ditches around
the beds would collect any surface run-off or overflow.
Adverse effects from storing and applying liquid sludge at a
private site are more difficult to mitigate. An impervious liner
in the storage lagoon would eliminate percolation. Health and ground-
water quality hazards from sludge application would fall under the
jurisdiction of the County Department of Public Health.
116
-------
Terrestrial Environment
Operation of treatments plants or pipelines will have minimal
impacts upon vegetation or wildlife. Tolerant wildlife species will
adapt to sounds and odors associated with treatment processes. More
sensitive animals may avoid the developed and inhabited areas.
Areas that may require further consideration are the mouths of
Blackjack Creek at Port Orchard and Annapolis Creek at Retsil. These
creeks has been recorded for migratory trout and salmon runs. Con-
struction activities typically will increase turbidity, elevate water
temperatures and lead to streambed deterioration through sedimenta-
tion. This could have a potential effect if construction occurred
prior to or during salmon an trout spawning periods in the fall. Fish
losses would not be apparent for the first season or year. However,
in the following years fish productivity from that age class may be
reduced. Effluent discharge from the Retsil plant could also have a
long-term effect upon migratory trout within Annapolis Creek. The
effect of a marine outfall a short distance from the mouth of Anna-
polis Creek may have some effects upon down-migrating juvenile salmon
entering Sinclair Inlet. Chlorine residual and ammonia concentra-
tions may have an inhibitory or toxic effect upon the nearshore marine
life.
Mitigation Measures.
The water quality-related mitigations presented in the Short-
Term Impacts and Mitigation Measures section would be moderately ef-
fective in minimizing the project's long-term effects on fish pro-
ductivity. Revegetation in the unused and perimeter areas of the
facilities sites would provide some habitat for tolerant wildlife
species.
Physical Marine Environment
Waste Disposal and Water Quality
The effects of wastewater disposal upon the receiving environ-
ment are dependent upon the quality of the discharge, the dilution
it receives in the receiving water and the nature of the receiving
water. Appendix C explains the mechanism by which dilution is ac-
complished in the marine environment and clearly defines the dif-
ference between initial dilution and subsequent dispersion and flush-
ing. It is the cumulative effect of each type of dilution process
that determines the suitability of a site for treated wastewater
disposal.
117
-------
Initial Dilution at the Proposed Site
Two approaches to the calculation of initial dilution are gene-
rally used. The first approach is based on a mathematical model of
dilution produced when a buoyant plume rises in a stratified liquid,
which is in itself based on tests conducted in laboratory tanks. The
second approach is based on the continuity equation:
r = ubd
o Q
where
c
0
is
the
initial dilution
u
is
the
current speed across the diffuser, ft/sec
b
is
the
diffuser length, ft
d
is
the
effective mixing depth, ft
Q
is
the
wastewater flow rate, cfs
Irrespective of diffuser port configuration and sizing, the
maximum initial dilution can be calculated in this way on the basis
of the amount of clean water available for wastewater dilution that
is passing over the diffuser. In most situations the latter approach
provides a more reliable indicator of a site's potential from the
point of view of initial dilution.
Table 26 compares applicable water quality standards with ef-
fluent from a secondary treatment plant which has been subject to
dilutions of 10:1 and 100:1. Although this is a crude comparison
and does not take account of complex interactions between waste con-
stituents and water quality, it does demonstrate that at any dis-
posal site which experiences good initial dilution it is reasonable
to expect that secondary treatment will be sufficient to meet the
s tandards.
From Table 26 it appears that an initial dilution of 100:1
would insure compliance with bacteriological standards in the study
area.
118
-------
Table 26. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ESTIMATED DILUTED
WASTE CONCENTRATIONS
Characteristic
Estimated
waste
concentration
A
standard
Secondary effluent a
Undiluted
Diluted 10:1
Diluted 100:1
Total coliform,
70
1,000
144
68
MPN/100 ml
Dissolved oxygen,
6
3
8.7
9.2
mg/1
pH
7 - 8.5
6-9
7.9
- 8.2
7.9
Toxicity, t.u. ^
1.25
0.12
0.01
Ammonium c, mg/1
20 - 25
2 -
¦ 2.5
0.2 - 0.25
Chlorine, mg/1
0.1 - 0.5
0.0J -
0.05
0 - 0.005
Assumed background for secondary effluent is 59 MPN/3 00 ml for total
coliform; 9.3 mg/1 for dissolved oxygen; 7.9 pH value. (Reference 57) .
^Assumes dechlorination of effluent.
Can be significantly reduced by extending biological treatment
period.
Based upon information relating to the distribution of current
speeds from the University of Washington studies (Reference 20), the
following Table 27 was prepared. This table compares the percent fre-
quency the desired dilution ratio occurs at the sites. Port Orchard
Bay at Enetai has been added for comparison purposes.
Table 27. PERCENT OF TIME SITE PROVIDES 100:1
OR MORE INITIAL DILUTION3
Discharge site
Frequency
SprinR
Neap
AveraRe
Manchester
81
87
84
Port Orchard at Enetai
53
75
64
Sinclair Inlet
28
22
25
Calculated using C0 = - with b - 25 ft/MGD; d = 50 ft for Manchester;
d = 30 ft for Port Orchard at Enetai; and d = 20 ft for Sinclair Inlet.
119
-------
Dilution Due to Circulation and Flushing
Inadequate dilution and dispersal of wastewater effluent can
lead to long-term degradation of water quality and cumulative effects
upon the marine environment. In this section, the dilution and dis-
persal potential for wastewater at each site is discussed. Port. Or-
chard Bay at Enetai has been added for comparison purposes.
Puget Sound off Manchester. The outfall location was selected to
take advantage of the southerly flow toward Colvos Passage during flood
and the effect of Blake Island to the southeast. By locating the out-
fall at a depth of 42-45 m [140-150 ft], the shoal area east and south-
east of Manchester tends to direct the flow from the outfall away from
the Rich Passage flood inflow. Current speeds appear to be relative-
ly weak, commonly near 0.1 to 0.2 knot with constant flow. During ebb-
tide, a slow northerly flow can carry the dispersing plume in front of
the ebb discharge from Rich Passage with resulting effective mixing
(Reference 20). Due to its hydrodynamic characteristics and topogra-
phic position in the Puget Sound system, where eventually all the dis-
charged effluents will end, the Manchester site offers very good flush-
ing and circulation.
Sinclair Inlet. Due to the shallowness of the inlet and its
feature as a closed-end appendage to the Port Orchard System, this
area experiences weak tidal currents. The movement is bi-directional
with a slow outward transport. The hydrological simulation of this
area on a physical model such as in the University of Washington model,
has several limitations. The shallow depth of the inlet, the large
amount of shoreline and low tidal currents that are subject to wind-
driven currents affect the accuracy of the model. Model results, in
turn, are limited by surface tension and hydraulic factors associated
with the scale of the model.
In addition to the model results, information is available from
a dye study of the Charleston treatment plant outfall made on 23 and
24 January 1973 (Reference 58). Results indicated poor dispersal,
with concentrations of effluent near the diffuser. Dilution ratios
for surface samples ranged from 1.3:1 up to 2,140:1, depending on
sample location, with an overall average of 250:1. Subsurface sam-
ples indicated considerably less dilution, with an average of 5.5:1.
Additional information was gathered through a ^rogue study on
29 July 1975 (Reference 1). Three drogues were released near the out-
fall site to follow current movements at three different depths simul-
taneously. The drogues basically remained in the area of release with
drogues of different depths spreading in different directions. The
120
-------
scattering of the drogues demonstrated different water movement at
three depths giving an indication of water stratification in the area
studies. An average speed of 0.08 knot was calculated using all the
drogue data.
Evidence of stratification can also be seen in the temperature
profiles made by the University of Washington study (Reference 20).
During late summer, surface waters within Sinclair Inlet reach up to
17°C. Temperature decreases gradually with depth and may be as much
as 4° lower on the bottom. Stratification limits considerably the
amount of water available for mixing and reduces the potential for
assimilating waste discharges.
Calculation of the Sinclair Inlet dilution volume and exchange
rate is complex and would require detailed computations and exten-
sive field investigations. While quantitative data are limited on
the hydrodynamics of Sinclair Inlet, rough calculations can be made
based on comparisons with other extensively studied systems such as
the San Francisco Bay system. At the mouth of San Francisco Bay (the
Golden Gate), approximately 25 percent of the tide water is exchanged
with each tidal cycle, i.e., 25 percent of the water returning with
the tide, is new water. The exchange rate decreases with distance
from the mouth towards the extreme end of the bay. Tidal inflow in
the lower Port Orchard Bay/Sinclair Inlet system is mainly through
Rich Passage. If it were assumed that the tidal exchange at Rich
Passage near Point White (southwest tip of Bainbridge Island) was 25
percent, then a schematic diagram of the exchange rate in Sinclair
Inlet/lower Port Orchard Bay could be made as shown in Figure 21.
The percentage of tidal exchange in the system decreases greatly
west of Port Washington Narrows as shown in Figure 21. In the vicinity
of the Charleston treatment plant outfall, tidal exchange is only 2.5
percent. With two daily tidal cycles, this means that near Charleston,
5 percent of the tidal water is exchanged each day. The change in
water level between high and low tides is approximately 2.4 m [8 ft].
If an average depth of 12 m [40 ft] were assumed in Sinclair Inlet,
then the tidal prism (water volume difference between tides) would be
about one-fifth of the inlet volume. Thus total tidal exchange vol-
ume in Sinclair Inlet is one percent. The facilities planner has es-
timated the inlet volume to be 1600 times the effluent discharge flow.
Thus the dilution of effluent to the volume of the inlet would reach
1:16 as wastewater discharges accumulate and attain an equilibrium
level with Sinclair Inlet hydrography.
In actuality, the tide exchange rate at lower Port Orchard Bay
is probably less than 25 percent, which would slightly increase the
final ratio of wastewater to Sinclair Inlet volume. However, this
represents a reasonable estimate that cannot be refined without fur-
ther field work such as dye studies and current metering.
121
-------
4 5 6 7 B
Kilometers from Point White
FIGURE 21 TIDAL EXCHANGE IN SINCLAIR INLET/
LOWER PORT ORCHARD BAY
Due to the foregoing assessments and the fact that Sinclair In-
let is one of the farthest points from the Port Orchard circulation
and exit to Puget Sound, the potential of this area for waste disposal
is considered only fair.
Port Orchard at Enetai. Tidal currents at this site are strong-
ly influenced by flood flows surging through Rich Passage and Port
Washington Narrows. To a lesser degree, tidal movements in Sinclair
Inlet have an effect upon the site at Port Orchard. Initially currents
are southerly toward Sinclair Inlet. When the flood flow from Rich
Passage reaches the site, there is a quick shift towards the north
followed by energetic mixing both vertically and horizontally. During
the ebb period, the area is quiet as it is bypassed by the flow from
Sinclair Inlet. An outfall at this site should extend toward the mid-
dle of the Port Orchard Channel to take advantage of the additional
flushing.
Currents are light during the ebbtide and the initial stage of
the flood tide, but increase rapidly to 0.7 to 0.8 knots when the
flood from Rich Passage reaches the site.
It is possible that some part of the dispersion plume can reach
into Port Washington Narrows. It is fairly well accepted, however,
122
-------
that much of the diluted effluent would effectively exit through Rich
Passage during the ebbtide. Due to its closeness to the exit from the
system and to its hydrodynamic characteristics, this site is potenti-
ally good for waste disposal through a marine outfall.
Mitigation Measures—
It is expected that with typical municipal wastewaters and
normal, uneventful opei J . i'i of the proposed wastewater treatment fa-
cility, the impacts upon marine water quality from treated effluent
discharge to an appropriate site would be minimal. Proper facility
design will result in appropriate pollutant reductions and minimize
the potential for mishaps, and operation of the facility by properly
trained personnel will further safeguard the environment. Mitigation
to lessen the adverse effects of wastewater outfalls are centered a-
round the outfall design. A single port diffuser, as is found on the
majority of the outfalls in the planning area discharges effluent in
a single stream. Effluent with low initial 'dilution could have a
shock impact on marine organisms near the diffuser. A well-designed
multiple-port diffuser would greatly mitigate this effect allowing
wastewater effluent to be diluted greatly.
Optimum outfall diffuser design, as discussed above, would great-
ly reduce initial effluent pollutant concentrations and lessen the
impacts on water quality and marine organisms. Uncertainty as to the
ability of Sinclair Inlet to accept wastewater discharges over the
long-term indicates the need for further examination. Mitigation of
long-term effects upon Sinclair Inlet should consider further com-
parative investigations with other sites - particularly Enetai - be-
fore a final decision is reached.
Biological Marine Environment
Effluent discharge from outfalls will be a continuous process
during the life of the treatment facilities. Continued discharge of
primary-treated effluent under Alternative 1 will perpetuate the pre-
sent bacterial contamination problems which cause Sinclair Inlet to be
closed to shellfish harvesting. Effluent quality will be upgraded
in Alternatives 2-5. Impacts discussed below apply only to the cur-
rent upgrading.
Effects Upon Marine Biota
Effluent discharges will affect marine benthic fauna and flora.
The effects of the effluent on the benthic community should be limi-
ted in area. Due to physical characteristics of the effluent such as
salinity and density, the outfall plumes rise at a rapid rate from the
123
-------
outfall ports. A very limited bottom (benthic) area is exposed to
effluent, resulting in restricted, site-specific, benthic impacts at
each outfall location. The discharge will most likely limit the sett-
ling and colonization by new organisms rather than affecting existing
outfall site inhabitants.
A review of the toxicity of trace constituents found in treated
wastewater is shown in Table 28. Heavy metals can strongly affect
some benthic organisms; specifically, copper and lead are toxic to oy-
sters and total phosphorus affects the polychaete worm, nereis grubei.
Oysters are generally not present at the 2k m [80 ft] depth at which
the effluent will be discharged at Manchester but are present in Clam
Bay immediately north of Manchester. Oysters are not found in great
numbers in Sinclair Inlet, although they are harvested in Dyes Inlet.
The concentrations of copper and lead in the full-strength effluent
are below the toxic level shown in Table 28. Design of the outfall to
achieve high initial dilution will greatly minimize the concentration.
The phosphorus concentration in undiluted effluent exceeds the toxic
level for N. grubei, but the presence of this benthic community indi-
cator species has not been established at the outfall sites. Toxic
effects upon other benthic polychaete species are reduced because the
wastewater plume would not directly contact the bottom habitat.
The effluent, as it rises to the surface, will change the water
quality in the mixing zone. Fish in the mixing zone which contact the
effluent directly above the diffuser could encounter nearly undiluted
concentrations, while fish swimming closer to the surface will be ex-
posed to a greatly diluted effluent.
As shown in Table 28, domestic effluent constituents in undi-
luted concentrations that are known to be toxic to fish are aluminum,
ammonia and chlorine. Ammonia is the greatest concern in the initial
dilution zone as effluent concentrations of 27 mg/1 greatly exceed the
maximum level to fish of 1 mg/1. Initial concentrations of ammonia
near the outfall may present a shock hazard to aquatic life. Outfall
design maximizing diffusion and dilution would reduce the potential
shock effect. Chlorine residual is another parameter of concern where
effluent concentrations of 1.0 mg/1 exceed the 0.1 mg/1 toxicity level
to coho salmon. Chlorine dissipates rapidly in the marine environment,
but nevertheless is of concern due to potential toxic effects at lower
levels to juvenile fish and marine algae. The practice of heavy chlo-
rination of effluent for disinfection causes chlorine residual to be
of greater concern than heavy metals in the initial mixing zone.
The nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus in various forms that
will be present in the effluent will stimulate phytoplankton growth.
Increased primary productivity through phytoplankton numbers widen
the base of the food chain and can result in more herbivorous and car-
nivorous animals supported by the food web. Overstimulation can cause
124
-------
Table 28. TOXIC LEVELS OF CONSTITUENTS ON MARINE LIFE
Constituent
Full strength
concentration
Concentration
in ambient sea
water
Toxic level
Organism
Suggested
maximum
level
Ammonia
1.35 nig/1
-
1.0 mg/1 59
3.4 mg/1 61
Fish3
Bluegill Sunfish
01 "S/1 60
0.3 mg/1 6Q
Phosphorous
(total)
10.0 mg/1
0.07 mg/1
0.92 mg/1 62
Nereis grubei
Mercury
0.001 rag/1
0.00003 mg/1
0-9 mg/1 59
Phytoplanktona
0.009 mg/1 g9
Zinc
0.12 ppm
0.01 mg/1
1.9 mg/1 59
Steelhead
0.019 mg/1 5g
Calcium
30.5 mg/1
400 mg/1
S00 mg/1 63) 64
Stickleback
-
Iron
1.3 ppm
0.01 mg/1
-
-
0.3 mg/1 5g
Copper
0.025 mg/1
0.003 mg/1
1 9 me/1 65
Oysters*5
0 05 mg/1 66
Chlorine
1.0 mg/1
0.1 mg/1 67
Coho Salmon*5
0.01 mg/1
Magnesium
15.5 mg/1
1.4 mg/1
300 mg/1
Stickleback
30.0 mg/1 59
Aluminum
0.31 ppm
0.01 mg/1
0.3 mg/1 6Q
Stickleback
1.5 mg/1
Lead
0.02 ppm
0.00003 mg/1
0.5 mg/1 5g
Eastern Oyster
0.02 mg/1 53
Manganese
0 22 ppm
0.002 mg/1
0.4 mg/1 68
Coho Salmon0
1.0 mg/1 66
Cadmium
0.003 ppm
0 00011 mg/1
0.01 mg/1 66
Fishb
0.0003 mg/1
Chromium
0.043 ppm
0.00005 mg/1
17.8 mg/1 69
Coho Salmon3
0.05 mg/1 66
Cyanide
0.5 ppm
-
0.05-0.1 mg/1 7Q
Fishb
0.025 mg/1 ^3
Nickel
0.016 ppm
0.002 mg/1
0.8 mg/1 63
Sticklebacks
0.1 rag/1 5g
Silver
0.006 ppm
0.0003 mg/1
0.003 rag/1
Sticklebacks
0.005 mg/1 6Q
Arsenic
0.01 ppm
0.003 mg/1
5.3 mg/1 n
Salmon
0.5 mg/1 6Q
Fluorides
0 2 mg/1
1.3 mg/1
2.3-7.3 mg/1 72
Troutb
1 5 mg/1 6fi
Various Limitations
(96 hr) Median Tolerance Limit: 50 percent survival of test organisms in 96 hours.
°TLM (24 hours).
-------
a gross imbalance in this primary productivity level. Subsequent die-
off and decay of excess phytoplankton cells can consume large amounts
of dissolved oxygen leaving critically low levels for fish and inver-
tebrates. The hydrography of the outfall location will play a signi-
ficant part in determining whether the nutrients from the outfalls
have a potential to initiate or contribute to the intensity of a phy-
toplankton bloom.
Computer modeling of algal concentrations, as measured by chlo-
rophyll a levels, was conducted by the facilities planner with the aid
of the EPA Ecologic Model. The general model runs are discussed in
Appendix E of the Sinclair Inlet Facilities Plan. The model indicates
that secondary effluent outfalls at Sinclair Inlet and Port Orchard
would demonstrate two stages. In the first stage, as the newly up-
graded effluent is discharged, nutrient levels would be lower and al-
gal blooms would be less intense. In the second stage, as the Port
Orchard system equilibrates and greater volumes of effluent are dis-
charged, algal blooms would recur with similar or greater intensity
as before the upgrading of the effluent quality. This tends to show
a widespread nutrient problem in the Port Orchard system from multiple
sources aside from treatment plant effluents at Sinclair Inlet. The -
Ecologic Model was not simulated for a regional Manchester discharge
or the absence of discharges with a land application strategy. Model-
ling under these conditions would have simulated Sinclair Inlet con-
ditions with no wastewater discharges. Data from these model condi-
tions could confirm or discredit pollutant effects from outside the
system or to nonpoint sources.
It should further be pointed out that the Ecologic Model of
Puget Sound was set up to simulate nutrient and algal concentrations
for this study. No calibration or simulation was made for potential
toxic constituents such as heavy metals or pesticides. After effluent
has been diluted to an equilibrium level in Sinclair Inlet, accumu-
lation of the trace toxic constituents, as discussed from Table 28, be-
comes of important concern.
Mitigation Measures
Design of the wastewater outfall, particularly the diffuser
system, would lessen adverse effects in the initial effluent mixing
zone. Placement of outfalls in localities with optimal water move-
ment would aid in the dispersion of toxic constituents. With the Man-
chester outfall, no further changes from present conditions are needed.
For outfalls into Sinclair Inlet (Charleston and Retsil) fur-
ther consideration prior to finalization of outfall locations may be
desired. Facilities plan improvements to the system are intended ba-
sically to meet Washington Class A Standards. Quantitative limits
are set for coliform bacteria and several physical-chemical water
126
-------
quality parameters. Toxic constituent levels are recommended to the
level necessary to meet public health standards. However, no quanti-
tative standards have been set to protect marine organisms. As in-
formation on present and projected toxic constituents is limited, de-
velopment of a more comprehensive information base is recommended.
Calibration of this information into the Ecologic Model and computa-
tion of projected levels would aid in the determination of long-term
maintenance and enhancement of marine productivity.
General operational impacts of the alternative projects would
have little direct long-term impact upon the resources of the study
area, but some secondary effects within the sanitary collection sys-
tem may in turn adversely affect archaeological, historical and other
cultural resources. The increased treatment capacity of the plants
in Alternatives 2-5 would allow the construction of new sanitary sewer
lines. Excavations in the existing urban areas of Bremerton and Port
Orchard may encounter some historic remains, while along the shore-
lines and along creek valleys a potential for encountering subsurface
archaeological remains would be moderate to high.
Mitigation Measures
Extensions in the present service area may adversely affect
significant archaeological resources. These effects cannot be miti-
gated through this project and would largely fall under the juris-
dictions of local authorities at the time of sewer line extension.
Long-Term Employment
Operation and maintenance of the Manette and Charleston plants
currently require 13 persons. Port Orchard requires a half-time worker
and Retsil, one person. Below are the additional manpower requirements
projected for each alternative (Reference 1).
Archaeological, Historical and Cultural Resources
Socio-Cultural and Economic Effects
Alternative
Additional Jobs Required
1
2
3
4
5
0
15.5
13
19.5
15
127
-------
Considering the unemployment situation in Kitsap County, the
addition of these jobs can be considered a beneficial impact. No
mitigation measures are required.
Long-Term Business Activity
Operation and maintenance costs for the completed project will
generate little or no new income for the Kitsap County economy. As
a consequence, net change in overall business activity as a direct
result of the project is expected to be negligible. No mitigation
measures are required.
Land and Property Values
It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed pro-
ject will have a significant, long-term effect on surround land val-
ues. Construction will occur in an economic environment of rising
property values. With the provision of adequate sewerage to the study
area, numerous malfunctioning septic tanks will be eliminated. These-
improvements will tend to further increase property values in the ser-
vice area because adequate sewerage is limited elsewhere in the study
area. These generalized effects will occur with Alternatives 2-5. No
sewer improvements in Alternative 1 (no-action) would lead to a lower
rate of appreciation, maintenance or lowering of property values in
areas with septic problems.
If architecture and landscaping compatible with the area are in-
corporated into project designs, undesirability associated with the
plants will be reduced. All major plant construction will occur at
sites where treatment plants have existed for many years. Any poten-
tial reduction in surrounding land values associated with sewer treat-
ment has alread been absorbed by the neighborhoods. Although expanded
facilities will generate sludge at a faster rate, it is anticipated
that collection and disposal will become more efficient. Thus, long-
term impacts can be generally positive, if the existing facilities'
aesthetic problems are adequately redressed during the implementation
of the project. Specific effects on property value for alternatives
requiring significant changes in land use are presented below:
Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. Expansion of the Charleston facility
requires the removal of six homes. Construction of new buildings,
tanks and sludge drying beds may affect the value of the 15 close
neighbors. In general, the treatment facility is partly shielded from
sites in a trough and no homes will be immediately adjacent to the
facilities due to the steep hills to the east and west. The presence
of the plant probably will not cause property value to decrease, al-
though their value may increase at a slower rate than other areas in
Bremerton. No significant property value effects will occur at the
Retsil or Manchester sites.
128
-------
Alternative 4. Similar impacts for the Charleston, Retsil and
Manchester sites, as mentioned in Alternatives 2, 3 and 5, would occur.
At the Manette site, up to 25 homes would be removed presenting a sig-
nificant impact on land values. The presence of a moderately large
treatment facility in the midst of a residential neighborhood would
also negatively affect property values. Expansion at the Port Orchard
site would require the conversion of shorefront commercial footage.
Decrease in commercial land may cause the remaining commercial area
to increase slightly in value. However, potential land use would be
limited to that compatible with a treatment facility.
Mitigation Measures. The adverse effects on property values will
be mitigated in large part by the changes described in the section
dealing witn Aesthetic Impact.
Property Tax Revenues
Property tax impacts are expected to be minimal. Land purchased
for expansion at the various locations will be tax exempt, thereby
reducing revenue collections. However, some parcels currently be-
ing considered are already exempt. It is misleading therefore to as-
sume that tax effects will parallel the land costs presented in the
facilities plan.
The KCSD No. 5 (Retsil/Annapolis) facility is located on federal
property. The land surrounding the Port Orchard plant is not generat-
ing tax revenue. Some of the land at Charleston is presently owned
by the Humane Society and by the State of Washington.
Table 29 presents the potential loss in assessed valuation at
Charleston, Manchester and Manette for each alternative. Correspond-
ing reductions in tax revenue are estimated using 1977 tax rates for
each location. The amounts are so small that no single jurisdiction
will lose a noticeable amount. However, comparison between the al-
ternatives indicates that Alternative h will result in a much greater
impact.
No mitigation measures are applicable.
Loans, Bonds and Subsidies
Ninety percent of project capital costs, other than land costs
will be borne by state and federal grants. The federal government
will assume 75 percent of grant eligible costs and the state will bear
15 percent. The Washington State Department of Ecology, acting as the
state's 201 grant review agency, requires compliance with both state
and federal requirements before certifying a project's eligibility.
129
-------
Table 29. PROPERTY TAX EFFECTS
Alternative
Facility
2
3
4
5
Charleston
Assessed Valuation
Reduction $26,400a
Tax Rateb $16.3893
Loss of Revenue $ 433
$42,100a 0 $26,400a
$16.3893 $16.3893
$ 690 $ 433
Manchester
Assessed Valuation
Reduction 0
Tax Rateb
Loss of Revenue
0 0 $31,000C
$16,232
$ 503
Manette
Assessed Valuation
0 0 $1,036,000°
Tax Rateb $ 15.7023
Loss of Revenue 16,270
Total Loss of Revenue
to All Jurisdictions $ 433 $ 690 $ 16.270 $ 936
Actual Assessed Valuation of parcels under consideration.
k$/$1000 of Assessed Valuation
c
Estimate per CH2M Hill based on average of assessed valuation of
nearby land. Actual parcels have not been selected.
Sources: References 34, 36 and 73.
130
-------
The capital costs of the Charleston treatment plant and trans-
mission facilities will be partially funded by the U.S. Navy to cover
the needs of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS). Granting agencies
will not provide funds to cover the capital obligations of the PSNS.
Consequently, the cost sharing for the Bremerton facilities must in-
clude the U.S. Navy as a major contributor.
The facilities planner estimated for Alternative 2, that the
U.S. Navy share was approximately $1,100,000 in inflated 1980 dollars.
Based on a rough estimate that 1980 costs are about 20 percent higher
than 1977 costs, the Navy share would be approximately $900,000 in
January 1977 dollars. The final cost to be shared by the Navy will
be the result of direct negotiations among the EPA, City of Bremerton
and the Navy.
Kitsap County and the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard will
issue revenue bonds to finance the local share of costs. Repayment of
the debt will be guaranteed from the collection of user charges, which
will be adjusted to meet debt service, and bond covenants. If these
bonds were issued in the current market, it is estimated that they
would bear tax-free interest at 7 percent. Retirement of the bonds
would begin two to three years after issuance and continue until all
had been paid off in 25 years. Collection would be adjusted to allow
for creation of a reserve account to include coverage of one year of
debt service. If covenants are similar to those of current issues,
annual coverage of debt by 140 percent would be required. There is
no limitation on the amount of revenue bonds that may be issued (Re-
ferences 74 and 75).
Municipal Service Costs
It is not anticipated that operation of any of the alternative
plans will create measurable impacts on any municipal services. On-
going costs to finance and operate the new facilities will be paid by
sewer customers through hook-up and user charges. No estimates for
one-time connections have been made (Reference 36). Table 30 presents
current service rates and estimated increases associated with each
alternative.
Utility Services
Natural Gas. Currently, only the Manette, Charleston and Retsil
plants use natural gas for space heating. Total consumption at the
three plants in ]976 was approximately 19,600 m3 [700,000 cu ft], as
shown in Table 31. The Manchester area has no natural gas service.
The treatment facility there uses fuel soil supplied by private com-
panies, as does the Port Orchard treatment plant. In all five facili-
131
-------
Table 30. CURRENT SEWAGE SERVICE RATES
AND PROJECTED INCREASES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT
Current Approximate Monthly Household
Monthly Rate Increase3
Household Alternative
Entity
Fee
2
3
4
5
Bremerton
$5.25b
$1.50
$1.50
$1.90
$1.50
Port Orchard
5.50
2.40d
2.00C
3.10d
3.001
KCSD //3 (Manchester)
5.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.10
KCSD (Retsil/Annapolis)
5.25
2.40
2.00
2.50
3.00
Rates are quoted as of May 1976, but were confirmed by telephone, April 1977.
Rates do not include cost of rehabilitating local collection systems.
k$2.25 for houses built prior to 1968.
Rate established assuming that Port Orchard and KCSD //5 are one entity
for the purpose of computing rates. If rates are established separ-
ately, the estimated increase is $2.10 per household.
^Assumes Port Orchard and KCSD //5 are one entity for the purpose of computing
rates.
-------
Table 31. TOTAL AND PEAK-MONTH GAS CONSUMPTION
MANETTE, CHARLESTON AND RETSIL TREATMENT PLANTS, 1976
TOTAL 1976
PEAK-MONTH
kja
cu ft
kj
cu ft
FACILITY
Manette
Charleston
Retsil
516,600 489,700
167,500 158,800
65,000 61,700
167,000 161,100 (January)
40,900 38,800 (December)
11,000 10,400 (February)
Total Yearly
Usage
749,300 710,200
al kilojoule (kj) = 0.95 British thermal unit (Btu)
Source: Reference 76.
ties, the methane produced by the anaerobic process is used as fuel to
heat the digester, reducing dependence on other fuels (References 1
and 76).
While the Manette treatment plant would be deactivated under
Alternative 2, there would be an increase in gas consumption for space
heating at both Charleston and Retsil. For example, it is estimated
that total heating capacity at the Charleston plant might be increased
from the present 790,000 kj [750,000 Btu] to approximately 1,850,000
kj [1,750,000 Btu]. Total heating capacity and gas consumption would
be considerably less at Retsil, though increased over present levels
(References 1 and 76). The Manchester facility would continue to use
fuel oil for space heating until population pressures warrant extend-
ing natural gas service to the area. Construction of possibly 100-150
new homes in the area, for example, would justify installation costs.
Continued use of anaerobic digesters would still provide methane used
for digester tank heating.
Alternative 5 would have approximately the same consumption at
Charleston as Alternative 2. Natural gas would not be required at
Manette or Retsil. If Alternative 3 is adopted, total gas consumption
at Charleston would probably be increased somewhat over the estimate
for Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would involve only moderate increases
133
-------
over present levels of usage at Charleston, Manette and Retsil (Re-
ferences 36 and 76).
Cascade Natural Gas Company advises that the anticipated in-
creases in consumption, regardless of whice alternative i6 chose,
would not constitute a significant impact on the gas utility system
Reference 76).
Mitigation measures include consideration of the use of methane
for space heating at the Charleston, Retsil and Manchester plants to
eliminate or reduce the consumption of natural gas and fuel oils.
Electricity. Present annual energy consumption at the five ex-
isting treatment plants is shown in Table 32. These figures do not
include consumption at the existing pump stations. The two Bremerton
plants are served by lines having a total of 28 lift stations, with
an average demand of approximately 7 kw. Their total consumption is
estimated at 480,000 kwh per year. The Retsil/Port Orchard and Man-
chester areas have fewer stations with a total estimated consumption -
of approximately 400,000 kwh per year. Thus, the present total con-
sumption for all existing treatment facilities and auxiliary pump sta-
tions is approximately 1.2 million kwh per year (References 45 and 77).
Table 32. PRESENT ANNUAL CONSUMPTION
(March 1976 - March 1977)
Treatment Plant*
Consumption (kwh/yr)
Charleston
Manette
Port Orchard
Retsil
Manchester
23,360
21,960
86,484
109,760
60,640
TOTAL:
302,204
Figures do not include existing pumping stations.
Source: References 45 and 77.
134
-------
Total consumption for Alternative 2 has been estimated at approxi-
mately 4.2 million kwh per year. This approximation is based on
the year 2000 design flow for a study area population of 89,000, of
which approximately 87 percent (78,000) would have sewer service.
Implementation of Alternative 2 might therefore increase total elec-
trical consumption by a factor of 3.5, on the basis of the estimate
presented in Table 33. Since this figure is based on design flow,
it represents a conservative (high) projection.
Estimates of total consumption for the remaining alternatives
(3-5) are not available. However, an approximation can be made by
comparing recent and earlier estimates for Alternative 2. The total
of 4.2 million kwh per year for Alternative 2 (Table 33) reflects
recent downward revisions in population projections. In addition,
projections of energy consumption have been considerably reduced below
earlier estimates as a result of design changes aimed at energy con-
servation. Table 34 presents an earlier estimate of average demand
at design flow for alternatives 2-5 for a sewered population of
85,000 in the year 1990. As indicated by a comparison with Table 33,
total consumption for Alternative 2 may be as much as 40 percent less
than originally anticipated for a population approximately 8 percent
smaller than the earlier projection.
If a similar reduction factor is applied to the 1990 projections
for Alternatives 3-5, one can derive order-of magnitude estimates of
consumption for these alternatives for a sewered population of 78,000
in the year 2000 (See Table 35).
Table 33. ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION, ALTERNATIVE 2, YEAR 2000
(Population served: 78,000)
fnctlitj
Treatment Plant
Annual
Average Demand Consumption
(kv) (mill kwh/yr)
Pumping Stations
Totfl I
Charleston
Manchester
Retail
422
63
260
625
Annual
Average Demand Consumption
(kw) (mill, kwh/yr)
2.195
0 283
1.195
3 673
90
10
100
0 465
o__ofL
0 545
Annual
Average Demand Consumption
(kw) (mill, kwh/yr)
512
4 3
170
77 5
1 bf>
0 283
1.28
4 22
Source: Reference 36
135
-------
Table 34. ESTIMATED TOTAL ELECTRICAL POWER
DEMAND AND CONSUMPTION, ALTERNATIVES 2-5, YEAR 1990
(Average demand in kw for a population of 85,000)
/
Treatment Plant*
fhirleston
Manette
Port Orchard
Retail
Manchester
Subtotal
Additional Pumping Stations
Manette to Bremerton
Tort Orchard to Charleston
Port Orchard to Retsll
Retail to Port Orchard
Retsll to Manchester
Subtotal
TOTAL DEMAND
Alternatives
2
520
165
60
745
70
75
820
3
600
__60
660
70
10
85
7^5
300
300
95
80
60
835
835
5
570
190
710
70
JO
J 25
835
'lotal ConsumprIon
(mtlllon kwh/yr)
7 2
6.6
7.6
7.4
~Figures Include pumping stations on existing lines
Sources References 1 and 36
Table 35. ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION, ALTERNATIVES 3-5,
YEAR 2000 (Population served: 78,000)
Approximate Total Annual Consumption
Alternative (million kwh/yr.)
3 4.0
4 4.4
5 4.4
136
-------
For purposes of comparison, it is estimated (Reference 36) that
if all existing plants were upgraded to provide secondary treatment
(Alternative 4), total electricity consumption would be approximately
three to four times the present annual total of 1.2 million kwh. The
calculation yields a range of 3.6 to 4.8 million kwh/year, which cor-
responds closely to the estimate in Table 35.
On the basis of the revised population figures, it would appear
that all of the proposed alternatives (2-5) would involve significant
consumption of electrical energy, totaling 4.0 - 4.4 million kwh/year.
Puget Sound Power and Light Company advised that a total peak de-
mand of up to 5,000 kw could be handled without difficulty by the elec-
tric utility (Reference 45). Even on the basis of the earlier average-
demand estimates shown in Table 34, it would appear that the proposed
project will not have a significant impact, regardless of the alterna-
tive adopted.
Mitigation Measures. Energy-efficient facilities design would
reduce energy consumption. Original estimates of usage have been cut
substantially as a result of design recommendations specifying less
power-consumptive processes and alternatives. For example, original
plans assumed complete-mix activated sludge processes at all locations
(Reference 36). Aerobic digestion was also considered. In addition,
it was formerly thought that retaining present combined storm drains
and providing greater plant capacity to handle stormwater inflow would
be more cost-effective than constructing separate storm drains. Re-
vised plans recommend separating storm and sewer drains for reasons
of cost as well as lower energy requirements for pumping (References
36 and 78).
Storm Drain Systems. Combined stormwater and sanitary sewers are
being gradually replaced with separate systems throughout the study
area. For example, in Bremerton, where the only substantial lengths
of combined lines remain, all new development or remodeling projects
must provide both storm and sewer drains. The proposed project (Al-
ternatives 2-5) will probably involve one or more major additional
projects to install separate stormwater drains, in order to redue or
eliminate inflow from this source to the sewage treatment plants. Thus
the direct effect of any one of the above alternatives would be to ac-
celerate the separation and upgrading of storm drains. The "No Action"
alternative, on the other hand, would result in continue deterioration
of the present combined systems, wehre these still exist (References
36 and 78). No mitigation measures are applicable for Alternatives
2-5.
137
-------
Recreation Facilities
In general, all the alternatives except the "No Action" alter-
native would have a beneficial effect on the area's recreational
facilities by removing or greatly reducing pollution sources. Speci-
fically, Alternative 2 would provide secondary treatment at Manchester
Retsil and Charleston, with Port Orchard and Manette becoming pump
stations. The quality of the effluent discharged into Puget Sound at
the Manchester boating pier and into Sinclair Inlet at Annapolis
would be greatly improved. The source of pollution at the Port Or-
chard marina would be removed altogether. The park adjacent to the
Manette plant would also benefit from the transformation of that site
to a pumping station (with possible retention of the existing plant
as a standby facility). The quality of water in Sinclair Inlet,
itself a recreational area, would be upgraded.
In addition to the benefits mentioned above, Alternative 3 would
replace the Retsil plant with a pump station, improving the boating
facilities there. The proposed pipeline from Ross Point, on the soujth
side of Sinclair Inlet> to Retsil would run parallel to the bicycle
path planned to follow the shoreline (Reference 38). Neither construc-
tion nor maintenance of the pipeline would affect use of the bike path
however, since installation is to be in the tide flats (Reference 36).
Alternative 4 would provide for secondary treatment plants at
a]1 existing facility sites. This alternative would improve the qua-
lity of receiving waters in the Port Orchard system and offshore at
Manchester. Treatment plants and outfall areas would remain near the
three boating areas mentioned under Alternative 2. In addition, ex-
pansion and upgrading of the Manchester facility would probably in-
volve encroachment into adjacent park lands.
Mitigation Measures
Expansion plans for the Manchester facility should be compactly
designed to minimize any expansion into adjacent park land.
Aesthetic Impact. All five, existing treatment plants are relatively
inconspicuous, low-lying, neutral-colored buildings, and the proposed
new plants will be of similar designs.
Alternatives 3 and 5 offer an aesthetic improvement in compati-
bility of land uses, because both alternatives involve reductions in
the number of outfall sites and replacement of three treatment plants
with pump stations. Alternative 2 also would reduce the number of
138
-------
outfall sites and replace two treatment plants, but it involves
replacement of the Retsil plant with a larger facility. Although
Alternative 4 involves upgrading or replacing existing facilities,
the number of outfall sites and treatment plants will remain the same
Alternatives 3 and 5 offer a slight improvement over existing
viewer obstructions at Port Orchard and Retsil. There would be no
improvement, and perhaps even a worsening in visual obstructions at
Retsil site under Alternative 2, because of the replacement of the
existing facility with a larger one. Alternative A would offer no
improvements in the existing, visually obstructed conditions.
Noise, odors and visible emissions presently occurring will be
reduced under all alternatives except no project.
LONG-TERM INDIRECT IMPACTS
Most of the impacts examined in this section are not mitigable
through actions by EPA, thus they should be considered unavoidable.
The ramifications of these and other unavoidable adverse impacts will
be examined in subsequent sections.
Long-term indirect impacts of Alternatives 2 through 5 would be
similar. These impacts would result from construction and operation
of residential, commercial, public, institutional and industrial struc-
tures, and their attendant infrastructure of roads, utilities and
flood control measures. Most new construction would be dependent up-
on provision of sewage collection and treatment facilities. Because
of severe limitations and past problems in many areas, existing resi-
dential areas would also require adequate sewage facilities. Lack
of these facilities, as in the no action alternative, would limit fu-
ture construction in the planning areas.
Examination of existing and future land uses within the planning
area can yield estimates of the possible indirect impacts that may
be attributable to new growth. A general estimate of such impacts is
derived from the projected population, proportion of sewered and sep-
tic tank usage, number of persons per dwelling, and the number of
dwellings per hectare (acre). In the general Bremerton area, a 1975
population of 50,754 persons would grow to 57,900 persons with sani-
tary sewers in 2000.
In 1975, residences for approximately 12,500 persons were served
by individual septic tanks, most of which would be replaced by sewers
by 1980 (Reference 1). Therefore, in the period 1975 to 1980, new
sewer service would be primarily to existing residences.
139
-------
In the period 1980-2000, the net new population to be served in
the Bremerton area will be approximately 7,174 persons. Assuming an
average of three to four persons per dwelling, the total number of
new dwellings constructed between 1975 and 2000 would be 1,790-2,390,
respectively. With an average density of 10-12 units/ha [4-5 units/
ac], approximately 200-300 ha [500-750 ac] of land would be converted
from unstructured to residential uses in the Bremerton service area.
Additional land would also be required for public facilities, especi-
ally roaus, and commercial-industrial service and employment uses. A
general estimate of 300-600 ha [750-1500 ac] of conversion would oc-
cur within the Bremerton service area by the year 2000. Some conver-
sion would involve "in-filling" within open lands of the urban area,
while additional open lands around t"he perimeter of the three basins
would also be converted. Table 36 summarizes the population growth,
the serviced population and dwellings and the estimated land conver-
sion for the Bremerton, Port Orchard and Manchester-Waterman service
areas of the proposed alternatives.
Table 36. PLANNING AREA POPULATION GROWTH AND LAND CONVERSION
Service area
1975 total
population
2000 sewered
population
Net new
poDulation
New
dwellLnss
Convertec
hect.ire>"
Bremerton-Wildcat
Lake Dyes Inlet
50,754
57,928
7 ,174a
1794-2391b
150-239
Corse
1,945
0
0
0
0
Port Orchard/
Retsil
14,076
16,730
2,664
666-888
56-89
Manchester/Water-
man
2,525
3,288
1,763
441-588
37-59
aAssumes existing unsewered population would be sewered between 1975 and
2000.
^Assumes four to three persons per dwelling, respectively.
CAssumes twelve to ten dwelling per hectare, respectively.
The conversion of 490-780 ha [12000-1950 ac] for new residential
land uses does not include area for roads, utilities, public areas, com-
mercial areas and industrial employment areas. The overall conversions
for future growth would probably involved more than 900 ha [2300 ac] of
land within existing sewered areas and system expansion areas.
140
-------
Soils and Geology
Future growth and land conversion, permitted by additional sewer-
age capability, will have indirect effects upon the geological and soil
resources of the planning area. Within the Bremerton, Port Orchard/
Retsil and Waterman/Manchester areas, a new population of 20,000 per-
sons would require about 5,000 to 6,700 new structures and a n'ew area
of about 490-780 [1200-1950 ac]. These new structures would require
suitable open land and construction materials, such as sand, aggregate
and soil. The demand for these soil and mineral resources will require
extraction and mining in other areas of the county and state.
New residential construction of 2,900 to 3,900 dwellings and utili-
ties, roads, public/institutional offices, parks/recreational facili-
ties and commercial structures would produce considerable areas of bare
ground during construction and impervious surface during operations.
During construction, frequent rain storms could erode the exposed soils
and soft bedrock. In early construction phases, sediment may pass in-
to surrounding undisturbed lands and be deposited. However, when storm
drains, streets and gutters are in place, eroded sediment would be con-
veyed directly into the receiving waterbodies. This could result in
an annual loss of thousands of cubic metres of soil resource from the
upland areas.
During the next 20-25 years, at least one strong tremor may occur
in the southern Puget Sound area, following the historic frequency of
three strong tremeors in the last 30 years. The increased, structural
land uses, such as bridges, underground utilities, storm drains, and
residences on steep slopes and waterlogged ground may provide suitable
conditions for increases in seismic damages, equal to or greater than
that for existing land uses.
Water Resources
Surface Water Resources
The most significant effect of growth upon surface water resources
will be an increase in impervious surfaces and resultant runoff as
more undeveloped land is converted to urban uses. Because Kitsap Coun-
ty's development policies encourage relatively dense forms of develop-
ment to take place in existing developed and serviced areas, surface
water impacts of a greater magnitude will occur in these areas. In
addition, these development policies will allow such impacts of lesser
magnitude to occur in the developing urban fringe.
141
-------
An increase in impervious surfaces will lead to greater surface
water runoff and subsequent effects on local watersheds and drainage
channels. These effects are likely to include stream channel scouring,
stream bank and bottom erosion, and gullying. Storm runoff would quick-
ly pass into the creeks by way of gutters, culverts and storm drains>
and would increase channel velocities and flood stages in the upland
areas. Increased runoff would alter the erosion/deposition balance
along some creeks, especially south of Port Orchard. Slight increases
in local flooding may cause bank erosion and failures and increased
culvert maintenance along Ross, Blackjack, Salmon and Beaver creeks
in the Port Orchard/Retsil/Manchester area. Existing culverts near
the shore may not have sufficient capacity to pass increased runoff
and may cause local flooding. The likelihood and magnitude of local
flooding impacts can best be evaluated on a project-by-project basis
through Kitsap County's environmental review process.
Other drainage net qualities will be impacted by future develop-
ment. Construction related erosion will create sediments that will
be washed into water courses via runoff. Much of the sediment will
settle to the bottoms of channels at various locations and may
adversely affect benthic habitats and spawning grounds. Local techni-
cal authorities, such as the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, consider
this impact to be of short-term significance. This is due to the ra-
pid stabilization of disturbed construction sites by fast-growing vege-
tation. In addition to sediments, urban debris from construction and
subsequent activities can be washed into water courses, clogging flows
and possibly creating local flooding problems.
Some chemical and biological water quality problems will continue
in the developed area to varying degrees. Fertilizers, pesticides and
petroleum products will enter the drainage nets in greater amounts as
the development pattern becomes both more dense and more expansive.
Malfunctiong septic systems will continue to be a source of pathogens
and nutrients in the urbanizing fringe areas until sewer services are
extended.
Developable Water Resources
As noted in the Environmental Setting section, the Bremerton area
is expected to face a serious potable water shortage due to the limi-
ted reserves provided by local streams and aquifers. Because infor-
mation and data on the impending shortage are scarce, the following
impact assessments should be considered speculative, but worthy of fur-
ther investigation by appropriate agencies.
As the developed areas of the county have grown, residents have
come to rely more on municipal water systems which utilize large pump-
ing capacity wells. These wells are located on the fringe or beyond
142
-------
the developed areas. Through their drawdown characteristics, they can
lower water levels in nearby shallow wells, which supply the bulk of
potable water to rural areas. Reduction in water supply from shallow
aquifers would necessitate new wells to be drilled into the deeper
Colvos sand alluvial aquifers, or water-utility connections with a
municipal system. In either case, the expense to the individual well
user could be considerable.
The future demand for water will likely result in the maximum ap-
propriation of all significant local reserves, as has already occurred
in the over-appropriated Chico Creek basin. The demand will also re-
sult in the importation of water from outside the study area and Kit-
sap County. The nearest available outside reserves are Gold and Huge
Creeks, which are located to the west and drain towards Hood Canal.
Considerations have been made to connect into Tacoma's water supply or
to exercise water rights held by the City of Bremerton for the Ducka--
bush and Hamma Hamma Rivers, which are located across Hood Canal on
the east slope of the Olympic Range.
As with other urban areas that have demanded more water than their
immediate areas could provide, the study areas's future water demand
may pose significant consequences to areas outside of its immediate
influence. The detailed assessment of these consequences is beyond
the scope of this study. However, the development of any new, major
water resource for use in the Bremerton/Port Orchard area can and
should be subject to environment review through the State Environ-
ment Policy Act (SEPA) process. This review should take place at the
highest possible level of state government, during the earliest stages
of planning. It should define and examine the specific impacts and
issues inherent in a given water resource exploitation project and the
urban growth that it could accommodate.
Terrestrial Environment
Creek channel improvements, such as straightening, removal of
riparian vegetation and colonization by weeds, severely reduce habi-
tat diversity. The soil erosion impacts discussed earlier affect aqu-
atic habitats by filling in rough creek channel bottoms with silt
which eliminates the physical niches necessary to many benthic organ-
isms, thus reducing the stream's biologic carrying capacity.
Continuing and future construction activities are likely to en-
tail creek disturbances, modifications, crossing and riparian vegeta-
tion removal. Construction across riparian zones severs the conti-
nuity of this habitat, thereby disrupting wildlife movements through
it.
143
-------
The restabilization of creeks disturbed by construction generally
takes 1-3 years depending on various factors such as seasonal stream-
flow, bank stabilization and revegetation efforts. Normal winter rain-
fall following construction periods leads to high streamflows that
scour deposited sediments and detritus. Upstream flows also reintro-
duce aquatic biota to the depleted systems. Turbidity and sedimenta-
tion are severe during initial construction periods but decrease with
time as vegetative cover is restored.
Development around pond and marsh areas often disturbs the local
habitat quality. The opening of rural and wild lands for residential
and increased recreational uses creates pressures on wildlife and their
habitats. However, these pressures on habitat would occur to some de-
gree regardless of this project. The long-term result of human en-
croachment upon wilderness land would mean the adaption of some wild-
life and the disappearance of sensitive individuals and species.
Marine Environment
As the planning area population grows and new lands are developed,
non-point pollution sources will also increase. Development generated
sediments will eventually be transported and discharged into Sinclair
Inlet, Dyes Inlet and Puget Sound. Depending upon the volume and ve-
locity of the water transporting these sediments, silt and other mate-
rials will be deposited along the banks and at the mouths of creeks,
draining the area. Sediments flowing into Puget Sound should be well
dispersed by the strong tidal currents and thus have little or no con-
tinuing impact on marine benthic habitats. However, the sediments pro-
duced in the major portion of the study area will be discharged into
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets where flushing and exchange are relatively
poor. Discharged sediments will accumulate to some degree in the shal-
low sand beaches and mudflats near the mouths of creeks along the west
shore of Dyes Inlet and along the west and south shores of Sinclair
Inlet from Gorst to Waterman. These transported sediments will con-
tribute to the filling in of shallow waters such as Sinclair Inlet,
near Gorst and Chico Bay. Marine benthic habitats will be adversely
affected by the sediments and accompanying turbidity.
No original or model-derived baseline data on the predevelopment
conditions of the Port Orchard Bay system's water quality are avail-
able. Nor, are there any projections or models of the system's future
water quality conditions considering both point and non-point pollu-
tion sources. Thus, it is impossible, at this time, to quantitative-
ly or qualitatively estimate what affect population growth in the study
area will have on the water quality of the Port Orchard Bay system.
144
-------
The increased nutrients to be found in runoff waters will pose
problems for marine fauna and flora. Amounts of nitrogen and phos-
phorus in shallow, slowing moving waters can initiate or contribute
to algal blooms. Areas prone to these algal blooms are the shallow
waters of Sinclair Inlet, Dyes Inlet and small bays within the Port
Orchard System. Algal blooms are characterized by rapid growth in
the spring and summer followed by massive dieoffs as sustaining nu-
trients are depleted in supporting waters. Nitrogen is especially
affected by these algal blooms and its depletion can have adverse im-
pacts upon other forms of marine vegetation which need this nutrient.
Effluent discharges will continue to contribute to nitrogen levels
during the time of nutrient depletion and dieoff, thus outfalls will
have the effect of sustaining algal blooms in the local vicinity dur-
ing this time.
Archaeological and Historical Resources
Long-term effects in the study area may involve the destxuction
and disturbance of archaeological sites either by construction activi-
ties or by uncontrolled collection of archaeological remains by local
residents. Also, effects may involve the destruction or substantial
modifications of historic landmarks and their settings. These effects
would probably be concentrated in the East Bremerton, Port Orchard and
Manchester areas.
If most development occurs around the perimeter of the existing
urban areas, archaeological remains along creeks and shores may be
adversely affected. However, many such shore areas have already been
converted or are in ownership which may not be subdivided within the
project lifetime. This ownership would provide some protection along
the shore which have the greatest potential for archaeological remains.
Higher upland areas have less potential for archaeological renjains,
but these areas also have the least existing ownership protection com-
pared to the shore areas. If new land conversion occurs as in-filling
of lots within the urban area or by intensification or replacement of
existing land uses, fewer archaeological resources would be affected.
However, buildings of some local historic interest may be destroyed
or substantially modified by renovations. These latter effects may
depend directly upon conversion for residential dwellings or may be
induced by general growth of the commercial activity associated with
an increase of 20,000 residents in the urban area.
145
-------
Air Quality
The region's general air quality will remain high despite popu-
lation growth and its resultant air pollutant emissions. However,
in the future, episodic temperature inversions, which occur in the
early spring, late summer and early fall, may trap stronger concen-
trations of air pollutants, thus making a significant contribution
to increasingly noticeable photochemical smog.
Noise
The number of noise sources will increase in the urbanizing por-
tions of the study area as undeveloped lands are converted and roads
are constructed to provide access. Suburban areas will not experience a
significant increase in ambient noise levels, although occasional con-
struction activities will impact very local areas. The present major
noise concentrations, the arterial roadways, will likely become more
significant in commercial areas and around job centers if the area's
economic activity remains strong.
146
-------
SECTION
-------
SECTION V
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Environmental impacts and feasible measures to mitigate or elimi-
nate adverse effects of each alternative were presented in Section IV.
Those impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of
mitigation measures are presented in Table 37. Alternative 1 differs
greatly in degree of impacts from the other alternatives. Alterna-
tives 2 through 5, which involve upgrading to a secondary treatment
level, have many similar types of impacts. Differences are due main-
ly to treatment facility and pipeline locations.
Alternative Plans
Alternative Plan Ho. 1 (No Action)
Operation of septic tanks and leach fields in marginal or un-
suitable areas would lead to periodic septic system failures, and
pollution of surface waters and shallow groundwater aquifers.
Marine water quality in the Sinclair Inlet planning area would
continue to be affected by the discharge of wastewater effluent high
in coliform bacteria, organic material, suspended solids, dissolved
nutrients and, at times, residual chlorine. Areas where water quality
and tne marine environment will be affected include the shallow wa-
ters of Sinclair Inlet near Gorst, Port Orchard, Retsil and to some
extent, Dyes inlet. Long-term pollution effects on the marine environ-
ment are reductions in the population of sensitive fish and inverte-
brate species, overstimulation of nuisance species (i.e. algae) con-
tamination of shellfish resources, public health hazards and deterio-
ration of aesthetic qualities. Continuance ot the present discharge
system would also be contrary to the goals of P.L. 92-500 and in di-
rection violation of the NPDhS discharge limitations.
Alternative Plan No. 2 (Charleston Regional/Retsil Regional/Manchester
Placement of a proposed pipeline route a]ong roads and establish-
ed rights-of-way between Manette and Charleston will have significant
short-term impacts on traffic, aesthetics and utility services. On
the southshore of Sinclair Inlet, pipeline placement in the subtidal
and intertidal lands between Port Orchard and Retsil will have nega-
tive short-term impacts on small-boat navigation, marine vegetation
and benthic communities, marine water quality and aesthetics. Care-
ful construction practices could mitigate these impacts, buth they are
147
-------
Table 37. ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE SINCLAIR INLET SEWERAGE FACILITIES PLAN
H
cd
C
o
^ rH
iH
C
o
u
H
-1 t-< .£
Ui CO u
o qJ
U 4-f
W CO
O 0)
•H JS
u u
(3
0>
u
H
0)
i—I 4J
o c
C Ij
0 V
4J u
u> m
01 V
m .c
Ui o
Impacts
0
z
1
x: o> to
L> B: T.
2
(Q C
JZ W
u ac
3
O (Q
4
(13 £
.C (0
u s
5
Soil stability and erosion hazards
0
0
3
3
3
Potential geological hazards
0
CD
0
3
0
Impact on air quality
0
0
®
0
0
Odor and noise generation potential
3
(D
0
0
0
Direct effects on stream water quality
•
CD
0
0
0
Degradation of groundwater quality
•
(D
0
0
0
Vegetation and terrestrial wildlife loss
0
0
0
0
3
Marine water quality impact
3
0
0
0
0
Marine biota (benthic organisms and fisheries)
3
3
3
3
3
Stimulation of algal blooms
•
3
3
3
3
Impact on land and property values
0
0
•
0
Loss in property tax revenue
-o
CD
0
•
0
Increase in municipal service costs
0
3
0
3
3
Consumptive use of energy
CD
3
3
0
3
Impact on recreation facilities
©
O
0
0
O
Impact upon aesthetic qualities
3
CD
0
3
0
degree of Impact:
3
Major Impact
Moderate impact
Minor impact
No impact
148
-------
nevertheless unavoidable. Disruption of land use and local patterns
would occur with the removal of six homes at the Charleston site.
The major treated effluent submarine outfall would be located
in Sinclair Inlet near Charleston at a 12-18 tn [40-60 ft] depth. Mo-
deling results indicate that first mixing and dilution of effluent
would be fair-to-poor and that subsequent dispersion and flushing
would be poor. Initial dilution could provide 100:1 dilution only 2b
percent of the time, thus effluent would be diluted poorly. Due to
the poor circulation within this inlet, diluted effluent would be the
receiving water for more effluent. Secondary-level treated effluent
discharged at Charleston and Retsil would improve local water quality
compared to the present situation. However, chlorine residual would
be a problem tor marine life. This alternative represents an immedi-
ate solution that best accommodates the existing jurisdictional en-
tities. Pollution effects will be alleviated, but the long-term pro-
ductivity of the marine environment would not be comparable to the
complete cessation of discharge to Sinclair Inlet.
Alternative Plan No. 3 (Charleston Regional/Manchester)
This alternative involves a regional secondary treatment plant
at Charleston consolidating the four treatment plants in the vicinity
of Sinclair Inlet. Flows from the Manette facility, Dyes Inlet and
Wildcat Lake will be conveyed across Bremerton to the Charleston site
Retsil and Port Orchard flows will probably be conveyed in a submer-
ged pipeline from Retsil west to Ross Point and then across the in-
let to Charleston. The facility would be sized to handle an average
flow of 0.5 m3/s [11.7 mgd]. The facilities planner did not desig-
nate a specific treatment process. It is presumed that it would be
similar to Alternative 2. The Manchester facility will remain inde-
pendent and will also be upgraded to a 0.02 m3/s [0.5 mgd] secondary
treatment plant similar to Alternative 2.
Pipeline construction in this alternative represents the most
significant short-term impact. Land routes for pipelines through
downtown Bremerton, Port Orchard, and Bay Street/Beach Drive between
Retsil and Port Orchard would cause significant traffic disruption
and interference with life styles. Alternative pipeline construction
in the subtidal and intertidal lands between Retsil and Ross Point
would cause disruptions to the marine community and shoreline areas.
Construction effects would probably be the greatest on this alterna-
tive due to greater lengths of submerged pipeline route required. Re-
moval of six homes would also be required at the Charleston site.
All treated wastewater flows, except for Manchester, would be
discharged to Sinclair Inlet near Charleston. Dilution and flushing
conditions are similar to those described in Alternative 2. The vol-
149
-------
ume of effluent discharged at Charleston would be approximately 20 -
25 percent greater than in Alternative 2 and thus would slightly in-
crease the ambient background level of diluted effluent in the inlet.
Long-term effects of this discharge are similar to those discussed
in Alternative 2.
Alternative Plan No. A (Local Treatment Plants)
Localized construction impacts at each facility will be moderate
to significant, depending upon the amount of land required. Signifi-
cant disruption of land use and local patterns would result from con-
struction at the Manette site which requires the removal of 25 homes.
This would also occur to a lesser degree at the Charleston and Port
Orchard sites. Land acquisition costs and resultant loss in County
property tax revenues are also greatest at the Manette site. The Port
Orchard and Manette sites are aesthetically poor locations for a waste-
water treatment facilities because of their shoreline location and high
visibility.
Discharge of secondary-treated effluent to Sinclair Inlet by
the Charleston, Port Orchard and Retsil facilities will undergo simi-
lar dilution and dispersion characteristics as in Alternatives 2 and 3.
Effluent would disperse slowly with a long residence time in Sinclair
Inlet. Effluent discharged at Port Washington Narrows from the Manette
facility would achieve good initial dilution due to the strong tidal
movements. However, subsequent dispersion into the poorly circulating
Sinclair and Dyes Inlets would only contribute to wastewater effects
from other discharges. Energy consumption for this alternative, along
with Alternative 5 is the greatest.
Alternative Plan No. 5 (Charleston Regional/Manchester Regional)
Pipeline construction impacts will be the greatest with this
alternative due to the extensive pipeline requirements. Pipeline rout-
ing through downtown Bremerton will have short-term traffic and circu-
lation effects. Pipeline construction in the subtidal and intertidal
lands between Port Orchard, Retsil and Waterman will have significant
short-term negative effects on the marine environment, and may include
long-term effects in some cases. Damage to the benthic marine environ-
ment is unavoidable to some degree.
Effects of effluent discharge from the Charleston facility would
be similar to those mentioned under Alternative 2. This alternative
would be among the two most energy consumptive systems.
150
-------
mi
'*4|Uw
SECTION
§sjlfi!^'fi
jpkfili
Ul
-------
SECTION VI
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
The creation and construction of a wastewater treatment system
for the Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Facilities Planning Area will impose
on future generations the necessity for a strong commitment to the
maintenance, potential expansion and continuation of the wastewater
management systems now being developed. The selection of future al-
ternatives for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal will,
to a large extent, be limited by implementation of the selected plan.
Four major commitments of resources have been identified with
the implementation of a wastewater treatment facilities plan. The
extent of resource commitments varies among the alternatives con-
sidered and is discussed below.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE ENERGY AND ECONOMIC
RESOURCE COMMITMENT
Any wastewater treatment system requires a commitment of energy
resources for operation. Alternatives 4 and 5 are the most energy
intensive, with the operation of a greater number of treatment facili-
ties in Alternative 4 and longer pumping distances in Alternative 5.
Alternatives 2 and 3 require comparatively less energy although demand
is still significant for pumping and operation needs. Alternatives
2, 3 and 5 with extensive pumping distances will require increasing
amounts of energy as population and thus sewage volume increases. Al-
ternative 1 (no action) will not require additional energy use beyond
present conditions.
Natural gas is used for space heating within facilities and to
heat digesters. Electricity would be used to power equipment and, in
some plants, generate gases for wastewater disinfection. This commit-
ment is permanent for energy expended. However, if a dollar value
could be placed upon the improved stream water quality, such commit-
ment of resources could be viewed as transferable.
The proposed project will require permanent commitments of con-
struction materials and a 1 1/2 year commitment of construction work-
ers for a combined value of $16-18 million under Alternatives 2 through
4 and $19 million under Alternative 5. The materials would consist of
concrete, steel, fabricated machinery, electrical components, wood
forms, framing and pipe. The supply of these materials is not known
to be critically short, and their purchase and use would be beneficial
to the regional and national economies.
151
-------
The employment of construction workers for the regional facility
would draw on a large labor pool at a time of high national unemploy-
ment in the construction trades. These workers would be drawn from
Kitsap County as well as from the greater Seattle area. Their employ-
ment would be of local and state benefit and would reinvest some por-
tion of their earnings through meals, transportation, lodging and en-
tertainment back into Kitsap County.
IRREVERSIBLE DESTRUCTION OF SOIL PROFILE
Expansion of the Charleston and Retsil sites under Alternatives
2-5 will require excavation, grading and removal of some amount of the
soil resource from the site. The Charleston regional plant would re-
quire approximately 24,000 - A3,000 m3 [31,000-56,000 cu yd] of exca-
vation. The Retsil site would require the excavation of approximately
760 m3 [1,000 cu yd]. No estimate of soil disturbance or commitment
was made for pipeline construction. The soil profile and characteris-
tics disturbed at each site must be considered to be permanently al- ¦
tered.
IRREVERSIBLE LOSS OF WILDLIFE HABITAT
Direct alteration and loss of wildlife habitat will be least for
Alternative 1 (no-action) and comparatively greater for Alternatives
2-5 which require additional land conversion at the Charleston, Ret-
sil and Manchester sites. In particular, a Charleston regional plant
would require 1.3 ha [3.2 ac] of additional land and clearing of some
of the perimeter vegetation around the site. The Retsil site would re-
quire an additional 0.6 ha [1.4 ac] in the brush and forest area be-
hind the plant, while the Manchester site would require complete for-
est and brush clearance of 0.6-1.2 ha [1.5-3.0 ac]. Destruction of
habitat reduces the carrying capacity of the local ecosystem to some
degree and would likely lead to a slight reduction in wildlife numbers.
The secondary impacts of all alternatives include increased popu-
lation growth and its resultant effects upon the environment. Develop-
ment of outlying areas would lead to physical habitat degradation such
as erosion and functional deterioration of habitats due to barrier
construction, excessive noise, alterations in predator-prey relation-
ships, vegetation changes and human presence.
152
-------
IRRETRIEVABLE WATER AND NUTRIENT RESOURCE LOSS
During the drought of 1976-1977, considerable attention has been
focused upon the use of water and possible uses of reclaimed treated
effluents to offset depleted water supplies, primarily for industrial
uses. The project would collect, treat and dispose of 16.7 x 105 m3
[4,400 mil gal.] per year. This water is irretrievably lost for fu-
ture human uses, and such human uses would depend on extracted ground-
water or surface runoff. Unfortunately, energy and capital costs to
provide the treated water to a limited local industrial or agricultu-
ral market would far exceed the costs of extraction from present fresh-
water sources or of use of marine waters for industrial processes and
cooling.
Nutrient resource within the treated wastewater and sludge would
also be lost from beneficial reuse. Trace minerals, particularly ni-
trogen and phosphorus would be disposed in the effluent to marine wa-
ters where it would be superimposed upon existing high seasonal levels
of dissolved nutrients. Sludge reuse as a fertilizer and soil amend-
ment is a strong consideration. Unless the municipal entity or sani-
tary district can make the appropriate arrangements, the sludge re-
source would be disposed to a landfill and irretrievably lost.
153
-------
SECTION UIl
-------
SECTION VII
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE
AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Wastewater generation and the necessary management and disposal
of wastewater is a long-term reality. Historically, solutions to the
waste management problems have ignored this fact by providing short-
term solutions which usually have had cumulative adverse effects over
the long-term upon the environment. An appropriate example is the
proliferation of numerous individual septic tank and drainfield sys-
tems in areas with marginally suitable soils. Failure of septic tank
drainfields has contributed to the area-wide non-point source pollu-
tion problems. Similarly, the operation of many small primary treat-
ment plants serving only limited areas and discharging without con-
cern to effects upon nearby areas leads to cumulative adverse effects
upon the environment over the long-term. The solution to these prob-
lems is one of the foremost considerations of the proposed project.
Short-term uses of the Sinclair Inlet area with the proposed pro-
ject would consist of construction effects along the pipelines routes
and at the treatment plants, pump stations and outfalls. Pipeline
construction would utilize as much as 17,000 m [56,000 ft] of pipe,
hundreds of cubic metres of aggregate, other construction materials,
mechanical and electrical equipment energy, labor and capital invest-
ment. Two to five treatment plants and outfalls would be expanded,
and such expansion would use additional land, hundreds to thousands
of cubic metres of aggregate, equipment and materials, large amounts
of energy (both electricity and petroleum fuels) and labor. Short-
term aerial emissions of exhaust, dust and noise would affect the lo-
cal air resources. Losses of trees and riparian vegetation at the
Charleston and Manchester sites, and losses of soil and sediment in
storm water runoff represent other uses of the human environment which
would occur over a short-term period. Disruption of traffic and re-
creational activities would affect social elements of the environment,
such as reducing vehicular capacity in Bremerton and along Sinclair
Inlet, and displacing recreational use of Evergreen Park and school
playgrounds in Bremerton. Facilities would require exclusive uses
and limited use easements for lands throughout the life of the project.
Treatment plants and pumping stations may visually dominate their re-
sidential, commercial and roadside settings. Energy consumption for
the pumping station and treatment plants would be direct uses which
indirectly require uses of hydroelectric reservoir capacity or of
coal, oil and natural gas extraction.
Benefits to the physical environment are common to Alternatives
2-5; but in varying degrees. Failure of septic tank drainfields will
155
-------
no longer occur in sewered areas connected to the treatment facilities.
As a consequence, existing pollution of streams, Kitsap Lake and local
groundwaters, which are used extensively for potable water supply, will
diminish. Pollution of Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet will, in general,
be diminished. Health hazards within the study area would be substan-
tially reduced.
The maintenance and enhancement of a long-term productivity with-
in Sinclair Inlet is an important consideration with all of the alter-
natives. The current state and federal standards define water quality
criteria and treatment needs for the planning area. Development of
treatment strategies and methods along with implementation programs
rests upon the local planning agencies and jurisdictions.
Solutions that seem efficient for long-term productivity at this
time might not be viewed as such by 2000. There will be improved tech-
nology, greater experience with advanced treatment techniques, and,
perhaps, breakthroughs in other technologies which may have great im-
pact on wastewater management.
None of the alternatives considered here can be viewed strictly
as a short-term use of the human environment. Any unmitigated adverse
impact of an action, no matter how small, will be incorporated into
the ecosystem and may be magnified over time. Thus, it is necessary
to view the utilization of Sinclair Inlet as receiving media not in
terms of short-term use of the human environment, but in its true per-
spective. An immediate consequence of such a view is that there must
be a minimal conflict between effluent disposal practices and environ-
mental productivity. This makes adoption of mitigative provisions enu-
merated in Section V important under any alternative selected.
The usage of Sinclair Inlet as a long-term receiving water re-
quires additional consideration. Water quality standards stipulate
the implementation of secondary treatment level and the attainment
of specific water quality parameters. The standards, however, do not
specify impact parameters for the biological community or trace toxic
materials such as heavy metals or pesticides. Given the present and
projected conditions at the Charleston facility, secondary treatment
of wastewaters will marginally meet coliform concentration standards
the majority of the time. To ensure compliance with the coliform
standard, continuous and heavy chlormation would be required to dis-
infect the effluent. Aside from the cost and the energy to produce
the chlorine, EPA has determined that chlorination is not a reliable
long-term method for waste treatment. Chlorine concentrations in dis-
charged effluents typically present a greater hazard to the biologi-
cal marine environment than trace toxic constituents. In addition to
chlorine residuals, the poor circulation of the inlet would tend to
accumulate the trace wastewater constituents that may adversely af-
fect the marine biological community.
156
-------
Based upon these factors, further consideration of long-term
wastewater discharge to the marine environment may include the ap-
praisal of other sites beyond Sinclair Inlet that provide adequate
flushing without need for heavy chlorination. With proper design
and location, wastewater discharges to the marine environment could
be made reasonably consistent with the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term productivity.
A secondary, related short-term use of the environment is the
local growth and land development activity which is a motivating
force behind the proposed project. Local development with a degree
of outside influence from the Trident project is anticipated in the
planning area with or without the proposed project. Development
typically brings about loss of vegetative cover, transport of soils
and resources, changes in land use and other indirect effects upon
the environment. The balance between short-term growth and develop-
ment and the long-term productivity of the terrestrial environment
is subject to question, emphasizing that proper land-use planning
and implementation are extremely important.
157
-------
SECTION Dili
-------
Section VIII
REFERENCES
1. CHjM-Hill, Inc. Sinclair Inlet Sewage Facilities Plan, Vol. I:
Planning Background, Bremerton/Kitsap County,
June 1976.
2. Cl^M-Hill, Inc. Sinclair Inlet Sewerage Facilities Plan, Vol. II:
Alternatives, Preliminary Draft - unpublished.
3. The URS Company. Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities
Plan, Technical Report, Seattle, Washington,
March 1976.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Wastewater Facilities, Kitsap County
Washington, Prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc.
and Socio-Economic Systems, Inc. for Environmental
Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington,
1976.
5. State of Washington Department of Conservation, Division of Water
Resources. Water Resources and Geology of the Kitsap
Peninsula and Certain Adjacent Islands, Water Supply
Bulletin No. 18, 1965.
6. Snyder, D.E., A Supplement to Soil Survey, Kitsap County,
Washington, 1939, with Soil Interpretations for
Planning and Development. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 82 pages, 1972.
7. Kitsap County Board of Supervisors. Kitsap County Conservation
District Renewable Natural Resource Program. 47 pages,
1975.
8. Wildermuth, R. j:t _al. Soil Survey of Kitsap County, Washington.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau Chemistry &
Soils, Soil Survey Service 1934, No. 12, 41 pages,
1939.
9. Foxworthy, B. L. and Richardson, D. Climatic Factors Related to
Land-Use Planning the Puget Sound Basin, Washington,
U.S.G.S., Map 1-851A, Washington, D.C., 1973.
10. Lyttle, Lee and Johnston, Michael. A Draft Statement on Impact,
Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan, Kitsap County
Planning Department, Port Orchard, Washington, January
1977.
159
-------
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18,
19
20,
21
22
Water Information Center, Inc. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Climates of the States, Vol. II—
Western States, Port Washington, New York, 1974.
Pace Corporation. Kitsap Basin Water Pollution Control and
Abatement Plan, WRA 15, 1973.
Sceva, Jack E. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Kitsap
County, Washington, Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1413, United States Geological Services in
cooperation with Washington State Department of
Conservation and Development, Water Resources
Division, Washington, D.C., 1957.
Kitsap County Conservation District. Kitsap County Rural
Development Committee, Renewable Natural Resource
Program, Port Orchard, Washington, October 9, 1975.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Environmental
Resources Section. Washington Environmental Atlas, -
January 1972.
USDA Forest Service. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington,
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report,
PNW-8, 1973.
State Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species of
the Continental United States, Federal Register,
Vol. 40, No. 237, 1 July 1975.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. United
States List of Endangered Fauna, May 1974.
State of Washington Department of Game. Rare Mammals of
Washington, 1 June 1973.
Collias, Eugene E, Lincoln, John H., Richard, Francis A. An
Oceanographic Study of the Port Orchard System,
Final Report, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, November 1975.
Kitsap County Planning Department. Basic Data and Related
Sources to Shorelines, Port Orchard, Washington,
February 1973.
Water Resources Engineers. Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound
and Adjacent Waters, prepared for EPA, Contract
No. 14-31-001-3385, April 1975.
160
-------
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Kitsap County Planning Department. People and Kitsap - A Data
Profile of Kitsap County, Port Orchard, Washington,
October 1976.
Tracy, James, Director of Planning, Kitsap County Planning
Department, City of Port Orchard, Washington.
Personal communication, April 1977.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. Sinclair Inlet Population Projections,
Revised March 1977.
Kitsap County Planning Commission. Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan (revision), Port Orchard, Washington,
March 1977.
Employment Security Department, State of Washington, Annual
Planning Report for Kitsap County, Washington,
July 1976.
Port Orchard, City of, 1977 Budget, Port Orchard, Washington,
1976.
U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Manpower
Profile Kitsap County, Washington, September 1972.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Retail
Trade Area Statistics, 1972a.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of
Manufacturers, 1972b.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Wholesale
Trade Area Statistics, 1972c.
Bogucki, David, Fiscal Analyst, Trident Office, Port Orchard,
Washington. Personal communication, April 1977.
Rutherford, Fran, County Assessor, Kitsap County. Assessed
Valuations with Levies and Taxes for 1974-1977
Port Orchard, 1973-1976.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Related
Service Industries, Area Statistics, 1972d.
Dehn, William, Project Officer, CH^M-Hill, Bellevue, Washington.
Personal Communication, April 1977.
Caldon, Peggy, South Kitsap Chamber of Commerce Port Orchard,
Washington. Written communication received
April 1977.
161
-------
38
39
AO
41
42
43
44
45,
46,
47.
48.
49,
50,
Medbury, Ann, Real Estate Sales License, City of Bremerton,
Washington, Personal communication, April 1977.
Mack, George, Partner, Roberts, Schefelman, Lawrence, Gay, and
Moch, Seattle, Washington. Personal communication,
April 1977.
Faulk, Lynn, Examiner for the State of Washington, Port
Orchard, Washington. Personal communication,
April 1977.
Kitsap County. 1977 Budget, Port Orchard, Washington, December
10, 1976.
Goodpasture, Dick, Treasurer, City of Bremerton, VJashington
Personal communication, April 1977.
/
Puget Sound Power & Light Company. Annual Report for the year
1975. Bellvue, Washington, March 1976.
Kingsbury, John. State of Washington Department of Natural
Resources, South Puget Sound Area. Personal
Communication, 9 July 1975.
Snyder, A. W., Division Manager, Puget Sound Power & Light
Company, Bremerton, Washington. Personal
communication, April 1977.
Boughner, Richard, U.S. Department of the Navy, Seattle,
Washington. Personal communication, April 1977.
Bremerton, City of, Official Budget, 1977, Bremerton, Washington
October 6, 1976.
Northwest Environmental Consultants. Letter from Henry C.
Leon to Robert Smiley, Kitsap County Planning
Department, 30 April 1973.
Macon, Conrad. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Coastal Zone
and Estuarine Division, Seattle, Washington.
Personal communication April 1976.
Cummins, Joseph M. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Regional Support Laboratory, Clam Bay, Washington.
Personal communication April 1976.
162
-------
51. Cummins, Joseph M., Bauer, Rdlph R., Rieck, Robert H, Schmidt,
William B. and Yearsly, John R. Chemical and
Biological Survey of Liberty Bay, Washington,
for Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-910/9-76-029, September 1976.
52. Hill, Ingleman, Chase & Co. Comprehensive Water and Sewerage
Plans for Kitsap County, Washington, 1970.
53. The URS Company. Central Kitsap Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Financial Plan for Kitsap County, Washington,
May 1976.
54. PACE Corporation. "WR1A 15, Kitsap Basin Water Pollution
Control and Abatement Plan," 1975.
55. Kitsap County Planning Department. Kitsap County, Washington, Basic
Data and Related Sources to Shorelines, February 1973.
56. Engineering-Science, Inc., Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on Management Plan for Wastewater Sludge by' Metro-
politan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1,
Denver, Colorado, U.S.E.P.A., Region VIII, Denver,
1976.
57. U.S. STORET Retrival Date 13 April 1977.
58. Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc. Comprehensive Sewerage System
Improvement Plan for the City of Bremerton, 1974.
59. Water Quality Criteria, Report of the National Technical Advis-
ory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
April 1, 1968.
60. "Draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Toxic Pollutant
Effluent Standards," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, November 12, 1974; 40 CFR 129.
61. Brockway, D.R., "Metabolic Products and Their Effects." Prog.
Fish Culturist 12, 126 (1950).
62. Reish, D.J., The Effects of Varying Concentrations of Nutrients,
Chlorinity, and Dissolved Oxygen on Polychaetous
Annelids, Research, Pergamon Press 1970. Vol. 4,
pp 721-735.
63. Annon., "Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Sub-
committee on Toxicities, Metal Finishing Industries
Action Committee." Report No. 3, 1950.
163
-------
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72,
73,
74
75
76
Jones, J.R.E., "The Relation Between the Electrolytic Solution
Pressures of the Metals and Their Toxicity to the
Stickelback, (Gasterosteus aculeatuls)"
Jour. Exp. Biol., 16, 425 (1939).
Fujiya, M., "Studies in the Effects of Copper Dissolved in Sea
Water on Oysters." Bull. Japan Soci. Fisheries
(Japan) 26:5, 462 (1960); Jour. Water Pollution
Control Fed. 33, 250 (1961).
McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.W. "Water Quality Criteria" California
State Water Resources Control Board, Pub. 3-A, 1974.
Buckley, J.A. and Matsuda, R.I., Toxicity of Lhe West Point
Treatment Plant Effluent to Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus
Kisutch, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
December, 1972.
Gill, J.M., Huguet, J.H. and Pearson, "Submarine Disposal System
for Treated Chemical Wastes." Journ. Water Pollution
Control Fed. 32, 858 (1960).
Gooding, D. , "Pollution Research, Toxicity Studies." 64th Annua.
Report, Washington State Department of Fish. (1954).
Corcoran, A.N., "Treatment of Cyanide Wastes from the Electro-
plating Industry." Paper Presented to Michigan
Sewage Works Association, Traverse City, Michigan
(May 25, 1949).
Anon., Washington State Department of Fisheries (1944).
Angelovic, J.W., Siegler, W.F. and Nevhold, J.M., "Temperature
and Fluorosis in Rainbow Trout." Journal Water
Pollution Control Foundation 33, 371 (1961).
Washington State Research Council, Research Council's Handbook,
Olympia, Washington, 4th Edition, 1976.
Thompson, Terry, Financial Advisor to the City of Port Orchard,
Seattle, Washington, Personal Communication,
April 1977.
Mack, George, Partner, Roberts, Schefelman, Lawrence, Gay, and
Moch, Seattle, Washington. Personal Communication,
April, 1977.
Randall, Jack Manager, Bremerton District, Cascade Natural Gas
Company, Bremerton, Washington. Personal Communica-
tion, April and May, 1977.
164
-------
77. Brincken, Glenn, Assistant Manager, Market Service, Puget
Sound Power and Light Company, Bremerton, Washington.
Personal Communication, May, 1977.
78. Schoneman, Fred, Commissioner of Public Works, Bremerton,
Washington. Personal Communication, April, 1977.
165
-------
I
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) established
water quality standards for all waters in the State of Washington
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965. The
standards included a general classification of water courses con-
sistent with present and anticipated water uses considering exist-
ing water quality, together with water quality criteria or limits
on the values of important physical, chemical and biological charac-
teristics for each water course class, as well as implementation
and enforcement requirements for existing waste discharges. In ad-
dition to the water quality standards, the State of Washington has
declared an antidegradation policy which says, in part, that when-
ever the natural conditions are of a higher quality than the cri-
teria assigned, the natural conditions shall constitute the water
quality criteria (Reference A-l).
Washington State waters are classified into five categories
ranging from class AA Extraordinary to class C Fair, with a special
"lake" category established for lakes and impondments. Table A-l
lists the classes of surface water in the study area and its sur-
roundings.
Table A-l. CLASSIFICATION OF SURFACE WATERS IN THE STUDY AREA
Assigned
Water body class
Puget Sound AA
Except Dyes and Sinclair Inlets, west of longitude Aa
122°37'W and south of latitude 47°35'20"N
All lakes LAKE
All lake feeder streams AA
All other surface waters A
Water quality shall conform to the standards for this class with the
following Special Conditions: total coliform organisms shall not ex-
ceed median values of 1,000 with less than 20 percent of samples ex-
ceeding 2,400 when associated with any fecal source.
Source: Reference A-l.
A-l
-------
Some of Che more significant water quality criteria are shown
in Table A-2. These standards apply throughout the water body ex-
cept within a limited initial mixing zone surrounding a wastewater
discharge in marine waters (Reference A-2).
Table A-2. WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Class
Characteristic
Unit
AA Extraordinary
A Excellent
Total coliform
MPN/100 ml
<70
<70
Dissolved oxygen
rng/1
>7.0
>6.0
PH
PH
7.0 - 8.5
7.0 - 8.5
Temperature
°F
<55
<61
Within the initial mixing zone surrounding a wastewater discharge,
State of Washington standards prohibit acute biological shock, which'
means "that does or circumstance which has been demonstrated by field
or laboratory observation to directly result in mortalities of food,
game, or commercial fish species".
In order to meet the water quality standards, point sources of
wastewater are regulated by means of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) or permit system. Permits define the mini-
mum quality of discharge effluent that will maintain compliance with
water quality standards. Under the provisions of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, publicly-owned treatment
plants must provide at least secondary treatment by mid-1977 and Best
Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT) by mid-1983. Secondary
treatment is defined numerically as shown in Table A-3. Within the
Sinclair Inlet portion, the NPDES limitations are further defined to
require 85 percent removal from present conditions. These slightly
more restrictive requirements are also shown in Table A-3 for each
facility. Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology is presently
defined as secondary treatment plus any additional treatment required
to meet water quality standards. Thus it is apparent that all alter-
natives will require secondary treatment; however, some may require
further treatment in order to meet water quality standards.
Recently, EPA proposed a change in the regulations defining
secondary treatment; the change involved elimination of the fecal
coliform standard. The implication of the proposed change is that
in view of potential environmental and public health problems as-
sociated with chlorination, the most commonly used disinfection
method, the bacteriological requirements for effluent discharge
should be established on a case-by-case basis.
A-2
-------
Table A-3. FEDERAL SECONDARY TREATMENT EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
Secondary effluent
requirements
B0D5a
(mg/1)
SSb
(mg/1)
Fecal coliform
no/100 ml pH
All Municipal Facilities,
General Requirements
Monthly average
30
30
200c 6.5-8.5
Weekly average
45
45
400c 6.5-8.5
Bremerton Facilities
Charleston (Monthly)
20
20
average)
Manchester (Monthly
20
20
average)
Port Orchard
(Monthly average)
25
25
KCSD No. 3-Manchester
(Monthly average)
25
25
KCSD No. 5-Retsil
(Monthly average)
25
25
a
Five day biochemical oxygen demand
Suspended solids
Geometric mean
References:
A-l State of Washington Water Quality Standards
Effective 19 July 1973; Amended 20 August 1973,
Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
Chapter 173-201 WAC
A-2 Environmental Protection Agency
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Wastewater
Facilities, Kitsap County, Washington, Prepared by
Engineering-Science, Inc., and Socio-Economic Systems,
Inc. for Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
Seattle, Washington, 1976.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT
B-l BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Coniferous Forest
The Coniferous Forest unit on the Kitsap Peninsula is dominated
by Douglas-fir, primarily because of climate and human activity in
Puget Sound. Although western hemlock is considered to be the climax
Bpecies in this coastal vegetation zone, Douglas-fir is better adapted
to local climatic conditions such as less precipitation, hotter sum-
mers (and thus more evaporative stress) and a shorter growing season
(because of colder winters). Additionally, Douglas-fir is a pioneer
species, becoming established in open conditions after logging, fire,
land-clearing or other land disturbances. Other ciajor tree species
found within this unit are western hemlock, western redcedar, western
white pine and red alder. Salal, ocean spray and evergreen huckle-
berry are among the major shrubs, with shade-tolerant herbs and ferns
comprising the understory. Animal life in this community is abundant,
harboring many nut- and insect-eating birds such as chickadees, nut-
hatches, creepers and jays. Larger birds include the blue and ruffed
grouse and predators such as Cooper's hawk and screech owls. Mammals
include several species that occur in more than one habitat, such as
the black bear, coyote, raccoon and red-backed vole.
Broadleaf Forest
The growth and development of deciduous hardwood forests is gen-
erally limited by climatic conditions. The mild Washington coastal
winters enable coniferous species to continue tissue growth at a time
when the deciduous trees are dormant. The relatively dry summers are
also unfavorable to broadleaf trees, which must channel large amounts
of energy and nutrients toward foliage production at a time when evap-
orative stress is high. Consequently, within Kitsap County, deciduous
trees and shrubs are more common in lowland areas which retain higher
6oil moisture. The impact of human activities over the years has
stimulated and broadened the range of the Broadleaf Forest. Fast-
growing deciduous vegetation invades and successfully competes with
B-l
-------
conifers in recently cleared areas, second-growth zones and urban and
auto traffic areas. Deciduous vegetation is also aided and stimulated
by human activities such as irrigation and on-site disposal systems.
Red alder is a pioneer species on moist, disturbed land, and big-
leaf maple is a major component of the Broadleaf Forest unit. Other
tree species include cascara, Pacific willow, madrona, western hem-
lock and Douglas-fir. Understory species are salmonberry, blackcap,
red elderberry and sword fern, as well as common herbaceous species.
The Broadleaf Forest habitat generally has a lower tree canopy
and more intermittent open areas than does the Coniferous Forest. The
thicker understory of flowering vines, berries and shrubs in the Broad-
leaf Forest is attractive to many fruit- and seed-eating birds, such
as mourning doves, juncoes, migratory warblers, thrushes and sparrows.
In addition to the larger mammals mentioned in the discussion of the
Coniferous Forest, smaller fruit- and seed-eating mammals such as
striped skunk, cottontail rabbit, townsend chipmunk and deer mouse are
prevalent. Under rocks and rotting logs are found several salamander
species: rough-skinned newt, northern alligator lizard and north-
western garter snake.
Mixed Coniferous/Broadleaf Forest
Much of the forested land within the study area contains a mix-
ture of the major coniferous and broadleaf species found in each of
those respective units. Soil moisture and human activity are the pri-
mary factors allowing the establishment of hardwoods among conifers.
Major tree species are Douglas-fir, western redcedar, bigleaf maple,
Pacific dogwood, red alder And western hemlock. This unit contains
some open upland areas that are being invaded by Scotch broom, red
alder, willow, madrona and Douglas-fir. The understory is lush, con-
taining thick growths of salal, red elderberry, Indian plum, swamp
gooseberry, blackcap, salmonberry, sword fern and common herbaceous
species. The fire potential in this unit is extremely high since in
many areas there is a continuous layer of fuel from ground to canopy.
Pviparian vegetation along perennial creeks and watercourses can
be considered a sub-unit within the Mixed Coniferous-Broadleaf Forest.
This vegetation has a continuous supply of water that supports thick
vegetative growth and moisture-loving species. Major tree species
found in riparian zones are western redcedar, vine maple, red alder,
bigleaf maple and western hemlock. Dense growths of shrubs and herbs,
such as devil's club, blackcap, thimbleberry, stinging nettle, skunk
cabbage, sword fern and bracken fern, are found along with other char-
acteristic species. Birds particularly favoring the riparian habitat
are mourning dove, olive-sided and Traill's flycatchers, Bewick wren,
B-2
-------
all vireos, song sparrow and many warblers. Amphibians such as boreal
toad, rough-skinned newt and salamander, which occur seasonally in
many habitats, all return to the water habitat to mate and spawn.
Mammals frequenting the riparian habitat include the raccoon, woodrat,
deer mouse, all shrews and most bats.
Pasture/Meadow
The pastures and meadows within the study area are fairly open
areas primarily under agricultural use. Woody vegetation scattered
throughout and on drier margins includes red alder, willow, Douglas-
fir and western white pine. The meadow species include a variety of
grasses, salraonberry, blackcap, ox-eye daisy, sword fern, rushes,
self-heal, buttercup and other common species. Land areas utilized
as rural residences and developments are also included within this
unit. Grazing, agriculture and residential activity serve to check
the invasion of the drier areas by brush and woody species.
The Pasture/Meadow habitat generally is favored by seed-eating
birds such as western meadowlark, mourning dove, Brewer's blackbird
and savannah sparrow. Secretive and burrowing mammals such as white-
footed mouse, Pacific jumping mouse and pocket gopher would be common.
Varying with the degree of moisture, the boreal toad and garter snake
are also found.
Freshwater Marsh
An upland marsh area created by springs and a high water table may
be found in areas such as the head of Beaver Creek west of Manchester.
The marsh is probably associated with the Alderwood soil series, which
is characterized as a soil with a cemented hardpan in the lower part of
the soil profile. This hardpan is impervious, preventing penetration
by plant roots and water. Since it is an area of subdued gradient, a
temporary or perched water table exists, to create marsh conditions.
This wet lowland area supports a variety of grasses, rushes, cattails,
horsetails, skunk cabbage and watercress, with occasional red alder,
willow and Douglas-fir in the drier areas.
Marsh habitat animals may include red-winged blackbird, killdeer,
barn and cliff swallows, fox and song sparrows, vagrant and other water
shrews, raccoon, Pacific treefrog and red-legged frog.
B-3
-------
Residential
The area in the vicinity of Bremerton is characterized as resi-
dential and/or urban. Vegetation within this unit consists of native
and exotic species growing in lawns, gardens and orchards and along
roadsides and other locales. Common animals include the robin, mock-
ingbird, house sparrow, house finch, barn and cliff swallows, boreal
toad, garter snake and occasional raccoon and black-tailed deer.
Marine Shoreline
Sand-gravel-cobble beaches are typical of most shorelines in
Puget Sound. The extend of the beach area is dependent upon the
amount of beach drift material, current strength and degree of wave
action. Minimal or no back beach areas on eroded shores occur along
the eastern Mannette Peninsula. These shorelines have steep slopes
and bluffs resulting from a constant undercutting wave action. Vege-
tation may hang over the water, or slides may occur that expose the
underlying soil. On the other hand, accreted shorelines with moderate
to extensive back beach areas are divided into two zones: the upper
zone, generally consisting of heavier materials, with moderate to
steep slope; and the lower zone, generally consisting of lighter
materials and a shollow slope.
Shore vegetation found on the beach and upper beach areas is ex-
posed to the air but requires a saline water environment. Picklewecd,
cord grass, cat's ear, rush and bulrush are common in the shore area.
These beach plants are often found on protected accreting shorelines
which provide a gravel back beach area of sufficient width for the
plants to survive and germinate. Cord grass, rush and pickleweed help
to stabilize accreted shorelines and act as a barrier system against
severe storms which erode shorelines. This shore vegetation also pro-
vides food and shelter for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other
shoreside animals, as well as for juvenile fish.
The predominant wildlife covers a wide range of shorebirds and
waterfowl. Resident species include killdeer; great blue heron; sand-
piper; yellowleg; dabbling ducks such as mallards, green-winged teal,
American widgeon; diving ducks such as bufflehead, goldeneye and red-
breasted merganser; and various gulls. The primary food items for
these birds are the associations of small crustaceans, worms and mol-
luscs in the interstices of gravel, cobble and sand.
B-4
-------
Appendix B-2
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Blotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
(D 4J
0) 09
U 0)
O u
Pu O
Ck
<8
3 u-t
O «
>-i QJ
0) rH
U-4 -U
•H (B
c o
o u
CJ C0
-o
(0 X
0 (0
u 3 u
03 O n
1 TJ S
• 05
•H CJ |4
c x o
O I
u 3 _
T3 3 X -3
0) 4J CO -H
X (0 01 CO
h cd w ji
xJ CO
e
a) a)
e
u
12 3 4 5 6 7
Trees
Alder, red
Alnus rubra
X
X
X
X
X
Adler, Sitka
Alnus sinuata
X
Bitter cherry
Prunus emarginata
X
X
Black hawthorn
Crataegus douglasn
X
Cascara
Rhamnus purshiana
X
X
Douglas-fir
Pseudotsuga menziesn
X
X
X
X X
Madrona
Arbutus menziesii
X
X
Maple, bigleaf
Acer wacrophyllum
X
X
X
X
Maple, vine
Acer circinatum
X
Pacific crabapple
Malus diversifolia
X
X
Pacific dogwood
Cornus nuttallii
X
X
X
X
Pacific willow
Salix lasiandra
X
X
X
X
Pacific yew3
Taxus brevifolia
X
X
Western hemlock
Tsuga heterophylla
X
X
X
Western redcedar
Thuja plicata
X
X
Western white birch
Betula papyrifera
X
X
Western white pine
Pinus monticola
X
X
X
Shrubs
Blackberry, evergreen
Rubus laciniatus
X
X
X
Blackberry, Pacific
Rubus ursinus
X
X
X
Blackberry, trailing
Rubus vitifohus
X
X
Blackcap
Rubus leucodermis
X
X
X
X
Devil's club
Oplopanax horndus
X
Hardhack
Spiraea douglasii
X
X
X
Hazel
Corylus cornuta var. cahfornxca
X
X
Honeysuckle, orange
Lonicera cihosa
X
X
X
Honeysuckle, purple
Lonicera tuspidula
X
Huckleberry, evergreen
Vaccinium ova turn
X
X
Huckleberry, red
Vaccinium parvifolium
X
X
X
Indian plum
Osmaroma cerasiformis
X
X
X
X
Ninebark
Physocarpus capitatus
X
X
Ocean spray
Holodiscus discolor
X
X
X
X
B-5
-------
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Biotic
communities
4J TJ
CD JJ qj -C
O CO o (0 c
U 0) 3 U *H
0 Vj cq o jg H
Common name Scientific name ,o i t z
00 H JZ
O «3 c
4) U > w "o t s j: c
•H flj 4) 4J 0) *H *H
C O X UJ D (fl U
O U i-»
-------
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Biotic
Communities
Common name
Scientific name
«
0)
u
o
Pu
if)
3
O
u
4>
T3
CO
2 3
OQ 0
1 -a
• cd
«H
X 13
ai
00
a) to
u 0)
fn o£
£
12 3 4 5 6 7
Herbs, cont'd
Field mint
Fireweed
Forget-me-no t
Foxglove
Gumplant
Hairy cat's ear
Lupine
Monkey flower
Morning glory
Mountain sweetroot
Ox-eye daisy
Pea, beach
Pea, purple
Pickleweed
Plantain, common
Plantain, English
Prickly lettuce
Self-heal
Siberian miner's lettuce
Silver beachweed
Skunk cabbage
Small-flower alumroot
Snakeroot
Spring gold
Starflower
Stinging nettle
Thistle
Vetch
Violet
Watercress
Western trillium
Mentha arvensis
Epilobium angustifolium
Myosotis sp.
Digitalis purpurea
Grmdelia sp.
Hypochaeris radicata
Lupinus sp.
Mimulus sp.
Convolvulus sp.
Osmorhiza chilensis
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Lathyrus maritimus
Lathyrus nuttalln
Salicorma virginica
Plantago major
Plantago lanceolata
Lactuca serriola
Prunella vulgaris
ssp. lanceolata
Claytonia sibirica
Franseria chamissoms
Lysichitum americanum
Heuchera micrantha
Sanicula sp.
Lomatium utriculatum
Trientalis latifolia
Urtica lyalln
Cirsium sp.
Vicla sp.
Viola sp.
Forippa nasturtium-aquaticum
Trillium ovatum
x
XXX
X
X X
X
X
XXX
X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
X
X
B-7
-------
PRINCIPLE PLANT SPECIES AND OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Bio tic
Communities
Common name
Scientific name
CO u
O 00
U 4)
o u
Bu O
©
3 <4-1
O to
U 0)
0 «H
T3
•H (0
c o
<3 «
T3
CO
0
« o
1 T3
• <0
s as
o I
O 0)
X CO
*H oj
2S a,
(0 c
U *H
•H l-i
U to o
V 1-1 ,C
•U 4-1 CO
<0 C
5 ai n
£ T3 C
0) *H -H
CJ CD J-i
vi «u
-------
Appendix B-3
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Gcnnmon name Scientific name
Biotic
communities
V
a
4J
U.
<9
<9
6
u
en
J
0)
U
(0
0
3
VM
X.
03
0
«
C
1
U
u
in
U
o
a
Q>
eo
C
4)
u
4>
•o
u
3
X
-o
C
«H
a
M
0)
•H
C
o
Ou
W
u
U)
u
Q
u
•H
(0
*9
a»
fl5
O
PQ
as
0*
X
o£
Z
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
Water-associated birds
Common loon
Arctic loon
Horned grebe
Western grebe
Eared grebe
Pied-billed grebe
Red-necked grebe
Double-breasted cormorant
Brandt's cormorant
Pelagic cormorant
White pelican
Great blue heron
Green heron
Snowy egret
American bittern
Whistling swan
Canada goose
Black brant
White-fronted goose
Snow goose
Mallard
Pintail
Green-winged teal
Blue-winged teal
Cinnamon teal
European widgeon
American widgeon
Shoveler
Redhead
Canvasback
Greater scaup
Lesser scaup
Common goldeneye
Barrow's goldeneye
Bufflehead
Oldsquaw
White-winged scoter
Surf scoter
Common scoter
Ruddy duck
Hooded merganser
Common merganser
Red-breasted merganser
American coot
Gavia irmer
Gavia artica
Pod Seeps auntus
Aechmophorus occidencalis
Podiceps caspicus
Podilymbus podiceps
Podiceps grisegna
Phalacrocorax auntus
Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Phalacrocorax pelagicus
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
Azdea herodias
Butorides virescens
Leucophoyx thula
Botaurus lentiginosus
Olor coluwbianus
Branta canadensis
Branta nigricans
Anser albifrons
Chen hyperborea
Anas platyrhyncos
Anas acuta
Anas carolmensis
Anas discors
Anas cyanoptera
Mareca penelope
Mareca americana
Spatula clypeata
Ay thy a americana
Aythya valismeria
Aythya mania
Aythya afiinis
Bucephala clangula
Bucephala islandica
Bucephala albeola
Clangula hyemahs
Melanitta deglandi
Helanitta perspicillata
Oidemia nigra
Oxyura jamaicensis
Lophodytes cucullatus
Mergus merganser
Hergus serrator
Fulica americana
B-9
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common name Scientific name
Blotlc
communities
4J
(6
4J
01
0)
(A
c
U
41
o
5
X
0
U
0)
o
0)
ti-
o
•"4
CJ
u.
to
«
X
iH
V.
er
j
0)
U
03
C
CI
-S»
V
CJ
T3
)i
3
s.
¦a
c
(0
CD
CO
¦H
e
0
a
00
M
CO
u
o
u
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common name Scientific name
Biotlc
communities
4J
CO
V
01
4)
0)
e
u
o
(A
3
.s
-r-l
o
u
pa
e
41
H
V-
"•"Sfc
0
OJ
U
0
.c
*o
c
«H
aJ
<0
u
w
•H
•H
c
O
a
W
u
u>
Vj
o
u
iH
CO
<0
CI
ra
u
CO
UL
tx
£
a:
3E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Land-associated birds (cont'd)
Screech owl
Otus asio
0
c
0
Short-eared owl
Aslo flammeus
0
c
0
Anna's hummingbird
Calypte anna
0
0
Rufous hummingbird
Selasphorus rufus
0
0
c
Belted kingfisher
Hegaceryle alcyon
0
0
0
Red-shafted flicker
Colaptes cafer
C
c
0
Hairy woodpecker
Dendrocopos villosus
C
0
Downy woodpecker
Say's phoebe
Dendrocopos pubescens
c
0
0
Sayorms sayos
0
0
0
Traill's flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
0
c
Western flycatcher
Empidona difficilis
C
0
Olive-sided flycatcher
Nuttallornis borealis
C
c
c
Horned lark
Eremophila alpestns
c
0
Violet-green swallow
Tachycineta thalassina
0
0
0
0
Barn swallow
Hirundo rustica
c
c
c
0
Cliff swallow
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
0
0
c
Steller's Jay
Cyanocitta stelleri
C
0
0
Common crow
Corvus caurmus
c
0
0
Black-capped chickadee
Parus atricapillus
0
c
c
Chestnut-backed chickadee
Parus rufescens
C
c
Common bushtit
Psaltriparus minimus
0
c
c
Red-breasted nuthatch
Sitta canadensis
C
Brown creeper
Certha familiaris
C
Dipper
Cmclus mexicanus
0
Bewick's wrea
Thryomanes beuickii
0
0
0
c
0
Robin
Turdus migrator±us
c
c
Varied thrush
Jxoreus naevius
C
Swainson's thrush
Hylocichla ustulata
c
c
Townsend's solitaire
Myadestes townsendi
C
Golden-crowned kinglet
Regulus satrapa
c
Water pipit
Anthus spinoletta
0
0
0
Cedar waxwing
Bombycilla cedrorum
0
0
0
Button's vireo
Vireo huttom
0
0
Warbling vireo
Vireo gilvus
c
c
Orange-crowned warbler
Vermivora celata
c
Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechia
c
0
0
Myrtle warbler
Dendroica coronata
0
c
Audobon's warbler
Dendroica audonboni
c
0
c
Black-throated gray warbler
Dendroica mgrcscens
c
Townsend's warbler 1
Dendroica townsendi
c
MacGillivray's warbler
Oporornis tolmiei
0
c
Wilson's warbler
Wilsonia pusilla
c
0
0
0
House sparrow
Passer domesticus
0
c
Western mcadowlark
Sturnella neglect a
c
Red-winged blackbird
Agelaius phoeniceus
0
c
B-Il
-------
COMMON BIRDS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Biotlc
communities
Common name
Scientific name
m
u
IM
T5
U
3
.e
TD
c
«
08
u
«
c
O
a
w
u
tfl
n
0
u
•H
-------
Appendix B-4
MAMMALS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Common name
Scientific name
Blotlc
communities
tft
HI
l-l
0) a
12 3 4 5 6 7
Dusky shrew
Vagrant shrew
Water shrew
Marsh shrew
Masked shrew
Trowbridge shrew
Townsend mole
Coast mole
Shrew-mole
Little brown myotis
Keen myotis
California myotis
Hairy-winged myotis
Long-eared myotis
Yuma myotis
Silvery-haired bat
Big brown bat
Hoary bat
Lump nosed bat
Snowshoe hare
Eastern cottontail
Mountain beaver
Hoary marmot
Townsend chipmunk
Merriam chipmunk
Long-eared chipmunk
Douglas squirrel
Western gray squirrel
Northern flying squirrel
Mazama pocket gopher
Beaver
Deer mouse
Sorex obscurus
Sore* vagrans
Sorex palustris
Sorex bendirn
Sore* cinereus
Sorex trowbridgii
Scapanus townsendii
Scapanus orarius
Neorotrichus gibbsn
Myotis lucifugus
Myotis keenn
Myotis californicus
Myotis volans
Myotis evotis
Myotis yumanensis
Lasionylteris noctivagans
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiurus cmereus
Plecotus townsendii
Lepus americanus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Aplodontia rufa
Marmota caligata
Eutamias townsendii
Eutamias merriawi
Eutamias quadrimaculatus
Tamiasciurus douglasii
Sciurus griseus
Glaucomys sabrmus
Thomomys mazama
Castor canadensis
Peromyscus maniculatus
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
B-13
-------
MAMMALS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Biotic
communities
Common name
Scientific name
00 4J
0) 0)
u
o
u*
CO
3
0
u
01
C £
CQ O
-a
M CO
nj a>
as
a4 o
u
*3 3
-------
Appendix B-5
AMPHIBIANS AND THEIR PROBABLE OCCURRENCE WITHIN STUDY AREA
Common name Scientific name
Biotic
communities
4J
0)
4J
.C
4>
0>
W
(0
e
U
0)
c
y
•H
o
U
CO
o
(0
r-i
o
•rH
£
0)
In
U
<0
H
U
W
cd
Q>
M
03
O
3
U-i
Cu
5!
0)
•H
o
«
•H
1
4J
4-1
V)
u
o
c£
0)
0)
U-l
TJ
•o
0
T3
c
•H
<0
qj
4J
(0
•H
•H
C
O
X
CO
0)
CO
U
o
u
«rt
<0
u
V
<9
CJ
QQ
z
u*
eg
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Western long-toed salamander
Northwestern salamander
Northern Olympic salamander
Pacific giant salamander
Western red-backed salamander
Van Dyke's salamander
Rough-skinned newt
Ambystoma macrodactylum macrodactylum
Ambystoma gracile giacile
Rhyacotriton olympicus olympicus
Dicamptodon ensatus
Plethodon vehiculum
Plethodon vandykei vandykei
Taricha granulosa
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pacific treefrog
Bullfrog
Tailed frog
Northern red-legged frog
Boreal toad
Western spotted frog
Hyla regilla
Rana catesbelana
Ascaphus truei
Rana aurora aurora
Bufo boreas boreas
Rana pretiosa pretiosa
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Northern alligator lizard
Northwestern garter snake
Puget Sound red-sided garter snake
Pacific rubber boa
Gerrhonotus coeruleus principis
Thamnophis ordinoides ordinoides
Thamnophis sir talis pickeringi
Charina bottae bottae
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
APPENDIX C
MODELING OF WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
To relate effluent quality and the water quality standards, it is
necessary to consider the mechanisms that affect marine wastewater dis-
posal. Discharged wastewater, being less dense than the surrounding
ocean water, ascends from the point of discharge in the form of an ex-
panding plume. As the wastewater rises, it mixes with the adjacent
ocean water until the density of the wastewater-ocean water mixture
becomes equal to the density of the surrounding ocean water.
Dilution effected during this process is called initial dilution
and results from the mixing induced by the dissipation of energy as
the initial and buoyant momentums of the discharged wastewater are ex-
hausted. The degree of initial dilution depends on the diffuser de-
sign, the height of the rising plume, and the rate of transport of di-
luted wastewater away from the area above the diffuser. The rising
plume may stabilize at or below the ocean surface, depending on the
discharge depth and the prevailing density structure of the ocean. As
the wastewater-seawater field moves away from the discharge point, it
is subject to further dilution due to horizontal dispersion. Concen-
trations of nonconservative waste constituents are still further re-
duced by decay or disappearance.
Because the purpose of the diffuser system is to induce rapid mix-
ing of effluent with seawater in order to minimize the possibility of
contact between marine organisms and high concentrations of wastewater,
it is apparent that the initial dilution is the most important of the
diminution processes. Effective initial dilution depends on two phenom-
ena: rapid momentum-induced mixing of wastewaters with seawater, and
transport of clean dilution water across the site. The former phenom-
enon can be controlled by the system designer, provided an adequate
depth of water exists, while the latter is an uncontrollable natural
characteristic of the discharge site. In general, it is the latter
phenomenon that controls the degree of initial dilution obtainable at
a specific site.
Once initial dilution is completed, further waste concentration
dimunition depends on horizontal dispersion and decay mechanisms. For
waste constituents that do not decay rapidly, the degree of flushing
or residence time of waters within the boundaries of the receiving
area determines the steady-state concentrations of waste constituents
that will remain.
C-l
-------
Thus it becomes apparent that with respect to both initial dilu-
tion and horizontal dispersion a key issue in comparing candidate
sites is the degree of mixing that occurs at each site. Another key
issue—the relative sensitivity of the biological community in the dis-
charge area—is considered elsewhere in this report.
In the course of facilities planning activities, two models were
used to study water quality and mixing within the study area: mathemati-
cal ecologic model applied by EPA to a part of Puget Sound, and the
University of Washington's physical model of Puget Sound. Each of the
models is described briefly below, together with a discussion of its
limitations.
The Ecologic Model
A mathematical model was used to simulate and link together ecologic
succession from primary producers through successively higher levels in
the marine environment. The ecologic model was combined with a hydro- '
dynamic model in order to predict water quality and biological character-
istics that might occur as a result of waste discharge.
Due to limitations in the data base for verification and the fact
that the relationships between different trophic levels are only poorly
understood, the model is of limited use in simulating the effects of
waste discharge upon water quality and biological characteristics in
Puget Sound at the present time. To quote the modeling report "The
ecologic model can only be considered as a preliminary tool for
evaluating water quality effects of waste discharge upon Port Orchard.
The simulations should be evaluated principally in terms of relative
effects." For these reasons it is concluded that the ecologic model is
of little or no value in comparing outfall sites for the Sinclair Inlet
planning area.
The Physical Model
The second model used in the study was the University of Washington
hydraulic model. The final report on the hydraulic model studies of the
possible outfall locations within the Port Orchard System and its
connecting passageways and inlets was submitted to the URS Company in
November 1975. Some measurements of water movements in the field were
made with vessel-mounted current meters and drogues in order to verify
the model results.
The study area for the physical hyrdaulic model encompasses an
area about 12 miles wide, from the edge of Dyes Inlet eastward to Point
C-2
-------
Jefferson, and about 16 miles long, from Sinclair Inlet eastward to
Point Jefferson and beyond. Given the horizontal scale ratio for the
Puget Sound model, this area represents a rectangular grid 19 inches
wide by approximately 25 inches long. Hydraulic modeling of such a
physically small area can give erroneous results if extensive care is
not taken to assure precise measurement of all controllable parameters.
Vertical and horizontal scale ratios were adjusted to reduce possible
side effects of surface tension and laminar flow, thus producing better
results. In general, model results can be regarded as accurate, but
there are limitations to this model which raise questions regarding the
ability of the model to simulate water circulation in relatively shallow
waters such as the lower part of Sinclair Inlet.
There are three major limitations of this model which cannot be
avoided. Because of the effects of surface tension and land topogra-
phy it was not possible to incorporate the effects of wind into the
modeling of the study area. Winds and the waves caused by winds
contribute significantly to mixing. Surface drag between wind and water
interfaces can modify tides, surface transport of the effluent and water
exchange processes.
Surface tension is also an important factor in the scaling of any
large body of water with a relatively shallow depth. Its effects
strongly influence water movement in shoals or near the shoreline,
especially in areas where current velocities are low enough that the
water in the basin remains relatively undisturbed. As a result of
surface tension, estimations of current velocities are unreliable
where real tidal currents are weak.
Viscosity is another factor that cannot be scaled; thus, the pos-
sibility of laminar flow in the model exists where turbulent flow
actually occurs in the area under consideration. This limitation, like
that relating to current velocity, is due to scale effects of the model.
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
BIOLOGICAL MARINE ENVIRONMENT
D-l BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
The Marine ecosystem within the waterways, inlets and passages of
Puget Sound is a complex system with myriad links and multiple affect-
ing factors. The Kitsap County marine environment has been described
in detail in Basic Data and Related Sources to Shorelines by the Kitsap
County Planning Department. The inventory was compiled from marine
biological records of the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife,
Department of Interior in conjunction with Evergreen State College and
the North Kitsap Marine Environmental Center, Poulsbo, Washington.
Portions of this report are quoted extensively below.
Marine Vegetation
Voyic.ition in saltwiter and esinari ;u: areas of Puy-JL
Sound nnl connected waterways, is very urnurtant to thr mar2no
environrer.t. tlarine vegetation czn provide the following bene-
fits: stabilization of thn beach snore system and the suotidal
snore sysceir,; an cnvi ronncr.c for v.ilul ±fe, bcnth^c and otnui
marine life; energy tnrcugh the pnetosynthesis process; increased
productivity in the marine environncnt; food for all forms of
marine life. Examples of marine vegetation aio kelp, eel grass
(Zostera^, green and brown algae—commonly known as seaweed—
and other forms of floating plants.
Eel grass and kelp are important dominants and are discussed below.
Eel Grass
Eel grass can be found in areas with high water salini-
ties, moderate water currents ana semistable sandy bottoms, and
usually at depths lower than one foot below mean lower low
water. Eel grass is a cyclical [seasonal] plant that thrives
in warm water temperatures ... [from 10°-20°C during the sum-
mer, being dormant in cooler fall and winter water temperatures,
beJow 10°Cj. Eel grass is a food source for blfuk brant, detn-
tous feeders such as li:npets and snails, and other marine life.
D-l
-------
The heavy beds of underwater eel grass provide ... [excellent]
photosynthetic food production capability. They are used by
spawning herring and provide nursery areas for small shore
fishes and salmonids. The eel grass beds also provide habitat
for certain benthic organisms and crustaceans.
Kelp
Kelp beds can be readily seen at low tides along rocky
shorelines where current flow is swift and water salinities
are high. A long, whip-like ccid, anchored at one end to a
rock or othnr object, ... [extends upward 30 to 60 feet toward
the surface to a mass of long, tough fronds]. Kelp beds pro-
vide a dense, junglc-like environment at mid-depth m the water
column, like large underwater trees. Kelp beds are prime habi-
tat areas for fish such as copper rock cod', kelp cod, kelp crab
perches and other small fish.
Marine Habitat
The marine shorelines of the study area can be grouped into thr
habitat zones. This classification provides a basic understanding o
the general character of shorelines and the associated marine life.
River-Creek Mouth
The river-creek mouth may either be an open system [e.g.,
Chico Creek on lower Dyes Inlet] or be enclosed by a system of
sand spies ... [or one that has resulted front human interven-
tion (Clear Creek on upper Dyes Inlet)]. Sand and silt usually
comprise the bottom materials. For anadromous fish (salmonids)
spawning in tributaries to these areas, the salt/fresh water
area is used by descending young salmonids for feeding, as a
transition zone between fresh and saltwater, and as a refuge
from predators. The substrate m these areas provides and har-
bors organisms that are extensively grazed upon by juvenile
pink and chum salmon. Other fish make extensive use of these
areas fcr feeding and as a nursery area. Such fish include
starry flounder, stickleback, eulachon, surf perch, sculpin,
Pacific herring, surf smelt and various species of flounder
and sole. Some fish may spawn in these areas. At depths
greater than one foot below mean lower low water, eel grass may
be present. [Pacific herring and surf perch may spawn here.]
D-2
-------
Dungeness crab (particularly jevemles) feed extensively in
this type of habitat during the summer and fall months. Shrimp
usually inhabit the bottom substrate. If bottom conditions are
favorable, clams may be found in the sediment.
Steelhead salmon and cutthroat trout have been observed in the lagoon
at the mouth of Clear Creek.
Wildfowl, particularly heron, are attracted to estuarine environ-
ments and sandy beaches. Herons are common in these areas, yet tne
Pacific Flyway population is small. Shorebirds feed on the numerous
snails, worms and insects of the estuaries and shorelands. Some species
also nest in the near vicinity, under the protection of cover and trees.
The river-creek mouth areas are also important for food and shelter to
all wildfowl during climatic stress conditions such as prolonged cold
periods, strong winds and severe storms. Marsh grasses usually border
the shoreline areas of estuaries. Nutrients produced by these plants
feed the food chain mechanisms and associated plant and animal cummu-
nities in other types of habitat adjacent to river and creek mouths.
Opeu-Muri Bays
Opcn-.nud bays without: fresn \,-atcr source (e.g., lower por-
tions of D^cs Inlet and Lio
-------
Sand-Cravel-Cobble Beach
Sand-gravel-cobble beacn are typical of most shorelines in
Kitsap County. Most of the beaches in Puget Sound fall into
this category. Marsh grass is usually not present or is found
in very limited distribution in association with this type of
habitat. Rockweed and sea lettuce are the types of vegetation
usually found in the middle of low tide zones. Eel grass might
be present at deptns greater than one foot below mean lower low
water. At about this depth, the bottom will usually be of a
sandy type, with less rock ... [except at protruding points of
land]. Anadromous fisn utilize these shorelines as migrating
areas, for feeding and as protection from predators. Cutthroat
trout, salmon and rock fish can be found along the shoreline.
Benthic examination off Point Herron revealed periwinkles, lim-
pets, shore crabs and barnacles. Herring also spawn off Point
Iterzon. Subtidal gecduck are found from Ilahee to University
Point. At Ilahee, butter, littlencck and bent-nose clam, barna-
cle, shore and outter crab, tube worm, mussel and periwinkle
have bc^n found.
Wildfowl also utilize this type of habitat. Use is usually depen-
dent on the presence of soive type of vegetation on the bottom inter-
face, fish concentrations or presence of aquatic vegetation 211 areas
where fresh water crosses the beach. Bars, spits and gravel beaches
are favored by wintering black brant, which travel in great numbers
along the Pacific Flyway.
Vertical Zones
Plant and animal life within the marine environment normally exhi-
bit a vertical stratification representing three ecological niches.
They are the benthic, water column and surface zones, which are dis-
tinct and yet interact with each other. The benthic zone includes the
bottom sediments and the associated immediately overlying areas. The
water column zone is that portion of the marine environment where the
water colurm meets the benthic zone to two feet under the water sur-
face. The surface zone is that portion of the water environment above
the water column zone to six feet above the surface of the water body.
The Benthic Zone
The benthic community essentially covers all bottom-dwelling plants
and animals. These include infauna living within the substrate, such
as clams and worms, and epifauna utilizing the zone above the substrate,
such as crabs, barnacles, mussels, limpets and snails.
D-4
-------
Kan places a direct value on some of the benthic organ-
isms, such as clams, oysters, other edible molluscs and crus-
taceans, Others, while not seeming to be of value, are ac-
tually of great indirect importance through various food-chain
and food-web relationships. Barnacles, which are abundant m
the intertidal zone are often considered a nuisance, at worst,
and of no importance at best. They are actually an important
source of food for several species, including the pile porch.
The bent nose clam, while it seldom attains a size large enough
for people to feast on, is the victim of an interesting feeding
relationship in which the English sole bites off the siphon of
the clam if the fish finds it sticking up from the sand. Both
the perch and the sole are food for man.
Other seeminqly unimportant benthic organisms, such as
isopods, unphipods, polj^haete ana ncmertean worns, should not
be overlooked, as they too are pai t of intricate food-i/eu re-
laticnss.^pj that nay involve man.
Many of tne worms and crustaceur.j play an important role
in the ecology of the bcntmc community by acting as scaven-
gers, eating dead plants and animals on the bottom and helping
to convert: them oack to nutrients for the al-jae.
The numbers and types of benthic organisms that inhabit a particu-
lar area are dependent upon factors such as degree of slope, substrate
composition, tide level, wave action and influences of nan.
Within the planning area, baseline benthic data for Puget Sound
are currently being collected at Shoreline Community College. Limited
data on sampling stations in Dyes Inlet, Sinclair Inlet, Port Orchard,
Rich Passage and Puget Sound near Bainbridge Island have been extracted
from studies by J.C. Serwold (Reference 1). Benthic sampling locations
are shown on Figure 11-11. Preliminary benthic data for selected loca-
tions are given in Table 11-16.
In the shallow portions of Dyes Inlet—less than 20 feet deep—are
found Washington clam (Saxidomonas gigantus), manila clam (Venerupis
japonica), cockles (Chnocardium nuttalh), lean dog whelk. (A'assarius
mendicus) and over 15 species of polychaete worms, of which the lumber-
inerids, ampharetids, orbiniids and trichobranchias are most common.
In the lower end of Sinclair Inlet—less than 30 feet deep—are
Washington clam, the small clams Axinopsis serricatus and Psephidia
lordi, lumberinerid and cirratulid polychaetes and some unidentified
cumaceans.
At the mouth of Rich Passage offshore of Manchester, in water
depths greater than 60 feet, were found large concentrations of the
small clam Axinopsis serricatus and some Macoma carlottensis. Poly-
chaetes were generally scarce.
D-5
-------
Benthic fishes in the general study area include spiny dogfish;
bay goby; great, rough-back and Pacific sculpins; speckled sanddab;
starry flounder; and flathead, rock, slender, English, C-0 and sand
sole. A more complete listing of probably occurring fish species is
given in Appendix D.
The Water Column Zone
Marine life in the water column zone is extremely complex and dif-
ficult to comprehend completely. It has been observed that many ani-
mals, including salmonids, rockfish, bottom fish, herring, oysters and
shriirp, utilize the water body. These life forms each have a life
cycle in which from birth to maturit> there are strict requirements or
limits within their migratory or territorial ranges for survival.
The inter tidal and the subtidal zones, wnero the process of
photosynthesis is carried on, is important to the existence of
these fish. The intertidal zone is visited by many fish, es-
pecially at nighttime, to feed on the collected waste, decom-
posed plant life, smaller shore life and other smaller fisnes
on the bottom. During the daytime, the larger fish retreat to
safe deeper waters. Shallow ban and shoreline areas are neces-
sary during the infant state of development for many fishes.
Important local fish species in the water column include stickle-
back, eulachon, bay pipefish, pricklebacks, shiner and pile perch,
striped and white seaperch, sturgeon and pygny poacher. Fishes favor-
ing algal and other vegetative associations include northern clingfish,
plainfin midshipman, blackbelly eelpout, whitespotted greenling and
longspine combfish. Other pelagic fishes include Pacific herring, sal-
mon, Pacific cod, Pacific hake, walleye pollock and Pacific tomcod. A
more complete list of probably occuriing fish species is given in Appen-
dix D.
The Surface Zone
The surface zone is used for navigation, water contact
sports and visual and aesthetic appreciation; as a resting area
for wildfowl; and for protection of small fish, predation by
larger fish and swimming by mammals such as seals and otters.
[This zone is utilized by all life forms, including—indirectly
—benchic life in the intertidal zone.] Phytoplankton require
high percentages of light transmission to carry on the photo-
synthesis process.
D-6
-------
Increased water turbidity or any activity which occupies the total sur-
face zone hinders any other use of that zone and halts phytoplankton
production. Since the surface zone consists of an interface of water
element and air element, it is important to consider this zone as an
edge environment which is affected by activity or development on either
side.
Algal concentration studies for Sinclair and Dyes Inlet were per-
formed in Ecologic Modeling of Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters (Ref-
erence 23). Although limited phytoplankton data were available for the
calibration, the algal concentrations were studied for their value as
an indicator of productivity in the marine environment and as an indi-
cator of other factors, such as nutrients, light, certain growth coef-
ficients and zooplankton. Computed algal biomass concentrations in
Dyes and Sinclair Inlets are shown in Figure 11-12, A species nonspe-
cific algal biomass was computed, buf.cd on 80 mg biomass correspond:
to one mg chlorophyll a.
In winter, the model computed the lowest algal biomass with an av-
erage of 800 us/1 in Port Orchard. Spring values were higher-, presum-
ably due to increased light (heat) energy and upstream nutrient inputs.
Concentrations exceeding 1,500 yg/1 were computed for Sinclair Inlet,
Port Washington Narrows, Dyes Inlet and Liberty Bay. Model results
show that summer algal concentrations dropped to approximately 500 yg/1
in the bays and inlets while remaining relatively high in Port Washing-
ton Narrows and near Bremerton. By contrast, the main channel of Puget
Sound, near Bainbridge Island, ranges from 5 yg/1 in the winter to 348
yg/1 in the spring. Model results can only approximate true conditions,
which could vary from those predicted.
The seasonal pattern of variation in algal concentration tends to
infer that phytoplankton in Puget Sound are primarily limited by light
and secondarily by the input of nutrients. Continuously high concen-
trations from spring to summer in Port Washington Narrows reflects the
nutrient loading from the Mannette Sewage Treatment Plant wastewater
outfall on the western shore of East Bremerton and the return of much
of that wastewater at each tidal cycle.
D-7
-------
Appendix D-2
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Central
Port
Common Name
Scientific Name
Puget Sound
Orchard
Seattle
River lamprey
Lampetra ayresi
+
+
Slxglll shark
Hexanchus griseus
+
+
Basking shark
Cotorhinus maximus
+
Salmon shark
Lamna ditropis
+
+
Brown cat shark
Apristurus brunneus
*
*
Pacific sleeper shark
Somniosus pacificus
+
Spiny dogfish
Sqvalus acanthias
0
0
0
Pacific angel shark
Sqvatma California
+
Pacific electric ray
Torpedo California
+
+
Big skate
Raja binoculata
+
*
+
Longnose skate
Raja rhma
*
*
A
Ratfish
Hydrolagus colhei
0
*
0
White sturgeon
Acipenser transmontanus
+
+
American shad
Alosa sapidissima
+
+
*
Pacific herring
Clupea barengus pallasi
0
0
0
Pacific sardine
Sardinops sagax
+
Northern anchovy
Engraulis mordax
+
*
+
Pink salmon
Oncorbynchus gorbuscha
0
*
0
Chum salmon
Oncorbynchus keta
0
+
0
Coho salmon
Oncorhyncbus kisutcb
0
+
0
Sockeye salmon
Orcorhynchus nerka
0
+
0
Chinook salmon
Oncorbynchus tshawytseha
0
0
0
Cutthroat trout
Sal mo clarki
+
*
*
Rainbow trout
Salmo gairdneri
+
+
Dolly Varden
Salvelinus ma2ma
+
*
Surf smelt
Hypomesus pretiosus
*
0
0
Longfin smelt
Spirincbus thaleichthys
*
+
*
Eulachon
Thaleichthys pacificus
+
+
Longnose lancet fish
Alepisaurus fezox
+
California headlightfish
Diaphus theta
+
Northern lampfish
Stenobrachius leucopsarus
+
Plainfin midshipman
Porichthys natatus
0
0
0
Northern clingfish
Gobiesox maeandricus
*
+
Pacific cod
Gadus macrocephalus
0
0
0
Pacific hake
Herluccius productus
0
0
0
Pacific tomcod
Hlcrogadus proximus
0
0
0
Walleye pollock
Theragra chalcogramma
0
0
0
Red brotula
Brosmophycis marginata
*
+
*
Pallid eelpout
Ly coda pus mandibularis
*
*
Shortfin eelpout
Lycodes brevipes
+
+
+
Black eelpout
Lycodes diapterus
*
+
4c
Wattled eelpout
Lycodes palearis
*
+
Blackbelly eelpout
Lycodopsis pacifica
0
0
0
Tube-snout
Aulorhynchus flavidus
*
*
0
Threespine stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus
*
*
*
Bay pipefish
Syngnathus griseolineatus
*
0
0
Shiner perch
Cymatogaster aggregata '
0
0
0
Striped seaperch
Enbiotoca lateralis
0
0
0
White seaperch
Phanerodon furcatus
+
+
Pile perch
Rhacochilus vacca
0
0
0
D-8
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Central
Puget Sound
Port
Orchard
Seatt
Pacific barracuda
Sphyraena argentea
+
+
Northern ronqull
Ronquilus ]ordam
*
*
0
High cockscomb
Anoplarchus purpurescens
+
+
Mosshead warbonnet
Chirolophis nugator
+
+
Decorated warbonnet
Chirolophis polgactocephalus
+
Daubed shanny
Lumpenus maculatus
+
+
Snake prlckleback
Lumpenus sagitta
*
0
0
Ribbon prlckleback
Phytichthys chirus
+
Bluebarred prlckleback
Plectobranchus evides
*
*
Vhitebarred prlckleback
Porochnus rothrocki
+
+
+
Black prlckleback
Xiphister atropurpureus
+
Penpolnt gunnel
Apodichthys flavidus
*
+
0
Crescenc gunnel
Phoiis laeta
*
+
*
Saddleback gunnel
Pholis ornata
+
+
*
Rockweed gunnel
Xeierpes fucozum
+
Wolf-eel
Anarrhichthys ocellatus
+
+
Qulllflsb
Ptillchthys goodei
+
Giant vrymouth
Dclolepis gigantea
¦K
+
Dwarf wrymouth
Lyconectes aleutensis
+
Pacific sand lance
Ammodytes hexapterus
*
+
0
Arrow goby
Clevelandia 10s
+
+
Blackeye goby
Coryphopterus nicholsi
+
+
*
Bay goby
Lepidogobius lepidus
*
0
+
Pacific bonlto
Sarda chiliensis
+
+
Pacific pompano
Peprilus simillimus
*
+
Ragfish
Icosteus aenigmaticus
Brown rockflsh
Sebastes auriculatus
+
*
+
Copper rockflsh
Sebastes caurmus
0
*
0
Darkblotched rockflsh
Sebastes crameri
+
Splitnose rockflsh
Sebastes diploproa
+
Creenstrlped rockflsh
Sebastes elongatus
+
+
Puget Sound rockflsh
Sebastes emphaeus
+
Yellowtail rockflsh
Sebastes flavidus
+
Quillback rockflsh
Sebastes maliger
*
+
*
Black rockflsh
Sebastes melanops
*
+
*
Tiger rockflsh
Sebastes mgrocmctus
+
+
Bocacclo
Sebastes paucispims
+
+
+
Canary rockflsh
Sebastes pinniger
+
Redstrlpe rockflsh
Sebastes proriger
+
+
Yelloveye rockflsh
Sebastes ruberrimus
+
Stripetall rockflsh
Sebastes saxicola
+
Sharpchin rockflsh
Sebastes zacentrus
+
Shortsplne thornyhead
Sebastolobus alascanus
+
Sablefish
Anoplopoma fimbria
0
*
+
Kelp greenllng
Hexagrammos decaqrammus
*
+
*
Rock greenllng
Hexagrammos lagocephalus
+
+
+
Whltespotted greenllng
Hexagrammos stelleri
*
*
Llngcod
Ophlodon elongatus
0
*
*
Painted greenllng
Oxylebius pictus
+
+
0
Longsplne combfish
zaniolepis latipinnis
+
0
+
D-9
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Central
Puget Sound
Port
Orchard
Seattle
Padded sculpln
Scalyhead sculpln
Smoochhead sculpln
Puget Sound sculpln
Rosyllp sculpln
Silverapotted sculpln
Roughback sculpln
Sharpnose sculpln
Calico sculpln
Mosshead sculpln
Spin/head sculpln
Buffalo sculpin
Soft sculpln
Red Irish lord
Northern sculpln
Threadfln sculpin
Spotfin sculpln
Longfln sculpin
Pacific staghorn sculpln
Great sculpln
Sallfln sculpln
Tidepool sculpin
Saddleback sculpln
Tadpole sculpln
Slim sculpln
Grunt sculpln
Cabezon
Manacled sculpin
Roughsplne sculpin
Ribbed sculpln
Northern spearnose poacher
Sturgeon poacher
Smooth alllgatorfish
Gray starsnout
Splnycheek starsnout
Blgeye poacher
Blackfln poacher
Pygmy poacher
Tubenose poacher
Blacktlp poacher
Bluespotted poacher
Ribbon snailflsh
Marbled snailflsh
Tidepool snailflsh
Sllpskin snailflsh
Showy snailflsh
Tadpole snailflsh
Pacific sanddab
Speckled sanddab
Arrowtooth flounder
Petrale sole
Rex sole
Flathead sole
Pacific halibut
Artedius fenestralis
Artedius barrmgtoni
Artedius lateralis
Artedius meanyi
Ascelichthys rhodorus
Blepsias cirrhosus
Chitonotus pugetensis
Chnocottus acuticeps
Clmocottus embryum
Chnocottus globiceps
Dasycottus setiger
Enophrys bison
Cilbertidia sigalutes
Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus
Icelmus borealis
Icelmus filamentosus
Icelmus tenuis
Jordania zonope
Leptocottus armatus
Hyoxocepha1 us
polyacanthocephalus
Nautichthys oculofasciatus
Oligocottus maculosus
Ohgocottus nmensis
Psychzolutes paradoxus
Radulmus asprellus
Rhampbocottus richardsom
Scorpaenichtbys marmoratus
Syncbirus gilli
Triglops macell us
Trlglops pmgeli
Agonopsis emmelane
Agonus acipenserin us
Anoplagonus mernus
Asterotheca alascana
Asterotheca infraspinata
Asterotheca pentacantbus
Batbyagonus nigripmnis
Odontopyxis trispmosa
Pallasma barbata
Xeneretmus latifrons
Xeneretmus triacanthus
Liparis cyclopus
LI pans dennyi
Liparis florae
Li paris fucensis
Liparis pulchellus
Nectoliparis pelagicus
Citharichthys sordidus
Cltharicbthys stigmaens
Atheresthes stonuas
Eopsetta jordani
Glyptocepbalus zachirus
Hippoglossoides elassodon
Hippoglossus stenolepis
*
+
+
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
*
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
*
*
+
*
*
+
*
+
+
+
*
+
+
+
+
0
*
+
+
+
+
+
+
0
0
0
*
0
*
+
*
+
+
+
0
+
+
+
0
0
*
*
+
0
+
+
+
0
0
+
*
+
+
+
*
0
*
+
*
0
+
*
0
*
+
+
0
+
*
*
*
0
*
0
*
+
*
0
*
*
+
+
+
*
0
+
+
+
+
0
+
0
*
+
+
+
*
+
+
0
0
0
+
0
*
D-10
-------
PROBABLE FISH SPECIES AND ABUNDANCE WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (CONT'D)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Central
Paget Sound
Port
Orchard
Sea Li
Butcer sole
Isopsetta isolepis
+
+
*
Rock sole
Lepidopsetta bilmeata
0
0
0
Slender sole
Lyopsetta exilis
0
0
0
Dover sole
Microstomus pacificus
0
*
0
English sole
Parophrys vetulus
0
0
0
Starry flounder
Platichthys stellatus
*
0
0
C-0 sole
Pleuromchthys coenosus
0
0
0
Sand sole
Psettichthys melanostictus
0
0
0
Ocean sunflsh
Hola mola
+
+
D-ll
-------
APPENDIX E
ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL AND OTHER CULTURAL RESOURCES
The archaeological, historical and other cultural resources of
southern and central Kitsap County generally consist of a cultural
history and the remains of original occupation by native Americans
followed by European colonization and settlement and later urbaniza-
tion and industrialization. For the purposes of the environmental
evaluation, however, only the physical remains and potential for as
yet unknown remains and sites are most important and will be the fo-
cus of the following discussion. Archaeological and historical re-
sources were reviewed through a survey of the proposed sites for fa-
cilities, a review of known sites located in Kitsap County by the
State Historical Preservation Office and reconnaissance of the gene-
ral vicinity of Bremerton, Port Orchard and Manchester. A limited
potential for palentological remains (fossils) has been reviewed
through an evaluation of the known geological formations.
Archaeological Resources
The central and southern portions of Kitsap County contain no
archaeological sites which have been listed on the Federal Register
of Historic Landmarks or sites. Several archaeological sites have
been recorded with the State Historic Preservation Officer (Washing-
ton State, Department of Parks and Recreation), and these are gene-
rally isolated sites scattered along the shore of the various inlets
and bays (see Figure E-l). The precise location of these sites is
not generally available but may be reviewed by qualified persons
either at the Kitsap County Planninng Department or at the State His-
toric Preservation Office. No recorded archaeological site lies with-
in the alternative sites for treatment facilities and pumping stations
or within a 100 m [300 ft] wide corridor along the alternative pipe-
line routes.
The alternative project sites and corridors were surveyed but
no additional archaeological sites or remains were found. Absence
of sites was not unexpected, since all sites and most of the corri-
dors have been disturbed by previous excavations or filling over the
natural soils. Some areas lie totally over deep artificial fill
which has been placed over mudflats.
Potential for archaeological sites generally relfects the associ-
ation of known sites with physiographic and hydrological features and
with probably biotic resources. Even areas presently below sea level
should not be disregarded as possible sites since the sea level has
E-l
-------
risen about 10 m [30 ft] over the last 7,000 years. This may be im-
portant for an alternative crossing of Sinclair Inlet which passes
down to -10 m [-30 ft]. Known sites have generally been located a-
long the shoreline where prehistoric and later historic transporta-
tion and access were best, where waterfowl, fish and shellfish were
most abundant and where the warmth of sunlight would be greatest in
the early morning. Abundant rainfall diminished the importance of
the freshwater streams for water supplies, but the marshes of such
streams attracted waterfowl and hunters. The boggy ground along
many streams and scattered through the uplands reduced the movement
of Indians away from the coastal areas. Areas with the highest po-
tential for prehistoric activity and artifacts generally lie along
high ground near expansive mudflats and, if possible, near the moutt
of creeks which can be reached without passage through large areas
of boggy ground. A two-value map of the project vicinity reflects
the above factors. The areas west of the Manette treatment plant,
at or near the Charleston treatment plant, at Ross Creek, at the Ret
sil treatment plant, at several creek mouths south of Waterman, a-
long Little Clam Bay and near the Manchester treatment plant have
moderate to high potentials for archaeological remains in the sub-
surface. The general shoreline area would normally have a moderate
to high potential, but the extensive excavation and filling has de-
stroyed or buried most remains and exclude any remains from possible
disturbance due to project excavations.
Past disturbances of the general urban areas of Port Orchard ar
Bremerton and the general shoreline areas have virtually destroyed
all surface indications of possible archaeological sites or remains
in these areas. Placement of large fills for existing treatment fa-
cilities, commercial development and roads have buried the natural
ground under at least 3-5 m [10-15 ft] of sterile fill. Along most
corridors, the alternative pipelines would lie within paved streets.
At the Charleston treatment plant, existing residential structures
occupy the alternative expansion area to the south, and the struc-
tures, driveways and parking pavement have eliminated all surface
exposures. The alternative corridor along Hilldale Road between Wa-
terman and Manchester has been least disturbed by construction of
the existing roadway, but bedrock lies close to the ground surface
and no indications of archaeological remains were observed either
along the road or in the fields immediately adjacent to the roadway.
In general, the severe disturbance of the surface at all alternative
facility sites along the alternative pipeline routes has probably
destroyed most surface archaeological remains and buried any that
were below the zone of disturbance. No clear evidence exists for
significant archaeological remains along the alternative project
corridors.
E-2
-------
Historic Resources
The historic resources of the alternatives largely involve the
existing structures and possible remains of earlier structures or
significant remains which may have been demolished and buried under
later fill or structures. The alternatives generally involve exist-
ing treatment plant sites, their immediate vicinity and the streets
and roads along which the pipelines would pass. The latter corri-
dors presently have no structures and their surfaces are typically
paved. An accurate assessment could be done only at the time of the
actual excavations. However, some general aspects of the corridors
and the plant and pump sites will provide the basis for the effects
assessment of the alternatives.
No Federally or state registered historical landmarks or sites
in the vicinity of the pipeline routes have been placed on the Fede-
ral Register of Historic Landmarks: The Battleship Missouri ("Big
Mo") and the Navy View Apartments of Sidney Hotel (relocated to its
present site in Port Orchard). Both landmarks have been brought from
other areas to their present sites as shown in Figure E-l. Conse-
quently, the landmark sites are only significant for the structures
themselves and not to the local environs. These landmarks lie more
than 100 m [300 ft] from alternative facilities.
Numerous structures have been recognized by the Kitsap County
Historical Society (not part of the Kitsap County government) in Bre-
merton and surrounding towns. Most buildings listed by the Society
were built from 1885 to 1916 (more recent structures are not listed)
and are four to eight room residences. A large number of these resi-
dences are concentrated in the easterly portion of Bremerton south
of the Port Washington Narrows. The proposed corridor for the Ma-
nette-Charleston pipeline does not pass any structure currently listed
by the Society but does pass through an area with residences of equal
or greater historic interest which have not been nominated for the
Society's list.
Central Kitsap County was initially settled in the 1860's and
1870's following the Civil War and during the great European migra-
tions of that period. Most local development focused on the timber
industry and the waterways for transportation from some small farms.
Following the plat approval for Bremerton, the U.S. Navy approved
the shipyard site and began constructing the Puget Sound Shipyard.
Major development of the shipyard a]so generated considerable de-
velopment in Bremerton and Port Orchard (or Sidney) which acceler-
ated during the Spanish-American War. Many historic residences of
Bremerton date from this period of 1890 to 1916, while those of Port
Orchard follow somewhat later, from 1900 to 1916.
E-3
-------
Structures in the Manette vicinity and East Bremerton pipeline
segment date from the World War II period or later, while the main
segment of the Bremerton pipeline passes a mosaic of a few structures
which may date from the late 1800's mixed with a large number of 1900
to 1930 houses and a scattering of replacement housing of the World
War II period or later. Commercial structures along Callow Street,
Naval S reet and State Route 21 include some buildings from the 1900-
1916 period which have been extensively renovated and many buildings
from 1941 to date. Residences along the creek south of the Charles-
ton plant were constructed after 1916 and largely after 1940. These
structures do not appear to have any significant historic or archi-
tectural importance.
In the Port Orchard area most of the buildings, both residences
and commercial buildings, along the corridor were constructed from
1900 to present date. A fire in 1895 destroyed many buildings along
the route, and others were built following relocation of the county
seat to Port Orchard and the beginning of the active operations of
the shipyard across the inlet both during the Spanish-American War
and World War I. The site of the Port 0 chard plant lies on fill
over tidal flats which was placed after 1940 and thus determines the
dates of the earliest sturctures. Many houses and a few commercial
buildings between Port Orchard and Manchester, along Beach and Hill-
dale roads, date from the 1900-1930 period, while additional houses
and shopping centers (on post-1940 fill) have been added since 1940.
Along the east end of Beach Road south to the Manchester plant, struc-
tures are well back from the road and from the Manchester plant.
Excavations of pipelines commonly penetrates below the level of
modern construction of post-1940 (e.g., 1-2 m depths) and may en-
counter remains of earlier structures. The potential for such sub-
surface remains may be inferred from the location of extant struc-
tures of the early period, maps and photos. In the Bremerton area,
greatest potential would lie along the waterfront near Evergreen
Park, along 8th Street and along the perimeter of the shipyard on
First Street and Farragut Street. Along State Routes 21 (south of
Bremerton) and 160 (in and near Port Orchard), deep fill for the
roads and railroad preclude finding significant historic remains be-
low road grades. Depending on the precise routing of the pipeline
from Port Orchard to Retsil, the potential for some historic remains
increases towards Bay Street. The potential may reflect the prob-
ability of finding remains left from the structures destroyed during
the fire of 1985. Such potential may extend to Retsil, but the deep
fill north of Retsil precludes encountering significant historic re-
mains. No potential existis along Hilldale and Beach roads due either
to substantial grading in the Naval reservation at Little Clam Bay
or the shallow bedrock and absence of surface accumulations.
E-4
-------
LEGEND
~ REGISTERED LANDMARKS
Q RECORDED SITES
DISTRICT WITH NUMEROUS STRUCTURES OF HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE
AREAS WITH POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
FIGURE EH ARCHEOLOGICAL & HISTORICAL RESOURCES
WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
E-5
-------
APPENDIX F
CITY AND COUNTY BUDGETS
The budgets of Kitsap County, Port Orchard and Bremerton are
presented in summary form in Tables F-l through F-6. Expenditures
and revenues by source are presented separately for each munici-
pality. A review of the budget expenditures reveals the various
activities of each.
The revenue tables indicate sources of funds. It must be
noted that in each case, an "Other" category was created to simpli-
fy the information presented. This "Other" category represents
a large proportion of total revenues for both Bremerton and Port
Orchard. However, in both cases, "Other" represents either the
sum of a number of smaller sources or has been defined as "Other"
in the budget itself.
State-imposed limitations on property tax collections, to-
gether with a review of recent trends, are discussed in the
section "Tax Base-Assessed Valuation."
The State of Washington imposes a 4.6 percent retail sales
tax on a broad base of retail and wholesale transactions, including
rentals, leases and certain services (Reference F-l). Counties
are permitted to levy an additional 0.5 percent, which is rebated
to the city or county where the sale is made (Reference F-2).
Little detailed information is available on sales tax histories
for the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard.
Retail sale in Kitsap County doubled in dollar volume between
1971 and 1974 (See Table F-7). However, it should be noted that a
portion of this increase is attributable to the sizeable inflation
rate experienced during this period. While the proportion of
wholesaling has increased and service retail sales decreased,
the percentage distribution of other sectors has remained stable
(Reference F-6).
F-l
-------
Table F-l. KITSAP COUNTY-1977 BUDGET-EXPENDITURES
Department
Expenditures
Percent of
Total
Administration Building
$ 224,842
3.4
Assessor
666,033
10.0
Auditor
289,555
4.3
Central Services
207,261
3.1
Clerk
158,310
2.4
Commissioners
192,010
2.9
Co-op Extension
62,893
.9
District Courts
286,316
4.3
Fair
167,235
2.5
Juvenile
343,172
5.1
KCARP
527,278
7.9
Non Departmental
700,224
10.5
Parks
170,390
2.5
Planning
334,598
5.0
Prosecuting Attorney
404,156
6.0
Sheriff
938,361
14.0
Superior Court
320,690
4.8
Treasurer
230,598
3.4
Building Code Compliance
372,802
5.6
Boundary Review, Coroner, Board
of Equalization, Noxious Weed
Control, Central Reproduction,
and Civil Service
95,950
1.4
TOTAL
$ 6,692,674
100.0
Source: Reference F-3.
F-2
-------
Table F-2. KITSAP COUNTY-1977 BUDGET-REVENUES
Source of Revenue
Percent of
Revenue
Total
Property Taxes
$ 2,151,709
32.1
Retail Sales & Use Tax
900,697
13.5
Building licenses & Permits
315,423
4.7
Departmental Fees & Charges
702,399
10.5
Motor Vehicle Licenses
220,000
3.3
Other (Miscellaneous Revenue,
Community Events, Non-Revenue)
612,181
9.1
Intergovernmental Revenue
1,418,615
21.2
Investments and Interest
340,000
5.1
Other Taxes and Earnings
31,650
.5
TOTAL
$6,692,674
100.0
Source: Reference F-3.
F-3
-------
Table F-3. CITY OF PORT ORCHARD - 1977 BUDGET - EXPENDITURES
Fund
Expenditures
Percent of
Total
Current expense fund
Fire $ 64,356
Police 175,020
Library 23,384
Tinance & administration 45,908
Other 183,701
Total current expense fund $ 492,369 27.5
Street & street improvements 178,672 10.0
Arterial street fund 91,703 5.1
Federal Shared Revenue 145,800 8.1
Water - sewer, utilities & bonds 656,100 36.6
Miscellaneous 227,002 12.7
Total $ 1,791,646 100.0
Source: Reference F-4.
Table F-4. CITY OF FORT ORCHARD - 1977 BUDGET - EXPENDITURES
Sources of revenue
Revenue
Percent of
Total
General property taxes $ 221,077 12.3
Retail sales tax 160,000 8.9
Business taxes 101,075 5.6
Licenses & permits 13,772 0.8
Inter-government revenue 439,043 24.5
Chaiges for service 19,040 1.1
Fines & forfeits 19,000 1.1
Water charges 136,000 7.6
Sewer charges 100,000 5.6
Miscellaneous revenue 93,113 5.2
Other (services, interest,
non-revenue receipts, etc.) 489,526 27.3
Total $ 1.791.646 100.0
Source: Reference F-4
F-4
-------
Table F-5. CITY OF BREMERTON - 1977 BUDGET - EXPENDITURES
Percent of
Fund
Expenditures
Total
General fund
Fire
$ 1,111,564
Police
1,347,020
Park
458,522
Treasurer/Accounting
291,474
Other
2,291,007
Total general fund
$ 5,499,587
37 1
Street & parking
2,134,124
14.4
Water/sever fund
2,634,130
17.9
Other water/sever (bond funds,
cumulative bond reserve and
redemption funds, construction
funds)
1,616,365
10 9
Municipal transit
561,000
3 8
Federal Revenue Sharing & CETA
631,260
4.3
Cumulative reserve general
municipal purposes
611,450
4 1
Library bond G 0
44,199
0.3
Pension, police & fire
361,000
2 4
Miscellaneous funds
717,764
4 8
Total
5 14,810,879
100.0
Source Reference F-3
Table F-6. CITY OF BREMERTON - 1977 BUDGET - REVENUES
Sources of revenue Revenue Percent
Total
Property tax $ 1,038,693 7 0
Retail sales tax <350,000 5.7
Business tax 963,500 6.5
Other tax 203,000 I 4
Parking revenue 245,000 1.7
Motor vehLcle fuel & excise tax 872,854 5.9
Other state shared revenue 766,175 5 Z
Licenses & permits 106,390 0.7
Other Intra-governcent revenue
(includes state & federal
grants & revenue sharing) 1,659,240 11 2
Non-government grants 182,665 I 2
Transit revenue 250,000 1.7
Water/sever sales 2,239,900 15.1
Other (Includes bonds, lnterfund
transfers & miscellaneous) 5,433,462 36 7
Total $ 14,810,879 100 0
Source Reference F-5
-------
Table F-7, TAXABLE RETAIL SALES, 1971-1975
($1000)
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975 1
Retail Sales
Percent
$101,618
76.4
$161,758
75.8
$177,082
74.^
$205,520
73.1
$110,534
74.4
Services
Percent
9,263
7.0
12,406
5.8
12,485
5.3
14,743
5.2
7,127
4.8
Contract
Construction
Percent
14,619
11.0
24,661
11.6
29,438
12.4
39,197
13.9
19,443
13.1
Manufacturing
Percent
1,859
1.4
3,960
1.9
4,463
1.9
5,185
1.9
2,602
1.8
Transportation,
Communication,
Utilities
Percent
949
0.7
1,340
0.6
1,470
0.6
1,863
0.7
903
0.6
Finance,
Insurance,
Real Estate
Percent
973
0.7
1,533
0.7
1,431
0.6
1,861
0.7
809
0.5
Wholesaling
Percent
3,204
2.4
6,242
2.9
9,761
4.1
10,773
3.8
6,057
4.1
Other
Percent
584
0.4
1,514
0.7
1,735
0.7
1,989
0.7
983
0.7
TOTAL $133,069 $213,414 $237,863 $281,132 $148,458
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1. First half-year
Source: (Reference F-6)
F-6
-------
CHAPTER II
REFERENCES
F-l. Washington State Research Council, Research Council's
Handbook, Olympia, Washington, 4th Edition,
1976.
F-2. Bogucki, David, Fiscal Analyst, Trident Office, Port
Orchard, Washington. Personnel Communi-
cation, April 1977.
F-3. Kitsap County. 1977 Budget, Port Orchard, Washington,
December 10, 1976.
F-4. Port Orchard, City of, 1977 Budget, Port Orchard,
Washington, 1976.
F-5. Bremerton, City of, Official Budget, 1977, Bremerton,
Washington, October 6, 1976.
F-6. Lyttle, Lee and Johnston, Michael. A Draft Statement
on Impact, Kitsap County Comprehensive
Plan, Kitsap County Planning Department,
Port Orchard, Washington, January 1977.
F-7
-------
APPENDIX G
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
G-l MARINE ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
Pipeline Routes
Terrestrial pipeline construction and subsequent erosion and sedi-
mentation will have localized effects in Sinclair Inlet. The sediment
load in the water could have a short term effect on photosynthetic
plants and filter-feeding animals. These effects should be limited to
the construction period plus a few months to half-a-year for the bio-
regeneration lag time.
In most of the alternatives, pipelines could be laid across the
intertidal beaches of Sinclair Inlet instead of along proposed terres-
trial routes. The installation of pipelines would involve excavation
and dredging across intertidal and subtidal lands to an approximate
depth of l-2m (3-6 feet) below the surface of the substrate. A trench
of this depth would cause a horizontal surface disturbance of 2-3m (6-9
feet) on each side of the pipeline. Thus, pipeline construction would
disrupt the benthic community over a 4-5m (12-15 feet) wide corridor
over the length of the submerged pipeline.
Benthic Community Effects
The removal of the substrate will significantly disrupt the
benthic community within the pipeline corridor. Burrowing organisms,
such as clams and worms, that live in the area to be excavated will be
removed from their burrows and exposed to predatory organisms and/or
covered with sediment from the trenching process. Burrowing and at-
tached organisms living in the trenched area or next to it will be
disturbed by increased turbidity and silt. Some organisms may not be
able to feed or respirate. Generally, substrate removed in the trench-
ing process is replaced as close to its original location and condition
as possible unless further soils investigations indicate that a signifi-
cant change from original conditions would result. In that possibility,
special engineering could ensure the intrinsic properties of the
substrate.
Although it is not possible to quantitatively determine the extent
of construction impact upon benthic organisms, even the worst possible
case, which would be total elimination of benthic organisms, should
not last long after construction completions. The first to move into
the pipeline construction areas would probably be motile animals such
as starfishes, crabs, and other crustaceans. Burrowing and attached
G-l
-------
animals will begin to recolonize the area after the particular species'
spawning season. In most cases, recolonization would be within a year.
Algae will also recolonize within a year, usually during spring or
summer. If the pipeline route goes through eelgrass beds, the rooted
eelgrass adjacent to the disturbed areas will spread vegetatively as
well as by seeds. Once algae and eelgrass has recolonized, many animal
species will be able to recolonize also. The benthic community will
change in species composition, diversity and population for several
years following the construction, until it reaches a relatively stable
climax community determined largely by the type of substrate following
the construction.
The dredging, construction and backfilling of pipelines will create
a turbidity plume in the vicinity of, and downcurrent of, the construc-
tion area. Turbidity reduces the depth to which sunlight can penetrate,
therefore it will have an adverse effect on the photosynthetic proper-
ties of phytoplankton (one-celled, drifting algae), benthic algae and
eelgrass. Another effect that the turbidity can have on phytoplankton
production has been researched by Sherk (Reference G-l). The floccu-
lation and aggregation of temporary suspensoids can mechanically trap
phytoplankton and carry them to the bottom.
The suspended sediments will also have some effect on animals in
the impacted area. Westley, et al noted that suspended sediments can
cause some disorientation of juvenile pink salmon (Reference C-2).
Studies in British Columbia indicate that silt loads above A,000 ppm
will prevent salmonids from moving (Reference C-3). The suspended
sediment can also bring about a gill irritation that, while not lethal
in itself, can make the fish more vulnerable to infection by fungi and
pathogenic bacteria.
Turbidity and the resultant increase in temperature in the upper
water layers may have short-term effects on juvenile salmon. Optimum
conditions for juvenile salmon as determined by commercial salmon
aquaculture is 12.5 - 13.5°C in protected inlets with good circulation
(Reference G-3). Temperatures above 15°C which seasonally occur in
the shallower part of Sinclair and Dyes Inlet increases the risk of
disease. Several species of salmonids are present in the study area
and would be affected by the above factors.
Dilution by tidal currents and the particle size of the sediment
will determine the intensity and duration of turbidity plumes. If
sediment size is assumed to be similar, the turbidity would be dispersed
fastest in those areas where tidal currents are fastest. Efficient
dilution will result in spreading the turbidity over wider areas in a
decreased concentration; however, turbidity will not be completely
eliminated.
G-2
-------
The settling of sediment from the turbidity may have some effect.
Sediment disposition should not be heavy enough to have an appreciable
effect on the benthic community except in the area close to the
construction.
During the construction period, there may be some impact if oil
or diesel fuel is spilled from the construction and dredging vessels.
Any such spills would be harmful to marine life and illegal. The
Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act provides for these contingencies.
Precautions against spills can be included in the construction con-
tract^) awarded.
Effluent Discharge
Most of the effects of effluent discharge from the outfalls will
be long term in nature because of the continuous nature of treatment
processes. These impacts are discussed in the section dealing with
long term impacts. Some short term impacts can be noted however and
include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
1. displacement of marine organisms, especially clam beds;
2. short term disruption of populations of littleneck, butter,
gaper and bent rose clams, mussels and barnacles;
3. slight vegetational effect on eelgrass and sea lettuce;
4. avoidance of central plume by salmonids and pelagic fish;
5. slight increase in turbidity and associated effects;
6. short term effect on photosynthetic plants and filter-
feeding animals by sedimentation-discussed in earlier
section;
7. nutrient increase in shallow areas, such as the head of
Sinclair Inlet, may cause algal blooms which block light
to benthic plants and rob dissolved oxygen from the water
when they decompose; and
8. small vegetational mortality rate in central plumes
because of increased salinity and/or temperature.
G-3
-------
APPENDIX G-2
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Alternative 2
Adverse effects of this alternative may arise from the construc-
tion of an expanded treatment facility at the Charleston treatment
plant, and new and larger plants at the Retsil and Manchester sites.
Replacement of the Manette plant with a pumping station, reversing of
the existing Manette pipelines and construction of new pipeline throug
Bremerton and south to the Charleston plant would involve existing fa-
cilities and construction within disturbed areas. Excavations in the
disturbed areas are not expected to pass below the existing disturbed
zone and, therefore, should not encounter significant prehistoric arti
facts. The three treatment plant expansion sites lie along the banks
of creeks at their confluence with the inlet or Puget Sound; therefore
such areas would have a moderate to high potential for discovery of
archaeological remains in the remaining undisturbed soils. No precise
plans for foundation excavations and site grading are presently avail-
able for the alternative planning, thus precise resolution of possible
impacts cannot be judged. If this alternative is selected, measures
should be taken to review the grading plans and monitor deep excava-
tions and the grading of areas before fills are placed.
Alternate pipeline routing through the subtidal zone between the
Port Orchard and Retsil plants would pass through areas of moderate
to high potential for encountering archaeological remains. This would
affect more seriously archaeological resources than the fully land
route. Mitigation could involve monitoring for remains in dredge
materials and controlled excavation of, or relocation away from, re-
mains in the proposed alignments.
Enlargement and extension of existing outfalls may pass through
relatively undisturbed areas offshore of the creek mouths at the three
treatment plants. Such areas during the past probably resembled the
natural state of the existing shoreline, therefore, the three outfalls
may pass across areas of moderate to high potential for submerged
archaeological sites. This potential exists because the sea level has
risen during the several thousands of years of Indian occupation of
the area. Excavations for such outfall modifications should be moni-
tored in order to insure that remains which may be found can be pre-
served. Monitoring of this type is necessary because water-logged
materials commonly require different preservation measures than those
from dryland excavations.
Alternative 2 represents a plan which may have some moderate to
moderate-high level of effect upon archaeological resources compared
to effects from other alternatives. The amount of pipeline excavation
C-4
-------
and possible effects is about one-third of that in Alternative 3 but
greatly exceeds that in the local concept of Alternative 4.
Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 involve substantial excavations and filling
at the Manchester, Retsil and Charleston treatment plants, therefore,
their effects upon possible buried resources remain the same. Alterna-
tive 3 would involve fewer construction effects at the Retsil site and,
therefore, would have somewhat diminished effects compared to Alterna-
tive 2. Alternative 2 would involve less excavation for outfall and
cross-channel connectors than Alternatives 3 and 4 and, therefore, less
potential for disturbing archaeological resources below sea level.
Alternative 3
Potential adverse effects associated with this alternative arise
largely from the expansion of the Charleston and Manchester plants and
the long distance of new pipeline excavation required. Little or no
adverse effects would arise from the replacement of the Manette, Port
Orchard and Retsil plants with pumps, reversing of flow in existing
pipelines and much of the pipeline excavation through Bremerton and
south to the Charleston plant. Expansion of existing facilities at the
Charleston and Manchester plants would require excavation and filling
in areas of moderate to high potential for archaeological remains. The
submerged connector pipeline across Sinclair Inlet would involve
excavation through previously undisturbed sediment which was the shore-
line of the inlet when sea level was much lower than at present.
Bathymetry of the connector corridor suggests that Gorst Creek may have
had a small valley along the northern bank of the inlet and a broad
floodplain may have existed on the southern bank. Such an area
should have a moderate to high potential for archaeological remains
more than 3,000 years old. Underwater excavation for the connector may
disturb and destroy such remains without being seen on the surface. If
the pipeline would be placed on the bottom without excavation no effects
should arise, except for some current scouring.
Excavation for pipelines along the southeast shore of the inlet
should generally have little adverse effect upon archaeological remains.
The southern segment of the pipeline has slight to moderate potential
for archaeological remains along the base of bluffs on Ross Point and
at Ross Creek. Depending upon the depth of excavation, trenching could
pass below the disturbed roadway zone and encounter archaeological
remains. The remainder of the pipeline excavation would lie in arti-
ficial fill and along existing subsurface utility corridors; these
corridors have little or no potential for archaeological remains,
especially those which have not been disturbed. An alternate routing
in the subtidal zone between Ross Point, the Port Orchard plant and the
Retsil plant would involve large areas which have moderate to high
potential for archaeological remains. Such a route would create far
more serious effects than the land route.
G-5
-------
Expansion of the Manchester plant would involve the excavation
and filling along a small creek, and such an area may have a low to
moderate potential for archaeological remains, although, again, the
boggy character of the area and distance to open shoreline may reduce
the potential.
Alternative 4
The local treatment concept of this alternative would eliminate
all potential adverse effects from pipeline construction, but would
increase possible effects from treatment plant expansions. Expansion
of the Manette plant would have little potential of effect due to the
highly disturbed character of the residential land use adjacent to the
plant. Expansion of the Charleston plant could result in potential ad-
verse effects from deep excavation, grading of undisturbed areas and
filling over the natural soil surface and possible archaeological re-
mains. Replacement of the Port Orchard treatment plant would have no
effect since the entire area of the plant site lies on deep artifical
fill. If piling or very deep excavations were required for foundations
some possible adverse effects may result by encountering archaeological
remains below the fill which would date from a time when sea level was
2 to 4 i (6.5 to 13 ft) below present sea level. Construction activity
at the Retsil plant would have a moderate to high potential for encount-
ering archaeological remains, depending upon the depth of excavation
and area of filling. The plant is on Annapolis Creek and is close to
shellfish and other natural resources which would have attracted early
occupation of the area. The degree of disturbance for the existing
plant and the nearby roadway may reduce the potential for effects, al-
though deep excavations may pass through the fill and penetrate the
buried, but relatively undisturbed, natural soil which may contain
archaeological remains.
The absence of pipeline connectors in this alternative greatly re-
duces the total area of possible adverse effects and concentrates the
effects at existing treatment plant sites. Inclusion of the Retsil
plant site increases the level of potential adverse effects in Alter-
native 4 compared to Alternatives 3 and 5 but would be equal to or
less than that of Alternative 2. The overall effects of Alternative 4
should be less than those of Alternative 2, similar to those of Alter-
native 3 and perhaps greater than those of Alternative 5.
Alternative 5
The long pipelines for this alternative would pass through some
areas of moderate potential for archaeological remains below the
surface. Replacement of the Manette plant with pumps, reversing of
existing pipelines and construction of new pipeline through Bremerton
and south to the Charleston plant should have no adverse effects on
archaeological remains. Expansion of the Charleston plant, pipeline
G-6
-------
excavation along Beach Road and expansion of the Manchester plant would
occur in areas of moderate to high potential for archaeological remains
and, therefore, possible adverse effects would be greatest in these
areas. Pipeline construction on land between Port Orchard and Waterman
should have only a low potential for encountering archaeological remains
in the sterile fills and highly disturbed roadway and utility corridors,
while subtidal excavations would have high potential for encountering
archaeological remains.
Alternative 5, like Alternative 3, does not include construction of
a new Retsil facility and, therefore, would generally have fewer adverse
effects compared to the potentials of Alternatives 2 and 4. The balance
of the overall effects involve the relatively low potential of the Hi]1-
dale and Beach roads' pipeline segments compared to that of the Retsil
site. The comparisons have assumed a somewhat higher potential for the
Retsil site than for the pipeline segments along Hillsdale and Beach
Roads.
G-7
-------
APPENDIX G-3
HISTORICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Alternative 2
Replacement of the Manette and Port Orchard treatment plants, re-
versing of flow in existing pipelines and expansion of the Manchester
plant should have no direct effect upon historic resources of the area.
Construction of the Charleston plant expansion would require the remov-
al of 15 residences (11 rental units) which have little historic im-
portance but may have replaced earlier structures. Four separate resi-
dences closest to the plant may date from the early 1900's probably
World War I, but the others date from the World War II period. Expan-
sion of the Retsil plant would not involve direct effects upon any
existing structure of historic interest. Excavation of the pipeline
between the pump replacement at the Port Orchard plant site and the
expanded Retsil plant would follow Bay Street in Port Orchard and
Waterman (Beach) Road. Such excavations would have a high potential
for encountering historic remains from the 1880 to 1900 period.
Excavation of the 6,000 m [20,000 ft] pipeline across Bremerton
from Evergreen Park to the west end of the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
would pass through the older portions of Bremerton. Since the town
was platted before most of the residences along the route were con-
structed and most older buildings conform to the existing street plans,
excavations within the street right-of-way would not affect any ex-
isting structures or remains of earlier strucutres. However, some
non-structural historic remains could be expected along such a long
expanse, which is more than 2 km (1 1/4 mile) within the town area.
Excavations in the subtidal zone should have little effect on historic
resources.
The structures and potential historical and other remains below
ground surface appear to have no national or state importance and
very little local importance. No strucutre of unusual architectural
features would be destroyed or greatly disturbed by the alternative
construction. Most structures near the plant sites and along the pipe-
line corridors are representative of other structures found throughout
the area. Remains, which may come from subsurface excavations, e.g.,
bottles and coins, would be similar to better preserved specimens.
Therefore, the significance of possible losses of historic remains and
short-term disturbance appears to be low or slight.
Alternative 2 would have similar effects to those of Alternatives
3 and 5, since plant expansions and pipelines would be similar in those
G-8
-------
areas of greatest historic importance. This alternative would have the
potential for greater, but still slight, adverse effects compared to
Alternative 4.
Alternative 3
The replacement of the Manette, Port Orchard and Retsil plants, ex-
pansion of the Manchester plant and reversing of the flow in existing
pipeline north of Port Washington Harrows would have no adverse effects
upon the historic resources of the area. Expansion of the Charleston
plant would require the demolition or removal of two rental houses built
after 1940 and four residences built after 1900. Excavations for the
pipeline through Bremerton, and along Bay Street and Beach Road in Retsi!
and Port Orchard has moderate potential for encountering historic re-
mains. The pipeline excavations in Port Orchard may encounter some
structural remains below ground surface dating from 1880 to 1900 which
preceded replacement construction following the fire of 1895. Excava-
tion along the subtidal alternative route would have little or no effecl
on historic remains.
The structures along the alternative corridors and at facility
sites are largely of local interest, and remains from excavations would
generally be represented by better preserved examples. Therefore, the
significance of possible historic effects is low or slight, both in de-
gree of effect and in the affected remains.
This alternative would have similar, slight effects as found in
Alternatives 2 and 5, and a somewhat greater effect than in Alternative
The longer pipeline excavation in the Port Orchard area would contribut«
to greater potential effects in this alternative compared to Alternative
2, while the effects of pipeline construction on the south side of Port
Orchard in this alternative may be somewhat greater than the longer
pipeline excavation on the north side of Retsil in Alternative 5.
Alternative 4
Local expansion of treatment facilities at existing sites would
cause removal or demolition of additional structures at the Manette
plant site. The residences near the Manette plant which would be af-
fected were constructed after 1940 and have little historic or archi-
tectural importance- They are similar to many other residences in the
general area. Similarly, residences that would be affected at the
Charleston plant site consist of two rental houses constructed after
1940 and four that date from 1900 to 1940. No structures would be
affected by expansion of the Retsil and Manchester plants. The local-
ized construction would not tend to involve areas of high potential for
G-9
-------
subsurface historical remains since the areas have been highly disturbed
and contain deep fills. Possible effects have little or no significance
to local or larger interests.
This alternative would affect the largest number of structures.
However, the structures' lack of historic and architectural significance
and the absence of any major pipeline construction renders this alter-
native to be the least damaging of the four considered alternatives.
Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 contain pipeline excavations in the Bremerton
and Port Orchard areas and similar plant expansion at the Charleston,
Retsil and Manchester plant sites.
Alternative 5
Replacement of the Nanette, Port Orchard and Retsil plants, expan-
sion of the Manchester plant and reversal of flow in existing pipelines
would have no effect upon historic resources of the area. Expansion of
the Charleston plant would involve the removal or demolition of 11
rental houses built after 1940 and four residences built between 1900
and 1940. Subtidal or land excavation of the Bremerton and Port
Orchard-Retsil pipeline segments may penetrate areas with some potential
for historic remains below ground surface, while the Retsil-Waterman-
Manchester segment of Pipeline does not pass through areas with poten-
tial for significant historic remains below ground surface. The signi-
ficance of effects arising from the plant expansions and the pipeline
excavations is low since the buildings do not preserve any significant
historic or architectural features; most remains from excavations would
be damaged examples of better-preserved specimens found in museums or
family collections.
This alternative would have similar and perhaps somewhat lesser
effects compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 4 would probably
have less adverse effect compared to this alternative.
C-10
-------
APPENDIX G-4
SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Public Fiscal Effects
Public revenues associated with the project are expected to be
minimal. Construction of the proposed project will generate revenues to
Kitsap County and to the cities of Bremerton and Port Orchard. The main
source of income will be sales tax collections generated by payroll
spending and construction material purchases. Table G-5 in the section
titled Indirect Business Effects presents estimates of local payroll and
materials costs, representing spending in Kitsap County. If a]] these
dollars were spent on taxable transactions, $11,7QQ to $13,600, depending
on the alternative selected, in sales tax revenues would accrue to juris-
dictions within Kitsap County (See Table GtI).
Sales tax is collected by the State and rebated to the city or
county where the sale occurs. Therefore, some portion would be collec-
ted by the two cities and the rest would accrue to the county. Sales
tax rebates projected in the 1977 Kitsap, Bremerton and Port Orchard
budgets total $1.9 million. The tax revenue associated with construc-
tion spending would represent an increase of 0.6 percent, for Alterna-
tive 4, to 0.7 percent, for Alternative 5.
Cities and counties do not generally charge their own sewer depart-
ments for building permits or plan checking. At the Charleston site,
however, the City of Bremerton will be creating improvements on county
land and will be required to obtain a permit (Reference G-4). The
charge will be based on the application of two formulas to the total
construction cost exclusive of land (See Table G-2). Income to the
county will range from $22,400 for Alternatives 2 and 3 to $26,900 for
Alternative 5. These amounts represent a potential increase from 5.6
percent to 6.2 percent over Kitsap County 1977 budget estimates for
building permit and plan check fees.
Project Employment - Construction
It is estimated that an average construction force of about 140
employees will be required for each of the various alternatives pro-
posed. Alternative 5 may require a slightly larger workforce than the
other three alternatives. Discussions with the facilities planner in-
dicate that the contractor is likely to be based in Seattle or Tacoma.
As a result, about 80 percent of construction workers will commute from
outside Kitsap County. Total construction payroll is projected to range
G-ll
-------
Table G-l, PROJECTED SALES TAX REVENUES TO ALL JURISDICTIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION (IN THOUSANDS)
Alternative
Payroll Spent in Kitsap County3
Materials Purchased in Kitsap County3
Total Spending in Kitsap County3
$ 968
1,383
$2,351
$1,025
1,465
$2,490
$ 963
1,376
$2,339
$1,121
1,602
$2,723
Sales Tax to Local Jurisdications
$ 11.8
$ 12.5
$ 11.7
$ 13.6
a. From Table 3 , Indirect Business Activity
b. At $.005 per $1.00 (Reference:G-5)
-------
Table G-2 . KITSAP COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT AND PLAN CHECK FEES TO THE CITY OF BREMERTON (IN THOUSANDS)
Alternative
2
3
4
5
Capital Cost
Charleston
$ 9,574
$11,087
$ 7,125
$ 9,574
Manchester
992
992
6,049
3,702
Transmission Lines
1,962
1,962
0
1,962
Transmission Pump Stations
686a
686a
0
686a
Total Cost to Bremerton System
$13,214
$14,727
$13,174
$15,924
Building Permit Fees^
$ 13.6
$ 15.1
$ 13.6
$ 16.3
Plan Checking Feec
8.8
9.8
8.8
10.6
Total Revenue to Kitsap County
$ 22.4
$ 24.9
$ 22.4
$ 26.9
a. Includes Manette to Charleston and Park Avenue
b. Building permit fees are charged on capital costs as follows: $887 for the first $500,000
and a dollar for every additional $1,000
c. 65% of building permit fee (Reference: G-6)
-------
from $4,850,000 to $5,600,000, depending on which alternative is selec-
ted. Approximately 20 percent of payroll, ranging from $970,000 to
$1,100,000 is expected to be paid to Kitsap County residents. The
following table indicates the number of job years created in Kitsap
County:
Tab J e G-3. JOB-YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT CREATED BY PROPOSED PROJECT
Estimated Payroll
Kitsap County3 Estimated Workforce
Alternative ($000) Kitsap Countyb
2 968 19
3 1,025 21
4 963 19
5 1,112 22
a See Table G-5
b Assumes 1 job-year costs, $50,000, including payroll burden.
Direct Business Effects - Construction
Table G-4 presents an estimated allocation of capital costs for
each alternative. It is estimated that capital costs (less land costs)
represent approximately 50 percent labor and 50 percent materials. It
is probable that a non-local contractor would be used for construction
and that about 20 percent of materials would be locally purchased.
Project payroll, including indirect labor (security and mainten-
ance) is expected to range from $4.8 million (Alternatives 2 and 4) to
about $5.6 million (Alternative 5). Only about 20 percent of these
workers wil] reside in Kitsap County.
According to the facilities planner, approximately 50 percent of
all capital costs (other than land) represents labor costs, including
payroll burden and all indirect labor (such as maintenance and security).
Indirect Business Effects - Construction
Project construction will generate indirect business effects in
the Kitsap County economy as the result of (1) local spending by the
contractor for materials and (2) local payroll spending by the construc-
tion workforce. This spending will create additional jobs locally.
C-14
-------
Table C-4: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND LABOR COSTS FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
($1,000)
Alternative
Cost Components
2
3
4
5
Capital Costs*1
Less land & easement costs*1
16,778
187
16,591
17,742
16 3
17,570
17,769
1,263
16,506
19,411
186
19,225
Less 16 2/3% engineering, legal,
environmental costs, & taxes'1
2, 765
2,930
2,751
3,204
Costs of improvements
13,826
14,659
13,755
16,021
Labor cost @ 50% of improvements0
6,913
7,325
6,878
8,011
Payroll @ 707. of total labor cost''
4, 839
5,127
4,814
5,607
Payroll spent in Kitsap County @ 20Z
of total payrolle
968
1,025
963
1,112
Materials @ 502 of total costs of
improvements
6,913
7,325
6,878
8,011
Materials purchased in Kitsap County
@ 20% of total material costs^
1,383
1,465
1,376
1,602
Total payroll & materials spending
ill Kitsap County
$2,351
$2,490
$2,339
$2j 723
a. From facilities plan
b. Engineering, legal, environmental costs are estimated at 20% of costs for treatment plant equip-
ment, pipelines, pump stations (including building, controls, pumps, motors, support facilities).
It follows that costs for engineering etc. are 16 2/3 of total construction costs
c. From facilities planner (Reference: A)
d * Assumes 30% of labor cost for burden.
e Assumes that 20% of labor force will reside in Kitsap County and spend payroll locally for goods,
services, housing, etc.
f Assumes that 20% of materials will be purchased in Kitsap County.
-------
Table G-5 . INDIRECT JOBS CREATED IN KITSAP COUNTY BY LOCAL SPENDING FOR CONSTRUCTION
Components
Alternative
2
3
4
5
Payroll Spent in Kitsap County ($000)a
968
1,025
963
1,121
Materials Costs, Spent in Kitsap County
1,383
1,465
1.376
1.602
Total Spending in Kitsap County^
2,351
2,490
2,339
2. 723
Total Job-years of Employment Created
67
71
67
77
a. From Table G-5.
b. Assumes that $1 million of additional income in Kitsap County produces an additional
28.7 service jobs; estimate based on analysis provided by David Bogucki, Trident
Coordination Program (Reference G-5).
-------
Based on data supplied by the facilities planner, 20 percent of
construction materials is expected to be purchased in Kitsap County.
Depending upon contractor sources of construction materials and local
availability at the time of construction, the actual proportion may be
as high as 50 percent or as low as 10 percent. Indirect employment due
to construction purchases should be scaled accordingly.
It is assumed that local construction workforce employment will be
about 20 percent of total employment- This estimate assumes a Seattle
or Tacoma-based contractor will be selected. As the current unemploy-^
ment in the Kitsap County area is about 8 percent, this project would
have a beneficial effect upon local employment.
This analysis assumes that 50 percent of construction costs, less
land purchases, represents labor and 50 percent represents materials.
Details of the analysis discussed above can be found in Table G-5. Job
years of local indirect employment generated by construction activities
are projected as follows for each alternative:
Alternatlve
Job Years of Employment
2
3
h
5
67
71
67
77
G-17
-------
REFERENCES
APPENDIX G
Short-Term Impacts
G-l. Sherk, J. Albert, Jr., 1971. The Effect of Suspended &
Deposited Sediment on Estuarlrie Organisms. Contri-
bution /M43. University of Maryland Natural Re-
sources Institute.
G-2 Westley, Ronald E., et al, 1973, Evaluation of the Effects of
Channel Maintenance Dredging and Disposal on the
Marine Environment in Southern Puget Sound, Washing
ton. Washington Department of Fisheries, Research
and Management Division. Olympia.
G-3 Bell, Milo C., 1973. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Re-
quirements & Biological Criteria. Fisheries Engi-
neering Research Program, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland.
G-4 Perkowitz, Ron Kitsap County Building Department, Port
Orchard, Washington. Personal communication,
April, 1977.
G-5 Bogucki, David, Fiscal Analyst, Trident Office, Port Orchard,
Washington. Personal communication, April, 1977.
G-6 International Conference of Building Officials. Uniform
Building Code (Library of Congress Catalogue Card
No. 73-79247), Whittier, California, 1973.
G-7 Dehn, William, Project Officer, CH2M Hill, Bellevue,
Washington. Personal communication, April, 1977.
G-18
-------
|