EPA-910/9-81 -082
PA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
MARCH 1981
WATER
EPA-10-PIERCE CO.-WA-ULID-73-1-INT-81
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL
DRAFT
Chambers Creek Interceptor
Pierce County, Washington

r	-	, .
/ -S.


-------
DRAFT ENVIROIiBTTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT
CHAMBERS CREEK IifTERCEPTDR
PIERCE COUNT/, WASHINGTON
Prepared by
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance From
Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.
821 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
Responsibi
icial:
:gional Administrator
U.S. EPA LIBRARY REGION 10 MATERIALS
Date

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	1
Purpose and Need for Action	1
Project Study Area	2
Project Alternatives and Summary of Impacts	2
Pump Station Alternative	2
Tunnel Alternative	5
No-Action Alternative	5
Alternatives Available to EPA	6
Wastewater Flows	6
Conclusions	6
Availability of Support Documents	7
Review Period and Public Hearing	7
CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER
INTERCEPTOR FACILITIES	9
Introduction and Project Background	9
Description of Existing System	11
Chambers Creek Interceptor Alternatives	12
Alternatives Previously Considered	12
Project Alternatives	12
Alternatives Available to EPA	15
Connection of North Area Trunk Sewers to Chambers
Creek Interceptor Alternatives	17
Westside Sewer District	17
University Place South	17
Future Construction of Trunk Sewers	17
Design Flows	18
Proposed Construction Methodology	18
Open-Cut Construction	20
Tunnel Construction	20
Preferred Action Proposed by Pierce County	22
CHAPTER 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE
ALTERNATIVES	23
Introduction	23
Groundwater	23
Present Conditions and Use of Resources	23
Impact of Alternatives on Groundwater	24
Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Groundwater 25
Soils and Ground Stability	26
Present Conditions	26
Impacts of the Alternatives	26

-------
Page
Surface Water Implications	28
Existing Conditions	28
Impacts of the Alternatives	28
Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Surface
Water Quality	28
Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources	29
Existing Conditions	29
Impacts of the Alternatives	29
Spoil Disposal	29
Impacts of the Alternatives	29
Transportation, Traffic Circulation and Utilities 30
Existing Conditions	30
Impacts of the Alternatives	30
Mitigation Measures	35
Noise	36
Existing Conditions	36
Impacts of the Alternatives	37
Mitigation of Noise Impacts	38
Land Use	38
Present Conditions	38
Impacts of the Alternatives on Land Use	38
Business Disruption	39
Existing Conditions	39
Impact of the Alternatives	40
Energy Usage	40
Project Costs	42
CHAPTER 4 - COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION	49
Introduction	49
Public Participation	49
Agency Coordination and Consultation	49
Introduction	49
Historical and Archeological Resources	50
Wetlands, Floodplains, and Agricultural Lands 51
Coastal Zone Management	51
Endangered Species	51
LIST OF PREPARERS	53
BIBLIOGRAPHY	55
References	55
Personal Communications	56
APPENDICES	57
A - Profiles of Pump Station and Tunnel	57
Alternatives
Design Flows for Year 2000 - Pump Station
and Tunnel Alternatives

-------
Page
B - Potential Impacts of Project Alternatives
on Groundwater	63
C - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife	71
D - Historic and Cultural Resources	73
E - Distribution List	77

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table	Page
1-1	Summary of Environmental Impacts of the
Project Alternatives	4
2-1	Year 2000 Design Flows	19
3-1	Predicted Impacts on Traffic Due to
Construction of Pump Station Alternative
with Various Road Closure Conditions	34
3-2 Existing Land Use Along Alignments of
Project Alternatives	41
3-3 Energy Usage in Year 2000 and Energy Cost
for the Pump Station Alternative	43
3-4 Energy Costs in Year 2000 at Various Annual
Energy Escalation Rates	44
3-5 Comparison of Project Costs in 1975 and 1980	45
3-6 Capital Cost of Alternative Projects	47
3-7 Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost of
Alternative Projects	47
3-8 Present Worth Analysis of Alternative
Projects	48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure	Page
1-1	Study Area Location Chambers Creek
Interceptor Supplemental EIS	3
2-1	Pump Station/Force Main Alternative	14
2-2	Tunnel Alternative	16
3-1	Traffic Flow Map - Chambers Creek Study Area	31
3-2 Traffic Flow Map - South Portion of Chambers
Creek Study Area	3 2

-------
Chapter 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and Need for Action
The development of a basinwide sewerage system for the
Chambers Creek-Clover Creek area has been proceeding since
1969. During 1975, Pierce County, Washington and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared separate
Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the Chambers
Creek sewerage system (ULID 73-1). The EPA's Final EIS
determined that the project selected by the grantee (which
included a proposed interceptor route along the North Wall
of Chambers Creek Canyon) was the most cost-effective and
environmentally-sound alternative. Although the facilities
plan and the Final EIS included special mitigative measures
addressing soil and slope stability, detailed soils infor-
mation was unavailable. Since that time, the project as
proposed in those documents proceeded in various stages of
development; approximately 20 percent of the trunk and collec-
tion system has been or is under construction (Step III),
and Phase I of the treatment plant at Chambers Creek is pre-
sently under construction. Phase II of the wastewater treat-
ment plant is scheduled for construction beginning in June
1981.
The design and construction of the main sewage inter-
ceptor from Bridgeport Way to the treatment facility was
to coincide with the design and construction schedule for
the treatment plant; however, preliminary soil investigations
revealed that the proposed interceptor route was unsuitable
due to unstable soils conditions. Because of those findings,
a tunneling alternative was suggested, and eventually con-
sidered in greater detail by the grant applicant.
As a result of the change in interceptor alignment,
EPA informed Pierce County that a Supplemental Draft and
Final EIS would be required. This Supplemental EIS is limited
to the environmental impacts associated with the new Tunnel
Alternative (and compared with no-action and the Pump Station
Alternative considered in the 1975 EIS). All other environ-
mental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the 1975 Final
EIS.
1

-------
Project Study Area
The study area defined in the 1975 Final EIS included
the Chambers Creek-Clover Creek drainage basin and the pro-
posed Stage I and Stage II sewer service areas (Figure 1-1).
Due to the limited scope of this Supplemental EIS, the study
area will only include the proposed interceptor alignments
and the areas immediately affected by the project alternatives
(Figure 1-1).
Project Alternatives and Summary of Impacts
Two project alternatives (Pump Station Alternative and
Tunnel Alternative) plus the No-Action Alternative are exa-
mined in this EIS. The Pump Station Alternative was analyzed
as a feasible alternative in the 1975 Final EIS (it was de-
fined therein as Alternative Interceptor Route 3). The Tunnel
Alternative was developed as a result of soils investigations
of the originally preferred alignment.
Pump Station Alternative
The Pump Station Alternative would transport wastewater
from a pump station near Bridgeport Way, through a 4,000-
foot-long force main and 10,000-foot-long gravity pipeline
located in Chambers Creek Road, to the sewage treatment
plant near the mouth of Chambers Creek. All but 1,200 feet
of the alignment would be within the existing Chambers Creek
Road right-of-way. Sewage flows would enter the interceptor
at the pump station and at two points along Chambers Creek
Road.
The major environmental impacts associated with con-
struction of this alternative are shown in Table 1-1. A
number of mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the severity
of the adverse impacts are possible. These would include
the following:
o Immediately backfill open-cut construction and
repave to reduce impacts on surface water quality.
o Prepare a traffic management plan for traffic
diversion and control. The plan should indicate
the alternative routes during construction and the
means of informing the public of the availability
and location of the routes.
o Provide gravelled access road for local use during
construction.
2

-------
Commencement
Bay
WASHINGTON
INDEX MAP
Tocoma
Fircresf
It A MBCRS
Paget
A
Sound
Stciiocoom
Sfeilocoom
Lokc
Louise

MILES
Gravelly
v n^/A
Am«ricon
Loke
Sponoway
Loke
Sponowoy
FIGURE 1-1 . STUDY AREA
LOCATION CHAMBERS CREEK
INTERCEPTOR SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
-LEGEND-
CHAMBERS CREEK STUDY AREA
STA6E X & H SEWER
SERVICE AREAS
GENERAL
	-DRAINAGE
.	BASIN
I	BOUNDARY
I
\ y
c


\
J

-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Project Alternatives
Tunnel Alternative With Concrete
Economic Factors	Pump Station Alternative	I-iner (Polyethylene I.iner)	No-Action
o
Construction cost
$11,407,000
$14,500,000 ($16,307,100)

o
Present worth
$14,473,600
$12,997,400 ($14,162,200)

o
Annual operation and




maintenance
$ 199,800
$ 36,000 ( 2,500)

o
Total length
15,800 feet
14,700 feet


- Length open-cut/(tunnel)
15,800 ft/(0)
1,925 feet/(12,775 feet)

Environmental Resource Factors



-
Groundwater
None
Possibly affect water levels
Possible contamination from



in local wells
septic systems
-
Soils and ground stability
Possible soil stability
Minor if proper construction
None


problems on lower chambers
methods used



Creek Road


-
Surface water
Minor impact during con-
Nonexistent
None


struction


-
Terrestrial and aquatic
None
None


resources



-
Spoil disposal (quantity
Minor impact (15,400 cy)
Minor impact (26,900 cy*)
None

excavated)



-
Transportation, traffic
Severe-reroute traffic
Minor
None

circulation and utilities



-
Noise - long term
Pump station operation -
None
None


41-46 dBA


-
Noise - construction
65-80 dBA - localized during
Minor-localized
None


construction


-
Land use - construction
Access impeded
None
None
-
I,and use - long term
None
None**
None
-
Business disruption -
Access to 5 or 6 businesses
None
None

cons truction
restricted


-
Energy consumption
6.2 million kwhr/yr; 10,000
None
None


gal/ fuel/year


-
Duration of construction
63-126 weeks
6 5-73 weeks


(weeks)



*This quantity of material assumes construction of a 102-inch diameter tunnel.
~~Permanent subsurface easements would be required along approximately 37 percent of the alignment but would not adversely affect
long-term land use.

-------
o Allow local access during off-construction hours.
o Forewarn the fire department of any construction
that would affect access.
o Employ noise controls on construction equipment.
Tunnel Alternative
The Tunnel Alternative would transport sewage from an
inlet structure near Bridgeport Way through a 12,800-foot
tunnel to the sewage treatment plant near the mouth of
Chambers Creek. Approximately 54 percent of the alignment
would be located on county-owned property, while the re-
maining 46 percent would traverse private ownership. The
tunnel would range from 25-150 feet below the surface. The
major impacts of constructing this alternative are shown
in Table 1-1. The following measures could be taken by the
county to gain a better understanding of hydrogeological
conditions along the alignment.
o Inventory local wells and developed springs along
the tunnel alignment using parameters recommended
in Appendix B of this EIS.
o Conduct additional soil test borings with multiple
piezometers to determine potentiometric surfaces,
hydraulic gradients and seasonal water level fluc-
tuations.
o Determine hydraulic continuity of upper and lower
aquifers for those areas which might require de-
watering.
No-Action Alternative
The No-Action Alternative was analyzed in EPA's 197 5
Final EIS. For purposes of this Supplemental EIS, the No-
Action Alternative would include a decision not to proceed
with final design and construction of the main interceptor.
The main impact associated with the No-Action Alter-
native would be the loss of funds and materials expended
to date on planning, design, and construction of the sewage
facilities. Groundwater resources would continue to be de-
graded by failing subsurface disposal systems and the possi-
bility would exist of additional construction bans by the
DOE.
5

-------
Alternatives Available to EPA
EPA may develop other structural alternatives or admini-
strative alternatives as a part of its EISs on wastewater
facilities plans. In the case of this Draft Supplemental
EIS, EPA has determined that Pierce County has examined a
full range of structural alternatives, and that analysis
of others is not warranted.
As administrative alternatives, EPA may decide to fund
or not fund the selected alternative or to fund the project
in stages. EPA may also place grant conditions on subsequent
design and construction in order to mitigate adverse impacts.
Wastewater Flows
The proposed Chambers Creek wastewater treatment plant
would be designed to handle a year 2000 accumulated peak
wet weather flow of approximately 60.35 MGD. Construction
of the facilities would be staged during the 20-year planning
period (see Figure 1-1).
The Pump Station Alternative would be designed to handle
wastewater flows of 55.54 MGD at the pump station and approxi-
mately 59.42 MGD within the gravity portion of the interceptor.
The Tunnel Alternative would handle flows of 55.54 MGD
at the inlet point on Bridgeport Way, and flows of 59.4 2 MGD
where flows from University Place South and Westside Sewer
District would enter the system.
Approximately 0.93 MGD of wastewater from Westside Oak-
brook would not enter either the Pump Station Interceptor
or the tunnel, but would instead enter the Chambers Creek
treatment plant via a separate interceptor system.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be made relative to the
alternatives considered in this EIS:
o Construction of the Pump Station Alternative would
adversely affect local transportation, access, and
commercial enterprises located on or utilizing
Chambers Creek Road.
o Construction costs of the Pump Station Alternative
would be $11.4 million vs. $14.5-$16.3 million for
6

-------
the Tunnel Alternative; however, the annual opera-
tion and maintenance costs for the Pump Station
Alternative would be $164,000-$l97,000 greater than
for the Tunnel Alternative.
o Present worth costs of the Pump Station Alternative
would be $14.5 million vs. $13.0-$14.2 million for
the Tunnel Alternative.
o Annual energy costs for the Pump Station Alternative
to the year 2000 may range from $63 , 500-$223,800
per year, depending on the energy escalation rate.
No annual energy costs would be associated with the
Tunnel Alternative. This is a significant differ-
ence in light of projected energy demand in the
northwest.
o Based on existing data, dewatering associated with
the Tunnel Alternative has the potential to adversely
affect individual water supplies. Proper precon-
struction surveys and construction methodology would
minimize this risk. With proper mitigation, the
risk would not be worth the trade-off of the higher
energy consumption and operation and maintenance
costs associated with the Pump Station Alternative.
Availability of Support Documents
A large number of reports are related to this Supple-
mental EIS. Those support documents, the 1976 EIS prepared
by EPA, the 1976 EIS prepared by Pierce County, the Cost
Effective Analysis of the Chambers Creek Interceptor Alter-
natives prepared by Kennedy Engineers, plus the earlier
Chambers Creek-Clover Creek Basin Sewerage Management Plan
(1969) and Chambers Creek Basin Water Quality Management
Plan (1974), are available for public review at the following
location:
Pierce County Public Works Department-
Office of Utilities
3551 Bridgeport Way W.
Tacoma, WA 98466
Review Period and Public Hearing
Agencies, public groups and citizens wishing to comment
on this Draft EIS may submit written comments prior to
1981. EPA will conduct a public hearing on the
Draft EIS at 7:00 p.m. on j J MAR 1981 in the:
7

-------
Chambers of the Board of Pierce County Commissioners
County-City Building, Room 10 46
930 Tacoma Avenue
Tacoma, WA 9840 2
All interested citizens are invited to attend. All comments
received will be given consideration before EPA makes a de-
cision on providing funding to the county for design and
construction of the proposed facilities.
8

-------
Chapter 2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER
INTERCEPTOR FACILITIES
Introduction and Project Background
Since 1968, Pierce County has been involved in a plan-
ning effort to provide a sewerage system for the Chambers
Creek-Clover Creek drainage basin. A sewerage general plan
which defined project alternatives and recommended a plan
of action, was approved in 196 9 and was followed by the Chambers
Creek Basin Water Quality Management Plan in 1974. Both
documents recommended a basinwide collection system, an inter-
ceptor at the bottom of Chambers Creek Canyon and a treat-
ment plant on a site to be purchased from the Glacier Sand
and Gravel property near the mouth of Chambers Creek.
In the EIS prepared in 197 5 by Pierce County and EPA,
the recommended interceptor alignment was changed from the
bottom of Chambers Creek Canyon to a route high on the North
Wall of Chambers Creek Canyon. That alignment was chosen
to minimize the impact of constructing close to Chambers
Creek.
Following completion of EPA's Final EIS, preliminary
design (Step II) of the sewerage system was begun in early
1976, and a soils reconnaissance study commenced in December
1976. The chronological events leading from the preliminary
design were as follows:
o February 1977 - Completion of preliminary soils
reconnaissance study by Hart-Crowser & Associates
entitled Engineering and Geological Reconnaissance,
Proposed Chambers Creek Interceptor System, Pierce
County, Washington. That report indicated con-
siderable slope instability along much of the pro-
posed North Canyon Wall alignment and that "higher
than normal construction costs ... should be anti-
cipated ...". The report recommended additional
subsurface investigations and consideration of
tunneling as an alternative.
o Early 1977 - Kennedy Engineers began an investi-
gation of tunnel feasibility for the Chambers Creek
Interceptor.
9

-------
o June 1977 - Hart-Crowser & Associates prepared a
report on an additional subsurface study entitled
Preliminary Soils and Foundation Investigation, Pro-
posed Chambers Creek Interceptor System, Pierce
County, Washington.
o March 1978 - Kennedy Engineers prepared Chambers
Creek Interceptor Feasibility Study, Pierce County,
Washington. The report showed only a small differ-
ence in cost between the tunnel and North Canyon
Wall and considerably less environmental impact
with the Tunnel Alternative. The North Canyon Wall
Alternative was dropped from further consideration.
o April 1978 - Pierce County commissioners authorized
Kennedy Engineers to proceed with design of the
Tunnel Alternative.
o June 1979 - Hart-Crowser & Associates prepared
Phase I Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed
Chambers Creek Interceptor Tunnel, Pierce County,
Washington. The report concluded that construction
of the tunnel is feasible and that additional soil
exploration is neaded.
o March 1980 - Hart-Crowser & Associates completed
additional soils study and a Preliminary Report
on Phase II Geotechnical Engineering Study and
Recommendations for Phase III and IV Investigations,
Proposed Chambers Creek Interceptor Tunnel, Pierce
County, Washington. The report concluded the
feasibility of the tunnel as good, with some spe-
cial construction techniques suggested. Two addi-
tional phases of soil exploration were recommended.
The Phase III investigations are scheduled to be
completed near the end of March 1981, while Phase IV
work would not be completed until September 1981.
The Phase III report is to finalize the exact tunnel
alignment and to better define groundwater conditions
at the east and west ends of the alignment. Phase
IV work would constitute additional soil borings
at approximately 200-foot intervals.
o July 1980 - Kennedy Engineers prepared Cost Effec-
tive Analysis of the Chambers Creek Interceptor
Alternatives, Pierce County, Washington which com-
pared the costs of the Tunnel and Pump Station
Alternatives. The Tunnel Alternative was found
to be the most cost-effective.
Because of the significant changes in the originally
preferred alternative (1975 EIS), EPA determined that a
Supplemental EIS was needed, and on November 25, 1980, ini-
tiated the procedure to prepare this report.
10

-------
Description of Existing System
A detailed description of the existing systems of sewage
treatment and disposal was presented in the Chambers Creek-
Clover Creek Basin Sewerage General Plan, Pierce County,
Washington (1969), and the Chambers Creek Basin Water Quality
Management Plan for Pierce County, Washington (1974) prepared
by Kennedy Engineers, and in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement for Chambers Creek System (ULID 73-1) (1975) pre-
pared by EPA. .
The overall plan for sewage collection, treatment and
disposal in the Chambers Creek-Clover Creek Basin, as defined
in the earlier studies, would consist of the following com-
ponents :
o A collection and interceptor system constructed
in two stages. The Stage I service area would
include the ULID 73-1, the Town of Steilacoom and
the Westside Water District. Stage 2 expansion
would provide sewer service to the Fircrest portions
of University Place, Tillicum, American Lake Gardens
and the remaining portions of Parkland and Spanaway.
o A treatment plant located just north of Chambers
Creek, on property owned by the Glacier Sand and
Gravel Co. The treatment facilities would include
secondary treatment for a year 2000 design flow of
38.69 MGD peak dry weather flows (accumulated) and
60.35 MGD peak wet weather flows (accumulated).
o An outfall discharging 600 feet offshore into Puget
Sound to a depth of 130 feet.
o A plan for sludge disposal which would include an
aerobic digestion, chemical conditioning, vacuum
filtration with ultimate disposal at the Pierce
County sanitary landfill.
o A main sewer interceptor from Bridgeport Way to
the Chambers Creek treatment plant, the subject
of this Supplemental EIS.
All features of the project proposed in those documents,
except for the main interceptor from Bridgeport Way to the
treatment plant (the subject of this EIS) are in final design
(Step II) or under construction (Step III). To date, approxi-
mately 20 percent of the trunk and collector sewer system
has been or is under construction (Tonkin pers. comm.).
11

-------
Chambers Creek Interceptor Alternatives
As previously mentioned, the earlier facilities plan
and EISs defined and evaluated a number of alternative align-
ments from Bridgeport Way to the treatment plant. Those
previous alternatives and those now being considered are
presented herein.
Alternatives Previously Considered
Three alternative interceptor alignments were evaluated
in the 1975 EPA Final EIS. These were:
o The "original alignment closely paralleling Chambers
Creek at the bottom of the Canyon. This alignment
was eliminated because of the major environmental
impacts caused by construction and because of likely
conflict with the objectives of the Washington
Shoreline Management Plan.
o An alignment higher on the North Wall of Chambers
Creek Canyon. This was the preferred alternative
in the 1975 EIS and, at that time, the alignment
proposed by the grant applicant. This alternative
has since been eliminated because of hazards of
constructing the alignment on the steep Canyon wall
(see Introduction and Background for more detail).
o The Pump Station Alternative (combination force
main and gravity interceptor) within Chambers Creek
Road, from Bridgeport Way to the treatment plant.
At the time of the 1975 EIS, this alternative was
eliminated because of the impact of construction
on traffic on Chambers Creek Road and because of
the higher annual operation and maintenance costs
associated with pumping.
In addition to the aforementioned alternatives, an ana-
lysis of the "No-Action" Alternative was made in the 197 5
EIS.
Project Alternatives
For the purposes of this Supplemental EIS, the "No-
Action" Alternative and two interceptor alternatives are
considered: the Pump Station Alternative and the Tunnel
Alternative.
12

-------
No-Action Alternative. Federal Regulations (40 CFR
Part 6) require consideration of the No-Action Alternative
in all EISs. For purposes of this Supplemental EIS, the
no-action option would include a decision not to proceed
with final design and construction of the main interceptor
and appurtenant facilities. The No-Action Alternative was
considered in the 1975 EIS and will only be briefly discussed
here.
In 1971, the Washington State Department of Ecology
(DOE) imposed a ban on the construction of subsurface dis-
posal systems in the Chambers Creek-Clover Creek basin due
to continuing evidence of wastewater disposal and water
quality problems (EPA 1975). Once DOE had received evi-
dence that Pierce County was to embark on a staged program
for sewage collection and treatment, the earlier order was
rescinded and a prescribed number of building permits were
allowed (DOE Docket No. DE 73-172). It is possible that
DOE would reimpose some combination of the earlier docket
in the event the No-Action Alternative was pursued.
Pump Station Alternative. This alternative was pre-
viously considered in the 197 5 EIS but eliminated at that
time for the reasons previously mentioned. This alternative
is being reconsidered herein because it remains a viable
alternative and can be evaluated and compared to the Tunnel
Alternative, whereas the other alternatives considered in
1975 are essentially infeasible due to major construction,
environmental or institutional concerns.
A detailed description of the Pump Station Alternative
is presented in the Cost Effective Analysis of the Chambers
Creek Interceptor Alternatives prepared by Kennedy Engineers
(1980), and only a brief description will be presented here.
The Pump Station Alternative would include a large pump
station located in an abandoned gravel pit on the north side
of Bridgeport Way just north of Leach Creek (Figure 2-1).
The pump station would receive flows from the Bridgeport
gravity interceptor, and would eventually receive flows from
areas served in the future by the Leach Creek and University
Place east interceptors (Kennedy Engineers 1980).
Flows from the pump station would first enter a 4,000-
foot- long, 42-inch-diameter force main and then a 10,000-
foot-long gravity interceptor (4 2-60 inch diameter pipe)
to the sewage treatment plant (see Figure 2-1). All but
1,200 feet of the alignment would be within the existing
Chambers Creek Road right-of-way. A 230-foot section of
the interceptor would be jacked through a 60-foot-high ridge
between Chambers Creek Road and the treatment plant site.
Construction for all but the 230 feet of this alternative
would be by open-cut trenching.
13

-------
Sunset Kuui-h /
SCALE
I". 2000
| GRAVITY SEWER
¦> ••		 JZT«i i ltin
liNAvl I
• f I'll
CHAMBERS CREEK
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
7 T
-
1 ....
Sunny.siiU' *•'# ^ i
,fcwh /•/ J )|
3j)
. v^r,	... ,
- ! ¦
*r?Z:
		-J.
\ • j \i i<*n
^••1. V
I
a tl«"*

PUMP STATION!
r.-.J
ach Acfen
Wri#ht U-«d*my^

~'AN*
MaaiU
... i "r, B»f Manilipu. f"
BRIDGEPORT fci I I
INTERCEPTOR it
MH B-6
FORCE
r
ijr
[	* *1	{
I L.>., v $ . ifBAW j
i y . f.i S\-~ *!
• I •-• . v.: •
KM *
I
nmitWr,:T^ "
Jr Hitfh Srh »
< UHtlT
Canter
I	» S'l	I		
^	T'4^7 •T«i4Tiij*r.r5i Wiii"'.*'^r*
I
Si'*. , 
-------
Tunnel Alternative. The tunnel would be approximately
12,800 feet long following the alignment shown on Figure 2-2.
The tunnel would receive flows from the Bridgeport inter-
ceptor at the same point as previously described for the
Pump Station Alternative. The tunnel would terminate at
the treatment plant on Glacier Sand and Gravel property.
Much of the tunnel would be constructed 100-150 feet below
the surface (see Construction Methodology section of this
Supplemental EIS). At the west end of the tunnel, the sewage
would flow for 1,250 feet through a conventional gravity
pipe to the treatment plant. Approximately 800 feet of the
1,250 feet of conventional sewer would be placed on fill
material (Kennedy Engineers 1980).
For any tunnel built under compressed air conditions,
a bulkhead and an airlock must be installed to maintain the
air pressure inside the tunnel. It is anticipated that
because of possible groundwater problems only approximately
2,200 feet of the tunnel alignment would require the use
of compressed air but that the entire alignment would be
constructed with the pressure system in place or the use
of an earth balancing tunneling technique. The purpose of
using these techniques while tunneling would be to prevent
groundwater from entering the excavation.
Alternatives Available to EPA
EPA's implementation procedures for the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA) require, in addition to considering
the grant applicant's alternatives, that EISs consider alter-
natives available to EPA. These alternatives may include
structural or locational alternatives not investigated by
the grant applicant, or can be administrative only.
In the case of this Draft Supplemental EIS, EPA has
determined that Pierce County has examined a full range of
structural alternatives, and that analysis of new structural
alternatives is not warranted as a part of this EIS.
EPA administrative alternatives are of two types: funding
and grant conditions. Such administrative options available
to EPA may include funding or not funding the proposed action;
funding portions of the project; funding the project in stages;
or providing a reduced or increased level of funding. EPA.may
also place conditions on subsequent design and construction
grants to mitigate adverse construction, operational or
secondary impacts.
15

-------
FIGURE 2-2
Sunaet Bcac
1
SCALE1
"•aootf
GRAVEL
P4aeh Acres J . w ^ ^ \ X
kc»d*myt . .\ ^p? ,, *">
Gi«v*l
INLET
STRUCTURE
OUTLET
STRUCTURE
Maafi
. ua*
MfADO* PAR
GOt» rOORSF "jj[
TUNNEL
BRIDGEPORT Itf H
INTERCEPTOR 14UiL5
MH B-6

J-Glacier
CHAMBERS CREEK
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
t •!
> ;
p v-. • ; ¦
*> si k tr
lit • L
I 
-------
Connection of North Area Trunk Sewers to
Chambers Creek Interceptor Alternatives
A number of trunk interceptors would contribute sewage
flows to the Chambers Creek Interceptor. These flows would
enter the main interceptor at several different locations,
depending on the alternative. Two interceptors, Leach Creek
and University Place East would enter the Chambers Creek
Interceptor at either the pump station (Pump Station Alter-
native) or at the tunnel inlet (Tunnel Alternatives) near
Bridgeport Way (Appendix A; Figures A-3 and A-4). Other
interceptors from north of Chambers Creek would enter the
system at a number of locations as described herein.
Westside Sewer District
Sewage from the Westside Sewer District would flow down
Grandview Drive to Chambers Creek Road. Under the Pump Station
Alternative the district would connect into the gravity por-
tion of the interceptor at a point where Chambers Creek Road
begins its descent into Chambers Creek Canyon (near the new
Tacoma cemetery) (Appendix A; Figure A-3). Year 2000 flows
would be approximately 3.8 MGD.
Under the Tunnel Alternative, the Westside Sewer District
Interceptor would enter the tunnel through a drop structure
located approximately 300 feet south of where Chambers Creek
Road begins its descent into Chambers Creek Canyon (south
of New Tacoma Cemetery) (Appendix A; Figure A-4).
University Place South
Sewage flows from the University Place South Interceptor
would originate from the area south of Cirque Drive. Flows
from University Place South would connect into the gravity
portion of the Pump Station Alternative near the Charles
Wright Academy (Appendix A; Figure A-3). The flows would
be approximately 0.95 MGD.
If the Tunnel Alternative were to be constructed, the
University Place South flows would join the Westside Sewer
District interceptor prior to entering the tunnel 300 feet
south of where Chambers Creek Road begins its descent into
the Canyon (Appendix A; Figure A-4).
Future Construction of Trunk Sewers
The future connection of trunk interceptors would be
the responsibility of Pierce County and future ULIDs created
to serve the Westside Sewer District and University Place.
17

-------
The exact alignments of the trunk sewers and impacts
associated with each would be contingent upon the inter-
ceptor selected, the Pump Station Alternative or the Tunnel
Alternative.
No matter which interceptor is chosen, some future
construction will occur along Chambers Creek Road. Impacts
on Chambers Creek Road associated with construction of the
Pump Station Alternative are presented in Chapter 3 of this
EIS. Construction of the Tunnel Alternative would avoid
Chambers Creek Road, yet the construction of the University
Place South and Westside Sewer District trunk sewers, as
now defined, would ultimately require some construction within
the roadway. The Westside Sewer District Interceptor is pre-
sented being designed (Step II), with funding of the system
scheduled for 1984 (Carroll pers. comm.).
Design Flows
The year 2000 peak wet weather flows projected for the
entire Stage I and Stage II service areas would be 60.35
MGD (Kennedy Engineers 1980). The Pump Station Alternative
would receive approximately 59.42 MGD of those flows, while
the Tunnel Alternative would handle 55.54 MGD (Table 2-1).
The Pump Station Alternative would handle all flows
from the service areas except for 1.51 MGD from the Westside
Oakbrook Interceptor, which would directly enter the Chambers
Creek wastewater treatment plant from the south (see Appendix A;
Figure A-3).
The Tunnel Alternative would handle all service areas
flows except for Westside Oakbrook (1.51 MGD), Westside Sewer
District (3.78 MGD), and University Place South (1.39 MGD)
(see Appendix A; Figure A-4). Those flows would enter the
Chambers Creek treatment plant via separate interceptors
as discussed in the previous section.
Proposed Construction Methodology
Because the primary differences between the two "action"
alternatives will involve construction, a brief description
of proposed construction methodology is provided here.
Two types of construction are being considered: open-
cut trenching (conventional construction) for the Pump Station
Alternative and tunneling for the Tunnel Alternative.
18

-------
Table 2-1. Year 2000 Design Flows


Accumulated

Accumulated

Accumulated
Trunk
ADWF
ADWF
PDWF
PDWF
PWWF
PWWF^

mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
Flows tributary to tunnel and
pump :
station:




Bridgeport Interceptor
12.99

25.26

39.92



12.99

25.26

39.92
Phillips-Hipkins Int.
4.10

9.13

11.88



17.09

32.74

50.15
Leach Creek Trunk
1.61

4.06

5.95



18.70

35.61

54.92
A. Fircresc/Tacoma
1.02

2.89

3.99

B. Pierce County
0.59

1.77

2.56

University Place East
0.18

0.66

0.95

Total

18.88

35.44

55.54
Flows tributary to treatment
plant:





University Place South
0.29

0.97

1.39



19.17

36.45

56.47
Westside Sewer District
0.95

2.59

3.78



20.12

38.21

59.42
Westside Oakbrook
0.32

1.06

1.51

Total

20.44

38.69

60.35
The accumulated peak wee weather flow (PWWF) is derived by adding the average dry weather
•flows (ADWF) and multiplying that accumulated number by the peak factor from the 1969
peak factor curve to get the accumulated Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF). Accumulated in-
flow and infiltration amounts are then added to the accumulated PDWF to get the accumulated
PWWF.
SOURCE: Kennedy Engineers 1980.
19

-------
Open-Cut Construction
Open-cut construction would involve the excavation of
an open trench along the 15,800-foot-long alignment, the
depth and width of which would vary with topography.
Along the force main portion of the alignment, the
trench will be relatively shallow (8-10 feet) and approxi-
mately 6-8 feet in width at the bottom. Along portions of
the gravity alignment, excavation of wide, deep trenches
(20-25 feet) would be necessary (see the profile in Figure A-l
in Appendix A). Because of the extreme depth of the cut
and the loose nature of the soil, virtually the entire width
of the roadway would be necessary for construction. The
top of the trench would ba up to 60 feet wide.
It is anticipated that construction would progress at
a rate varying from 25-50 feet per day. At that rate, con-
struction would take 316-632 working days (63-126 weeks).
Wherever deep cuts are needed, construction progress would
be greatly reduced. Normally a maximum of 150-200 feet of
trench would be open at any one time.
The normal equipment for construction would include
a backhoe, front-end loader, several dump trucks, support
equipment such as compressors, jackhammers, pumps and other
miscellaneous tools. The standard procedure for construction
would involve a backhoe and trucks excavating a trench 150-
20 0 feet in length, followed by the pipe-laying crew using
trench boxes or solder or sheet piling (whenever the trench
is quite deep or soil is loose). Since the depth to ground-
water along the alignment is 60-75 feet, no dewatering of
the trench is anticipated.
Prior to installation of the pipe, a bedding material
(i.e., sand or gravel) would be placed and compacted within
the trench. The pipe would then be laid, and the trench
backfilled and compacted. Excess material from the trench
would be trucked to disposal sites. It is estimated that
approximately 15,400 cubic yards of excess soil material
would be excavated and would require disposal.
Tunnel Construction
A detailed analysis of proposed tunnel construction
by Jacobs Associates was presented in the Cost Effective
Analysis of the Chambers Creek Interceptor Alternatives
prepared by Kennedy Engineers (1980)", therefore, only a
brief discussion of construction methodology will be pre-
sented here. A profile of the proposed Tunnel Alternative
is shown on Figure A-2 in Appendix A.
20

-------
Tunnel construction would involve the following basic
features:
o Staging Areas - The staging sites would be estab-
lished at the outlet of the tunnel and would
consist of an area of approximately 3-4 acres.
This area would support the equipment and material
necessary for tunnel construction. The staging
area would be on the Glacier Sand and Gravel pro-
perty. A smaller staging area would also be
necessary at the tunnel portal near Bridgeport
Way.
o Pneumatic Systems - The tunnel will be designed
to operate under a "low" pressure system if needed.
To supply those needs, several large mobile and
emergency compressors would be required. "High"
pressure equipment such as drills, jackhammers,
wrenches, etc., may be necessary during con-
struction. This high air may be supplied by
another compressor or off the low air system when
such a system is used.
o Ventilation - The tunnel must be supplied with
ventilation to serve the requirements of the men,
and to remove heat loads generated by power equip-
ment. The air supply will be provided by fans
mounted at the entrance portal and at an inter-
mediate surface location along the alignment.
Booster fans transfer the air within the tunnel
alignment.
o Transportation - The tunnel transport system will
consist of a small scale electric railway for carrying
men, support materials, tools, and equipment parts
and the tunnel lining materials. It will also
carry excavated material to the tunnel entrance.
o Tunnel Boring - Construction of the tunnel would
involve the use of a boring machine with a tunnel
shield. The shield would be forced ahead in steps,
keeping pace with the progress of excavation and
erection of tunnel support system behind. The
tunnel diameter would range in size from 72-10 2
inches. The tunnel would probably be mined from
Glacier Sand and Gravel upgrade to the tunnel portal
at Bridgeport Way west. Blasting would not be
required except in rare situations where a very
large boulder is encountered (Douglas pers. comm.).
21

-------
o Mucking and Spoil Disposal - Material excavated
from the tunnel would be transported from the tunnel
by small scale railway and conveyed from the en-
trance to the Glacier Sand and Gravel facility for
disposal. The volume of material would range from
13,400 cubic yards for a 72-inch tunnel to 27,000
cubic yards for a 102-inch tunnel.
o Timing of Construction - The estimate of tunnel
construction time, including excavation, concreting,
grouting and cleanup would be 15-17 months. Under
good working conditions, the tunnel excavation would
proceed at about 100 linear feet per day.
Preferred Action Proposed by Pierce County
Although no alternative has been officially adopted
by Pierce County, the Tunnel Alternative represents the pre-
ferred alignment based on the earlier review of the Cost
Effective Analysis of the Chambers Creek Interceptor Alter-
natives prepared by Kennedy Engineers (1980).
The final decision by the Pierce County Board of Com-
missioners will be made at the conclusion of the EIS and
the Phase III soils investigations and upon the recommen-
dation of the design engineer (Peterson pers. comm.).
22

-------
Chapter 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
THE ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
This chapter of the Supplemental EIS discusses the major
environmental issues associated with construction of the
alternative interceptor alignments. Each subsection deals
with an individual issue. The issue is identified, pertinent
background data are presented or cited and the nature of
the impact of each alternative is discussed. Mitigation
measures are suggested where significant adverse environ-
mental impacts have been identified.
As mentioned previously, most of the impacts associated
with the alternatives are construction-related, and tend
to be of a short-term nature (during and shortly after con-
struction) .
Groundwater
Present Conditions and Use of Resources
An extensive discussion of the groundwater resources
was presented in the 197 5 EPA Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Chambers Creek Sewerage System and in the
Chambers Creek/U.L.I.D. 73-1 Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by Pierce County (197 5). A comprehensive study
of groundwater in central Pierce County and the Chambers
Creek basin is described in the Washington Department of
Water Resources Supply Bulletin No. 22 (1968).
Much of the surface soils within the study area consist
of Steilacoom sand and gravels of high permeability, usually
underlain by a layer or layers of more compacted material
which has low permeability. Below the compacted sand-silt
layer is the Kitsap formation which contains the deep aquifer.
The compacted silts and sands occur in irregular, thin or
discontinuous formations, which may allow integration of
the shallow and deep aquifers, although the hydraulic re-
lationship between the two aquifers is not clearly under-
stood (Appendix B).
23

-------
Within the Chambers Creek study area, groundwater occurs
at depths ranging from 60-75 feet of the surface. Detailed
soils studies conducted by Robinson, Noble & Carr, Inc.,
show groundwater in the lower aquifer to occur at 110-140-
foot depths along the proposed tunnel alignment. Groundwater
movement trends west-southwest in the area north of Chambers
Creek Canyon, and almost due west along the Leach Creek
drainage (EPA 1975).
Numerous private wells exist within the study area.
Water from these local wells is withdrawn from both the upper
and lower aquifers. For a more detailed analysis of existing
groundwater conditions see Appendix B of this report.
Impact of the Alternatives on Groundwater
No-Action. The impact analysis on groundwater for the
No-Action Alternative was presented in EPA's Final EIS
(page 96). Since no construction would occur, short-term
impacts would be nonexistent. The Final EIS indicated that
the long term impact on groundwater of continued use of septic
systems or their increased use would be difficult to predict,
but that the filtering and purifying capacity of Steilacoom
gravels is suspect. Failing septic systems and cesspools
do exist, thereby contaminating upper groundwater. In turn,
the deep aquifer may be receiving some contamination from
the surface groundwaters.
Pump Station Alternative. Barring rupture of the force
main or gravity line, the Pump Station Alternative should
.have no effect on groundwater in the Chambers Creek area
(see Appendix B). Groundwater lies well below the proposed
depth of the open-cut trench.
Tunnel Alternative. The construction of the tunnel
alignment could possibly create an adverse impact on ground-
water in the Chambers Creek area. The proposed tunnel would
be driven below the upper aquifer for 75 percent of the length
of the alignment but intruded into the lower aquifer (regional
water table) for at least 7,000 feet in the central portion
of its length. Extant information is not sufficient at this
time to define aquifer conditions at both ends of the align-
ment. The potential groundwater-related impacts associated
with boring the tunnel are as follows:
o Likelihood of Encountering Fine Sand Layers - Pockets of
fine, unconsolidated sand materials could cause
"flowing ground" conditions during tunnel con-
struction. Provisions for such a potential problem
have been recognized in the tunnel construction and
cost analyses (Jacobs Associates 1980). The tunnel
24

-------
could be driven using a pressurized; system to pre-
vent groundwater infiltration into the tunnel.
o Possibility of Affecting Drilled Wells - According
to Robinson, Noble & Carr, Inc., (see Appendix B),
possibly 25 drilled wells within the study area are
used for residential, institutional, and irrigation water
supplies. Water from these wells is withdrawn from
both upper and lower aquifers. Any lowering of
the surfaces of aquifers (from use of dewatering
wells) during tunnel construction could adversely
affect yields from local wells and springs. Any
effect on these wells should last only as long
as construction dewatering is necessary for tunneling.
Such dewatering is not anticipated.
Because the hydraulic relationships of the two aquifers
is not clear, dewatering in the lower aquifer may also lower
water levels in wells drilled in the upper aquifer (Appendix B).
No long-term (post-construction) adverse impacts on ground-
water resources is anticipated as a result of tunnel operation.
Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Groundwater
As previously mentioned, the use of air or dewatering
wells during tunnel construction should eliminate any likely
impacts of tunneling into "flowing ground" conditions (i.e.,
fine saturated sands or springs). A number of measures could
be taken to more precisely determine or to prevent impacts
on existing drilled wells:
o All local wells along the alignment should be in-
ventoried prior to tunnel construction (see Appendix B
for inventory parameters).
o Springs along the north side of Chambers Creek
Valley (presently used as a water supply) should
be located, their discharges estimated and their
water quality determined using standard para-
meters .
o Future test borings should be completed with mul-
tiple piezometers in different aquifers encountered.
o Water level measurements from existing and future
piezometers should be taken regularly and compiled
to better define potentiometric surfaces, hydraulic
gradients, and seasonal water level fluctuation.
o Hydraulic continuity between the upper and lower
aquifers should be established for those areas
which might require dewatering.
25

-------
Implementation of the above recommendations would provide
a data base from which to choose the best method of dewatering
along the tunnel alignment. The inventory of local springs
and wells would provide a record of discharges and quality
in the event of conflict with local well owners during con-
struction and after completion of the tunneling project.
Soils and Ground Stability
Present Conditions
The surficial soil formation within the Chambers Creek
study area is classified as "upland sand and gravel", which
includes three soil types: Vashon recessional outwash,
Steilacoom gravel and Vashon advance outwash (EPA 1975) .
The Steilacoom gravel overlies stratified layers of nearly
impermeable silts and sands. The gravelly surface soils
tend to be of loose texture and generally unconsolidated.
The North Wall of Chambers Creek Canyon is considered
unstable. There has been a history of slides along much
of its length. Detailed soils investigations conducted by
Hart-Crowser & Associates showed soils along the rim of the
north Canyon to be Steilacoom gravels overlying layers of
Colvos sand, Colvos transition sand and silt, and Kitsap
formation (Hart-Crowser & Associates 1980).
The study area lies within the Puget Lowland, an area
categorized as having a potential for high seismic activity.
A discussion of seismic hazards was presented in Appendix D
of EPA's 1976 EIS.
Recent data compiled by the USGS (Keuler pers. comm.)
and the University of Puget Sound (Dames pers. comm.) indicate
that no earthquake faults have been located within the study
area.
The entire Puget Lowland area lies within what is known
as a Zone 3 seismic risk category (high seismic activity
area) and structures must therefore, be designed to with-
stand earthquakes of a moderate magnitude.
Impacts of the Alternatives
No-Action Alternative. Since no construction would
occur, there would be no impact on soils within the study
area.
26

-------
Pump Station Alternative. For the most part, standard
construction procedures would be anticipated along much of
the pump station alignment; however, the combination of deep
trench cuts (20-25 feet) and loose soil could create some
difficult construction conditions, particularly where Chambers
Creek Road begins its descent along the north side of Chambers
Creek Canyon. It is anticipated that construction progress
would be slow because of the deep trenches and the need to
stabilize the slope. Construction would be most difficult
wherever loose soil conditions are encountered. The inter-
ceptor would be constructed to conform to the specific design
regulations of a Zone 3 seismic risk category (Tonkin pers.
comm.).
Tunnel Alternative. Construction of the tunnel would
be through Covos transition sands and silts for much of the
alignment. The detailed soils surveys, both concluded and
ongoing, are designed to provide enough information to anti-
cipate potential tunnel construction problems. A detailed
analysis by Jacobs Associates (1980) and Hart-Crowser &
Associates highlighted a number of points: groundwater
along approximately 2,200 feet of the 12,800 linear feet
of tunnel could cause some construction problems, particularly
where the alignment would jog south of Chambers Creek Road
and also near the east end of the alignment. However, these
problems would be controlled by specifying provisions for
either the use of compressed air or earth balance tunneling
technique along the entire alignment.
As shown on preliminary drawings, the tunnel alignment
would pass within 30-35 feet of two residential structures
and within 150 feet of another 16 structures, but at depths
of 100-125 feet. However, because of the depth of the tunnel
(100-150 feet below the surface) no problems of ground move-
ment or settlement are likely to occur. The technique of
using a tunnel shield followed by the erection of a primary
support system and finally either a cast-in-place concrete
lining or polyethylene pipe (with backfilling of concrete
grout), would prevent ground loss problems. Impacts on the
ground surface would only occur in the unlikely event of
tunnel collapse. No vibration should be felt at the surface
during tunnel construction because of the depth of the tunnel,
the type of substrate and the method of tunnel boring. Jack-
hammering or blasting would be required if large boulders
are encountered.
27

-------
Surface Water Implications
Existing Conditions
The major surface waters within the study area are Chambers
Creek and Leach Creek. Extensive data regarding surface
water were presented in the 197 5 Pierce County EIS (page 111-23)
and in the EPA EIS (page 57) and therefore will not be re-
peated here.
Neither alternative alignment will cross any watercourses
and the alignments will, for the most part, be well away
from Chambers Creek.
Impacts of the Alternatives
No-Action Alternative. The "no-action" impact on surface
water quality was presented in the 1975 EIS prepared by EPA
(page 96).
Pump Station Alternative. Construction of the pump
station alignment would expose unprotected soil to potential
erosion from rainfall and subsequent runoff into adjacent
streamways. The inflow of sediments into Chambers Creek
would cause temporary increases in turbidity and nutrients.
Any fine silty-organic soil material would remain in suspen-
sion for a long period of time, and therefore cause the more
turbid conditions in any surface waters. Such conditions
would be temporary and would not adversely affect fisheries
or beneficial uses of Chambers Creek.
The most likely impact of construction would occur along
the lower part of Chambers Creek Road where the interceptor
alignment would be close to Chambers Creek. Because the
groundwater is far below the surface (60-75 feet) along this
alignment, dewatering activities may not be necessary.
Tunnel Alternative. No impacts on surface water from
tunneling are anticipated. Surface disturbance would only
occur at the tunnel portals and if required, any groundwater
encountered during construction would be discharged into
the gravel company's existing holding ponds.
Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Surface Water Quality
For the Pump Station Alternative, the immediate back-
filling and compaction of loose material into the excavated
trench (particularly where steep slopes are involved) and
repaving Chambers Creek Road would reduce water quality impacts.
Other mitigation measures such as berming and installing
haybales would reduce the inflow of sediments into Chambers
Creek.
28

-------
Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources
Existing Conditions
A detailed account of existing terrestrial and aquatic
resources was presented in the 197 5 EISs and will not be
repeated here. The status of endangered and threatened
wildlife species within the study area was updated and appears
in Chapter 4 and Appendix C of this EIS.
Impacts of the Alternatives
Neither project alternatives would adversely affect
terrestrial or aquatic resources in any major way. The lo-
cations of the inlet or pump station structures near Bridge-
port Way would be in an abandoned gravel pit. Some vegetation,
which has developed since abandonment of the gravel operation,
would be cleared for either of those structures and for a
construction staging area.
The remaining components of the alternatives (i.e.,
pipeline, tunnel, outlet structures, etc.), would either
be located within existing roadways or well below the ground
surface and would not affect terrestrial resources. Neither
alternative would adversely affect aquatic resources.
Spoil Disposal
Impacts of the Alternatives
Construction of either alignment would necessitate the
removal and disposal of soil material. Approximately 15,40 0
cubic yards of material from the Pump Station Alternative
would require disposal, while, depending on the tunnel dia-
meter, 13,400-27,000 cubic yards would be removed from the
tunnel.
All excavated material not used as backfill would be
disposed of at the Glacier Sand and Gravel operation. Ma-
terial removed from the pump station alignment would be
Steilacoom gravels and may be of some value as aggregate;
however, it is anticipated that material excavated from the
tunnel alignment would consist of fine silty-sand and would
be of little value as aggregate. The material may be useful
in stabilizing slopes or as fill.
No truck hauling on roadways would be required under
the Tunnel Alternative.
29

-------
Transportation, Traffic Circulation and Utilities
Existing Conditions
The major roadways within the Chambers Creek study area
include Chambers Creek Road, Grandview Drive, Bridgeport
Way, and Cirque Drive. Bridgeport Way is a major four-lane
artery running north and south while Chambers Creek Road
runs westerly from Bridgeport Way, eventually terminating
in Steilacoom, south of Chambers Creek. Figures 3-1 and
3-2 show the daily (24-hour) traffic volumes on the roadways
within the study area.
Traffic currently is relatively light in the study area,
with Chambers Creek Road having average daily traffic (ADT)
between 3,200 and 4,150 (Figure 3-1). Traffic data indicate
some through traffic uses Chambers Creek Road from the Town
of Steilacoom and Bridgeport Way, and some through traffic
uses Chambers Creek Road, 64th Street West and Grandview
Drive. Other traffic uses Chambers Creek Road and 64th Street
West as an access to Grandview Drive, although this pattern
has the lowest volume of the through traffic. These through
volumes are estimated to comprise nearly 70 percent of total
traffic at the intersection of Chambers Creek Road. The
remaining traffic is generated by land uses in the area,
varying from residences to three major industries.
Truck traffic generated by the three major industries
(Boise Cascade, Lone Star Industries, Inc., and Glacier Sand
and Gravel) is of concern to area residents. These industries
generate up to 525 trucks each weekday, representing 1,0 50
round trips, or an ADT of 1,0 50. About 90 percent of these
trucks reportedly follow Chambers Creek Road to Bridgeport
Way, although about 10 percent of them do exit to the Town
of Steilacoom. As a result, about 25 percent of the traffic
on Chambers Creek Road between 64th Street West and Bridge-
port Way consists of heavy trucks. The truck traffic is
heaviest between about 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., with the peak
occurring in the morning.
Chambers Creek Road contains a number of utilities,
a 10-inch water main and a 4-inch gas line. There is no
existing sewer or storm drainage system within the roadway.
Electricity, cable television, and telephone service is carried
by overhead systems (Miranda; Gerdahl pers. comm.).
.Impacts of the Alternatives
Pump Station Alternative. Construction of the Pump
Station Alternative would require closure of Chambers Creek
Road, since excavation for the sewer pipe and construction
30

-------
Regents
10348
Center
12083
'6307,
3790
3444
CHAMBERS
- LEGEND
STUDY AREA
SCALE IN THOUSANDS
MODIFIED FROM: PIERCE COUNTY PUBLIC WORK
DEPARTMENT, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIV.
NOTE"- FIGURES REPRESENT 24 HOUR VOLUME
FIGURE 3-1.
STUDY AREA
TRAFFIC FLOW MAP- CHAMBERS CREEK
31

-------


74 Si W
ONYX
»i«M(oom Blvtf
13107	16682
12335
2 327

11234 - H 10688 12430
19073
TOWN or
STULACOOM
Matof *»• 4129
69079647
96 it S
• 4076
1766)
18609
15544
A43"
¦ 15055	100 SI SW 121065 51019
•y?s. '	I	it*-
/393I
l^*5SF *
1090
STBLACOOM
LAKE
33900
9bd9
H372 6847
B634
ioe st. sw
mm
SR 512
112 St SW
12 SI i>W
16129
13118 13616
GRAVELLY
LAKE
A
17000¦ o
WoaKington Bhd
tfUadjyiEiRsP

VETERANS Of.

l?613
m&Mwr
FORT LEWIS
McCHORO FIELD
Thorn u
£S5b®S

- LEGEND
STUDY AREA
MODIFIED FROM- PIERCE COUNTY PUBLIC WORK
DEPARTMENT, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIV.
NOTE • FIGURES REPRESENT 24 HOUR VOLUME
SCALE IN THOUSANDS
FIGURE 3-2. TRAFFIC FLOW MAP- SOUTH PORTION OF
CHAMBERS CREEK STUDY AREA

-------
activities will occupy the entire roadway area. It will
be necessary to provide access for local traffic and con-
struction vehicles, although this access is likely to be
on an unpaved temporary roadway, and access will probably
be subject to delay to give priority to construction equip-
ment and activity. Local traffic will be inconvenienced.
The closure of Chambers Creek Road will probably affect
the road in sections. Construction is likely to begin at
the easterly end near Bridgeport Way, and proceed toward
the plant. The closure will move west along with the pipe
placement, and the trench will be backfilled and the road
reconstructed behind it. As much as 1 mile of Chambers
Creek Road could be closed at any one time. Three different
detour situations will be possible during various stages
of the closure. Condition 1 would occur when the closure
is east of the Chambers Creek Road, 64th Street West inter-
section, with the intersection still open. Condition 2
would occur with the intersection closed, and Condition 3
would occur when the closure is west of the intersection,
and the intersection has reopened. Impacts of the closure
on traffic in the area are shown in Table 3-1 for each of
these three conditions.
Condition 1 requires truck traffic to use either Steila-
coom Boulevard or Grandview and Cirque Drives (or Grandview
and 40th Street West). In Table 3-1 it was assumed that
trucks visiting Lone Star Industries would use the Grandview-
Cirque Drive route, while Glacier Sand and Gravel and Boise
Cascade trucks would use Steilacoom Boulevard. However,
either detour route could be used by any proportion of the
trucks under Condition 1. With Conditions 2 and 3, however,
the trucks would have no alternatives to these routings.
Table 3-1 shows that a significant increase in trucks
and total traffic would occur along the detour routes. Cirque
Drive would have 300 new heavy trucks per day under Condi-
tions 1 and 2, and would have up to 80 percent more total
traffic. Steilacoom Boulevard would have about 6 50 more
heavy trucks per day under all conditions, and up to a 40 per-
cent increase in total traffic. Little or no impacts are
expected on Bridgeport Way or other roads in the area.
Heavy truck traffic on Cirque Drive would be a dis-
ruption and a safety hazard in this residential area. The
traffic increase would also reduce safety. The trucks may
also overload the pavement, leading to potholes and pre-
mature failure. Dust, debris and gravel may also be occa-
sionally spilled from trucks using the alternate routes,
particularly if rough pavement is encountered.
33

-------
Table 3-1. Predicted Impacts on Traffic Due to Construction of Pump
Station Alternative With Various Road Closure Conditions
Condition 1 - Chambers Creek Road Closed From
64th Street West to Wright Academy Only
Present	Change in Change in Total Resulting Change in Total
location	Traffic-AOT Trucks-ADT Traffic-ADT	Traffic-ADT Traffic-%
Bridgeport Way 3 Chambers Creek Road
12,
,500
0
+
630
13,
,130
+ 5%
Steilacocm 3oulevard west of Farwest
9,
,460
+650
+1,
,330
10,
,840
+15%
Steilacoom Boulevard east of Hopkins
18,
,750
+650
+1,
,380
20,
,130
+ 7%
Chambers Creek Road northeast of Steilacocm
4,
,150
+650
+
120
4,
,270
+ 3%
Chambers Creek Road 3 Wright Acadeny
3,
,790
-950
"3,
,350

4401
-88%
Grandview Drive north of 64th Street West
3,
,030
+300
+
80
3,
,110
+ 3%
Cirque Drive east of Grandview
2,
,490
+300
+1;
,980
4,
,470
+80%
'Local traffic only, as permitted.
Condition 2 - Chambers Creek Road Closed From
Chambers Bay to Wright Academy
Present	Change in Change in Total Resulting Cnap.ge in Total
Location	Traffic-AET Trucks-ADT Traffic-ADT	Traffic-ADT Traffic-%
Bridgeport Way 9 Chambers Creek Road
12,
,500
0
+3,
,020
15,
,520
+27%
Steilacocm Boulevard west of Farwest
9,
,460
+650
+3,
,770
13,
,230
+40%
Steilacoom Boulevard east of Hopkins
18,
,750
+650
+3,
,770
22,
,520
+20%
Chambers Creek Road northeast of Steilacoom
4,
,150
+650
-2,
,270
1,
,880
-55%
Chambers Creek Road 3 Wright Acaderry
3,
,790
-950
-3,
,350

4401
-88%
Grandview Drive north of 64th Street West
3,
,030
+300
-2,
,320

710
-77%
Cirque Drive east of Grandview
2,
,490
+300
+1,
,350
3,
,840
+54%
'Local traffic only, as permitted.
Condition 3 - Chambers Creek Road Closed From
Chambers Bay to 64th Street West Only
Present	Change in Change in Total Resulting Change in Total
Location	Traffic-ADT Trucks-ADT Traffic-ADT Traffic-ADT Traffic-%
Bridgeport Way 3 Chambers Creek Road
12,
,500
0
+3,
,020
15,
,520
+27%
Steilacoom Boulevard west of Farwest
9,
,460
+630
+3,
,670
13,
,130
+39%
Steilacocm Boulevard east of Hopkins
18,
,750
+650
+3,
,670
22,
,420
+20%
Chambers Creek Road northeast of Steilacocm
4,
,150
+650
-2,
,370
1,
,780
-57%
Chambers Creek Road 3 Wright Academy
3,
,790
-680
-1,
,930
1,
,860
-51%
Grandview Drive north of 64th Street West
3,
,030
0
-1,
,770
1,
,260
-42%
Cirque Drive east of Grandview
2,
,490
0

0
2,
,490
0
SOURCES: Pierce County Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division (Figures 3-1, 3-2, and unpublished);
pers. caim. Boise Cascade Glacier Sand and Gravel, and Lone Star Industries, Inc.
34

-------
Heavy truck traffic on Steilacoom Boulevard may have
similar impacts. However, Steilacoom Boulevard has a higher
percentage of truck traffic at present and may be able to
handle the increased traffic more safely and with less threat
to pavement than in the case of Cirque Drive.
The values shown in Table 3-1 do not include construction-
generated traffic. At various times there will be truck-
loads of pipe, pipe bedding materials, and related materials,
as well as the passenger vehicles and pickup trucks of con-
struction works. This traffic is likely to add up to 200
trips per day to the values shown in Table 3-1. These
vehicles would use Chambers Creek Road from Bridgeport Way
for the most part, although some would use the detour routes
described above.
In the event the Pump Station Alternative was constructed,
the utilities beneath Chambers Creek Road would be affected.
Interruption of some utility services can be expected for
brief periods of time wherever gas or water lines must be
relocated. Since only two utility lines are within the road-
way, the anticipated impact of construction would not be
severe.
Tunnel Alternative. The Tunnel Alternative would not
cause any road closures, and would not require detouring
of any trucks from Chambers Creek Road. Tunnel operations
would generate some construction-related traffic, mostly
of tunnel construction materials and workers. This traffic,
perhaps 200 trips per day, would use Chambers Creek Road,
increasing traffic levels by about 5 percent. No signifi-
cant impacts are expected.
No impact on utilities would result from tunnel con-
struction because the alignment would be well below the lo-
cation of utilities.
Mitigation Measures
o Inconvenience to local traffic along Chambers Creek
Road can be relieved by providing a gravelled access
road along the construction area, allowing continuous
access for local traffic. If this is not feasible,
local traffic can be passed at regular intervals,
with the schedules made available to residents in
advance, and clearly posted at both ends of the
closure. Since an access road can, from a practical
standpoint, be located on only one side of the
excavation, crossings will be necessary to permit
access to homes and land on the opposite side of
the pipe alignment. There should be clearly marked
35

-------
crossings wherever necessary, and when not practical
to provide a crossing, arrangements should be made
with each affected party to satisfy their access
needs until a crossing can be provided.
o A traffic management plan for traffic diversion
and control should be prepared. The plan should
indicate the alternative routes during construction
and the means of informing the public of the avail-
ability and locations of those routes.
o Traffic impacts on Cirque Drive could be mitigated
by designating alternate routes, such as 40th Street
West as the temporary access route from Lone Star
Industries to Bridgeport Way. This would increase
traffic on Grandview Drive and on 40th Street West.
During Condition 1, all truck traffic could be de-
toured through Steilacoom, if Pierce County and
town officials can reach an agreement on such a
routing. This would increase the impact on Steilacoom
and Steilacoom Boulevard. This mitigation would
not be effective under Conditions 2 or 3.
o The impacts on detour routes could also be miti-
gated by minimizing the duration of the closure,
or by providing through passage for trucks during
construction. Segments under construction should
be opened to traffic as much as possible during
off-construction hours.
o Access to all homes should be maintained , especially
during off-construction hours.
o Precautions should be taken to forewarn fire depart-
ments of rerouted vehicle access.
o No utility should be left disconnected overnight.
Noise
Existing Conditions
An extensive "noise impact" analysis was prepared by
Robin M. Towne & Associates, Inc., as a part of the 1975
Pierce County EIS on Chambers Creek U.L.I.D. 73-1 (Volume 2,
Appendix D). The study consisted of noise measurements at
six locations within the sewer service area, noise predictions
from construction and facility operation, and suggestions
for mitigating construction noise.
36

-------
Impacts of the Alternatives
Pump Station Alternative. The construction of this
alternative would cause temporary noise impacts along much
of its alignment. Since the alignment would follow the
existing Chambers Creek Road, the noise impact is expected
to affect residents along the route, primarily from the
intersection of Bridgeport Way to the point where Chambers
Creek Road swings south to enter the Canyon, a distance of
approximately 12,000 feet. The construction activities would
include excavation, earth moving, compacting, paving and
cleanup. The typical noise levels expected along the route
are as follows:
Leg, dBA*
Phase of Construction
A1
B2
Ground clearing
84
84
Excavation
88
78
Foundations (pipe laying)
88
88
Finish
84
84
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
requires noise control measures for certain construction
equipment. Substantial reductions in noise can be achieved
when using equipment with noise controls; for example, a
backhoe without controls would average 8 5 dBA at 50 feet,
while one with controls would emit noise levels of approxi-
mately 75 dBA. Comparable reductions can be achieved for
pavers, cranes, generators, and jackhammers.
Noise generated by operation of the pump station on
Bridgeport Way would be insignificant due to the isolated
location of the facility. Noise levels of any aboveground
facilities would be approximately 41-46 dBA at 50 feet (Pierce
County 197 5).
Tunnel Alternative.. Noise impacts created by construction
of the tunnel would be highly localized. A majority of the
work effort would be carried out at the tunnel portal loca-
tion on the Glacier Sand and Gravel property, well away from
*Leq dBA - decibels described as equivalent noise level.
This is the average of the noise energy within a stated period
of time.
XA11 pertinent equipment present at site.
2Minimum required equipment present at site.
37

-------
residential areas. Some construction activity would also
occur at the eastern terminus of the tunnel near Bridgeport
Way, a location also isolated from residential areas. The
nearest residence is approximately 600 feet away, and on
the west side of Bridgeport Way.
Some.additional truck traffic would occur on Chambers
Creek Road, transporting necessary supplies and equipment
to the tunnel construction staging area.
Mitigation of Noise Impacts
Use of construction equipment containing noise control
devices would reduce noise levels 6-18 dBA in the work and
immediate impact areas.
Land Use
Present Conditions
Existing land use within the study area is a mixture
of single-family residential (although several multifamily
units occur in the area), open space, institutional (education),
commercial, and mining (EPA 1975; field observations 1980).
Development is scattered along Chambers Creek Road from
Bridgeport Way west to the New Tacoma Cemetery. Major com-
mercial enterprises include a greenhouse and nursery complex,
a cemetery and mortuary and two sand and gravel companies,
Lone Star Industries, Inc., and Glacier Sand and Gravel.
,Boise Cascade operates a pulp and paper facility on the south
side of Chambers Bay.
Land use immediately above the tunnel alignment is a
mix of residential, open space and road rights-of-way. Several
structures lie near the alignment.
Chambers Creek Canyon, a focal point of the study area,
is a major open space and important natural area (EPA 1975;
Pierce County 1975).
Chambers Creek Road functions as a travel route for
local residents and commercial (truck) traffic from the sand
and gravel operations and Boise Cascade. Included within
the road right-of-way are water and natural gas transmission
lines.
Impacts of the Alternatives on Land Use
Pump Station Alternative. The alignment for this alter-
native would be primarily within the existing Chambers Creek
38

-------
Road right-of-way. Approximately 570 feet at both ends of
the proposed alignment would not be within existing rights-
of-way (Table 3-2). That 570 feet of alignment would be
on land which supports or has supported sand and gravel ex-
traction operations. The proposed pump station would also
be located on land where gravel and sand extraction has been
terminated. While the construction of those project facili-
ties would preclude any future alternative uses of those
sites, the land area needed would be relatively small (pro-
bably no more than 2 acres).
Proper screening, sound proofing and odor control at
the pump station would effectively prevent any adverse impacts
on future use of the surrounding land.
Since neither construction nor permanent easements on
private property would be required, no impairment of existing
uses of residential or commercial property is anticipated.
Tunnel Alternative. The localized nature of tunnel
construction would minimize the impacts on land use. Con-
struction and permanent subsurface easements would be required
at the tunnel entrance and terminus and wherever the tunnel
would pass beneath private property. Of the 14,700 feet
of alignment (including extension of the Bridgeport Inter-
ceptor) , approximately 51 percent would be located on county-
owned property while 20 percent would lie on land owned by
gravel and sand enterprises and the remaining 29 percent
on other private property. Construction easements for portals,
staging and work areas (3-4 acres) would be required on both
ends of the tunnel alignment.
The tunnel alignment would pass immediately adjacent
to (within 35 feet) two residential structures. Another
16 structures would lie within 150 feet on either side of
the tunnel centerline (most are located along Chambers Creek
Road). The siting of any of these project facilities and
structures would not adversely affect future use of land
surrounding them.
Business Disruption
Existing Conditions
A number of commercial and industrial operations are
located within the study area, Lone Star Industries, Inc.,
(sand and gravel extraction), Glacier Sand and Gravel, Boise
Cascade (pulp and paper), the New Leaf (nursery-garden center)
and Brookside Mortuary. On a daily basis, the two sand and
39

-------
gravel operations and Boise Cascade receive and ship products
by truck. Virtually all truck traffic uses Chambers Creek
Road for those shipments even though alternate routes are
available. These alternate routes are not used because of
traffic congestion, stoplights and complaints from area
residents (Larsen, Nelson & Martz pers. comm.).
Impact of the Alternatives
Pump Station Alternative. Based on existing alignment
profile and soils information, an estimated 10,000 feet of
Chambers Creek Road would be closed to through traffic for
construction of the gravity pipeline. Wherever the trench
depth would be 20 feet or greater virtually the entire roadway
would be required to achieve a 1:1 slope of the trench walls
(a 1:1 slope would be needed because of loose soils).
The resultant road closure would cause a definable dis-
ruption of present operations of several of the establish-
ments. In all cases, vehicles entering and leaving the
facilities would have to follow alternate routes. In some
cases, such interference could produce lost production time
(because of delays) and a loss in customers because of diffi-
cult access. Additionally, partial and total losses of access
as well as general disturbance caused by construction would
discourage potential customers and result in a loss of sales.
At a construction progress rate of 25-50 feet per day,
portions of the road would be closed during a 40-80 week
period. Because of the varied nature of the businesses,
the projected disruption of their operations would vary con-
siderably.
Tunnel Alternative. The tunneling alternative would
avoid construction in Chambers Creek Road, thereby avoiding
any disruption of adjacent businesses.
Energy Usage
Of the alternative conveyance projects evaluated by
this Supplemental EIS, only the Pump Station Alternative
would require energy for its operation. This energy would
be required for operation of pumps and for heating, lighting
and ventilation of the pumping station. In the Tunnel Alter-
native, there would be no energy usage since wastewater flow
is by gravity and no buildings would be required.
Two forms of energy would be used at the pumping station.
The primary source, electricity, was assumed to be available
and used 360 days per year. For the remaining 5 days of
the year power outages were assumed, with diesel engine-
driven generators being used to generate electricity on-
site .
40

-------
Table 3-2. Existing Land Use Along Alignments
of Project Alternatives
Project Feature
Pump Station/Tunnel	Pipeline Alignment
Existing Land Use	Invert/Exit	(feet)
Roadway right-of-way
-	Bridgeport Way
-	Chambers Creek Road
Gravel pit
Residential/open space
+ 2 acres
480
13,600
570
TOTALS
Roadway right-of-way
-	Bridgeport Way
-	Chambers Creek Road
Gravel pit
Residential/open space
-	private ownership
-	county ownership
+ 2 acres
+ 2 acres
14,650*
480
4,170
1 ,420
+5,850**
+2,780**
TOTALS
+ 2 acres
14,700*
NOTES:
* 6 50 feet of the total length would include extension of the existing Bridgeport Inter-
ceptor .
**Preliminary estimates only.

-------
Estimated electrical energy requirements in the year
2000 would be 6,222,300 kilowatt hours per year, which would
cost $63,500 per year at the 1979 calculated average rate
of $0.0091 per kilowatt hour. Diesel fuel requirements in
year 2000 would be 9,900 gallons per year, and would cost
$6,900 per year at an average cost in 1979 of $0,701 gallons
of diesel fuel (Table 3-3) .
To determine the sensitivity of the Pump Station Alternative
to future energy cost escalations, Table 3-4 was prepared
for annual energy cost escalations of 3, 5, and 7 percent
greater than the general inflation rate for other project
components. As shown, a compounded annual escalation rate
of 5 percent would increase the energy costs by $105,000 per
year to a year 2000 cost of $168,500 per year, which would
be 11 percent of the total annual cost of the project. Simi-
larly, if energy costs increase annually at a 7 percent greater
rate than other project components, energy costs in year
2000 would be $245,700, or 16 percent of the total annual
project cost.
Although EPA does not presently require the use of an
electrical energy escalation factor in the cost-effectiveness
analysis of the facilities planning process, a proposed rate
regarding energy escalation has been published by EPA in
the November 3, 1980 Federal Register. Using this proposed
rule, energy costs would approximately double between 1980
and year 2000, which is equivalent to a compounded annual
escalation rate of about 3.5 percent. The impact of a 3.5
percent annual electrical energy cost increase upon total
annual project costs would be to increase them by about
9 percent, as shown in Table 3-4.
Project Costs
Since the EPA EIS was prepared in 1975, rather large
escalations have occurred in the cost of constructing and
financing projects similar to the alternatives covered by
this Supplemental EIS. To illustrate the impact of these
cost escalations, Table 3-5 was prepared showing the costs
which were estimated in 1975 for the North Canyon Wall Alter-
native and the Pump Station Alternative, and the costs which
are estimated in 1980 for the Pump Station Alternative and
the Tunnel Alternative. As shown, substantial cost escala-
tions have occurred. In the case of the Pump Station Alternative,
the only one of three alternatives for which cost estimates
were made in both 1975 and 1980, a 71 percent cost increase
has occurred. It should be expected that similar cost in-
creases have also occurred in other alternatives.
42

-------
Tabla 3-3. Energy Usage in Year 2000 and Energy Cost for
the Pump Station Alternative
Kw-hr/yr	Gallons/yr	$/yr
Electrical Energy 6,222,30Q1	56,6QQ3
Diesel Fuel	9,9002	6,900"
63,500/yr
1Assumes electrical energy usage 360 days per year.
2Assuraes diesel fuel-powered generator usage 5 days per year.
3Based on an average electrical charge of $0.0091/kw-hr.
^Based on $0.70 per gallons of diesel fuel.
43

-------
Table 3-4. Energy Costs in Year 2000 at Various
Annual Energy Escalation Rates

0%
Energy Escalation Rate
3.5% 5%
6.5%
Annual energy cost
$ 63,500-
Per Year
$ 126,400-
Per Year
$ 168,500-
Per Year
$ 223,800
Per Year
Annual costs excluding energy1
$1,315,900
$1,315,900
$1,315,900
$1,315,900
Total Annual Cost
$1,379,400
$1,442,300
$1,484,400
$1,539,700
Energy Cost as a Percentage
of Total Annual Cost
5%
9%
11%
15%
1Includes amortized capital costs and annual O&M costs.

-------
Table 3-5. Comparison of Project Costs in 1975 and 1980
	Based on 1980 Kennedy Engineering Report2	
	Based on 1975 EIS1		Percentage Increase in "Dotal
Initial Project Annual O&M Total Annual3 Initial Project Annual O&M Total Annual3 Annual Cost Between 1975
Alternative Concept	Cost ($)	Cost ($)	Cost (?)	Cost ($)	Cost ($)	Cost ($)	and 1980 (%)
Gravity Interceptor on
North Canyon Wall	5,235,000''	359,000/yr 857,900/yr
Pump Station Alternative 6,427,500"	139,000/yr 751,600/yr	11,407,000	199,800/yr 1,379,500/yr	71
Tunnel5	14,550,000	36,600	1,238,800/yr
1Final ilnvironmantal Impact Statement for Chambers Creek Sewerage System (ULID 73-1) Project #C-530565-01, Pierce County, Washington, prepared by Wiley & Ham
Inc., and EPA Region 10, December 1975.
'Cost Effective Analysis of the Chambers Creek Interceptor Alternatives, Pierce County, Washington, prepared by Kennedy Engineers, July 1980.
'Capital costs amortized at 7 1/8 percent and 20 years.
''Capital cosLs presented in the 1975 EPA EIS were increased by 25 percent to provide allowance for design cost, construction management, administration, sale
of bonds, soils investigations, and land and easements.
5Tunnel with a concrete pipe.

-------
Estimated 1980 capital costs for the alternatives which
are considered in this Supplemental EIS, range from $11.4
million for the Pump Station Alternative to $16.3 million
for the tunnel with the polyethylene pipe liner, as shown
in Table 3-6. Annual operation and maintenance costs vary
widely, from $2,500 per year for the polyethylene pipe tunnel
concept to $199,800 per year for the Pump Station Alternative
(Table 3-7). To determine which of the three alternatives
has the lowest overall cost, taking both initial capital
costs and annual costs into consideration, the project
alternative can be compared on the basis of their present
worth. Present worth in this case is the amount of money
which would have to be available at the present time to con-
struct the project and operate it over a 20-year period.
The comparison based upon present worth is shown in Table 3-8.
Overall, the least costly alternative is use of tunnel with
a concrete pipe. This concept is 9 percent less costly than
the Tunnel Alternative with the polyethylene pipe, and is
11 percent less costly than the Pump Station Alternative.
46

-------
Table 3-6. Capital Cost of Alternative Projects

Tunnel With
Tunnel With
Interceptor With Pump

Concrete Pipe
Polyethylene Pipe
Station Alternative
Material and Equipment
12,359,900
13,910,400
9,779,100
Soils Investigation
355,000
355,000
40,000
Design, Construction Management



and Bond Sale
1,651,000
1,857,600
1,459,600
Land and Easements
184,100
184,100
128,300

14,550,000
16,307,100
11,407,000
Table 3-7. Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost of Alternative Projects

Tunnel With
Tunnel With
Interceptor With Pump

Concrete Pipe
Polyethylene Pipe
Station Alternative
Energy Cost
0
0
$63,600/yr
Maintenance Cost
$36,600/yr
$2,500/yr
$77,800/yr
Operations Cost
0
0
$ 58,400/yr

$36,600/yr
$2,500/yr
$199,800/yr

-------
Table 3-8. Present Worth Analysis of Alternative Projects

Tunnel With
Concrete Pipe
Tunnel With
Polyethylene Pipe
Interceptor With Pump
Station Alternative
Present Worth of Initial Capital
14,549,900
16,307,000
11,407,000
Present Worth of Future Equip-
ment Replacement
0
0
3,641,300
Present Worth of Salvage Value
-1,936,100
-2,171,000
-2,670,800
Subtotal
12,613,800
14,136,000
12,377,500
Present Worth of Operations and
Maintenance
383,600
26,200
2,096,100
TOTAL
12,997,400
14,162,200
14,473,600
Percent Increase Over Lowest
Cost Alternative

9%
11%
NOTE:
Interest rate =7 1/8 percent, time period = 20 years.

-------
Chapter 4
COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
Introduction
This chapter summarizes the public participation and
agency coordination and consultation requirements for EIS
preparation.
Public Participation
The public participation program for this Supplemental
EIS includes the following elements:
o Scoping Meeting - A scoping meeting was held in the
offices of Pierce County Department of Public Works.
This meeting was attended by 11 representatives of
federal, state and local agencies, and citizen groups.
Concern was expressed regarding energy costs, impacts
on archeological features, erosion control, and
easement requirements. The outline and schedule
for the project were presented.
o Public Hearing - A public hearing to solicit oral
comments on this Draft Supplemental EIS will be held
by EPA at the Chamber of the Board of Pierce County
Commissioners, Room 1046, County-City Building,
Tacoma, Washington.
Individuals or groups who wish to comment on the EIS
may forward written comments to:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Attention: Clark Smith
Agency Coordination and Consultation
Introduction
Various federal laws and executive orders address speci-
fic environmental concerns which must be recognized when
preparing an EIS. This section summarizes the impacts of
the project alternatives on those resources defined by law
or executive order.
49

-------
Historical and Archeological Resources
EPA is subject to requirements of Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470)
and Executive Order 11593, May 13, 1971, which require an
inventory of historic and prehistoric resources of the study
area and a determination of impact on those resources.
The Final EIS for Chambers Creek sewerage system (ULID
73-1) prepared by EPA in 1975, contained an "interim cul-
tural resource assessment	. Based on the results of
that resource assessment and letters of comment from the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (November 14, 197 5)
and the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
(October 6, 1975), the following grant condition was defined
by EPA:
"The County shall provide assurances that key contractor
personnel associated with excavation during construction of
the project will undergo an orientation course frcm a quali-
fied archeologist on identification of archeological resources.
If an archeological site is found during construction, the
excavations involved will be delayed, the State Office of
Archeology and Historic Preservation and the Washington
Archeological Research Center will be notified, and arrange-
ments will be made with a qualified archeologist to either
detour around the site or excavate the site. This course
of action will also be followed if the archeological survey
reveals the presence of an archeological site on the inter-
ceptor route."
That 1975 EIS included an evaluation of the "Pump Station
Alternative" described in this Supplemental EIS, but did
not include an evaluation of the "Tunnel Alternative".
To ensure compliance, the most recent listing of the
National Register of Historic Places was consulted (Federal
Register, 44 No. 20, February 6, 1979; Federal Register
Vol. 45, No. 54, March 18, 1980). Additionally, prehistoric
and historic aboriginal sites and sites qualifying for
nomination as historic places were reviewed.
A representative of the Washington SHPO attended the
scoping meeting held December 4, 1980. SHPO then reviewed
the project alternatives based on information provided by
Kennedy/Jenks Engineers, Inc. The results of the SHPO
review appears in Appendix D of this EIS.
50

-------
Wetlands, Floodplains, and Agricultural Lands
Executive Order (11990 and 11988) and EPA policy require
that the impact of a proposed action on these environmentally-
sensitive resources be evaluated.
An impact analysis of the "Pump Station Alternative"
was conducted in the 1975 EIS.
Using the inventory data available from that document,
it was determined that no part of the "Tunnel Alternative"
would impact wetlands, floodplains or agricultural lands.
Coastal Zone Management
The Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451) requires
that all federal activities in coastal areas be consistent
with approved state coastal zone management programs.
Analysis of the "Pump Station Alternative" with respect
to the "Pierce County Shoreline Management Plan" was made
in the 1975 EPA EIS and in the 1975 EIS prepared by Pierce
County. According to those statements, "the Alternative C
(Pump Station Alternative) Chambers Creek Interceptor alignment
would be entirely in public right-of-way on roads outside
the Chambers Creek Canyon and the tentatively designated
'natural environment' area."
The tunnel alignment, which was not evaluated in the
197 5 documents, would not be within the jurisdiction of
the Shoreline Management Plan.
Endangered Species
"Under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531),
federal agencies are prohibited from jeopardizing threatened
or endangered species or adversely modifying habitats essen-
tial to their survival" (Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 216).
An evaluation of the "Pump Station Alternative" was conducted
in the 1975 EIS.
Appendix C contains a letter from the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service indicating the existence of endangered or
threatened wildlife or plant species within the study area.
Aside from the tunnel portal sites, all construction
activity for the "Tunnel Alternative" would be below ground
and there would be no impact on endangered or threatened
species.
51

-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
Responsible Agency and Technical Consultants
Region 10 of EPA was responsible for preparing this
EIS. Technical assistance to EPA was provided under a con-
tract with Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., of Sacramento,
California. Jones & Stokes Associates is a multidisciplinary
firm of biologists, planners, environmental specialists,
and engineers.
Jones & Stokes Associates utilized the services of several
subcontractors. Culp-Wesner-Culp analyzed project energy
projections and project costs. Robinson, Noble & Carr, Inc.,
assessed the probable impacts of project alternatives on
groundwater resources.
Region 10 - EPA Staff
o EIS Preparation Coordinator - Roger Mochnick, Environ-
mental Evaluation Branch.
o Project Monitor - Clark Smith, Environmental Evalua-
tion Branch.
o Project Engineer - Cecil Carroll, Construction Grants.
Jones & Stokes Associates Inc.
o Program Director - Dr. Charles Hazel, Vice President.
o Project Manager - Jonathan Ives, Manager of Jones &
Stokes Associates, Seattle Office.
o Traffic Engineer - Curtis Spencer, P.E., Environ-
mental Engineer.
Subcontractors to Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
o Culp-Wesner-Culp - Robert Gumerman, Ph.D., P.E.,
analyzed project costs and energy requirements.
o Robinson, Noble & Carr, Inc. - John Noble, President,
and Mackey Smith, Hydrogeologist, analyzed the possible
impacts on groundwater resources.
53

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
Griffin, W. C., J. E. Sceva, et al. n.d. Water resources in the
Tacoma area, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey water supply
pap. 1499-B.
Hart-Crowser and Associates. 1977a. Engineering and geological
reconnaissance, proposed Chambers Creek interceptor system,
Pierce County, Washington. Seattle.
	. 1977b. Preliminary soils and foundation investigation,
proposed Chambers Creek interceptor system, Pierce County,
Washington. Seattle.
	. 197 9. Phase I geotechnical engineering study, proposed
Chambers Creek interceptor tunnel, Pierce County, Washington.
Seattle.
	. 198 0. Preliminary report on phase III geotechnical
engineering study and recommendations for phase III and IV
investigations, proposed Chambers Creek interceptor tunnel,
Pierce County, Washington. Seattle.
Jacobs Associates. 1980. Chambers Creek interceptor tunnel,
Pierce County, Washington: analysis of construction and cost.
7 pp. + appendices.
Kennedy Engineers. 1969. Chambers Creek - Clover Creek Basin
sewerage general plan, Pierce County, Washington.
	. 1974. Chambers Creek Basin water quality management
plan, Pierce County, Washington.
	. 198 0. Cost effective analysis of the Chambers Creek
interceptor alternatives, Pierce County, Washington. 59 pp. +
appendices.
Pierce County. 1974. Chambers Creek/U.L.I.D. 73-1 environmental
impact statement. 2 vols.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise from construc-
tion equipment and operation, building equipment and home appli-
ances. Washington, D.C.
55

-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Wilsey & Ham, Inc. n.d.
Final environmental impact statement for Chambers Creek
sewerage system (U.L.I.D. 73-1), Pierce County, Washington.
231 pp. + appendices.
Walters, K. L., and G. E. Kimmel. 1968. Groundwater occurrence
and stratigraphy of unconsolidated deposits, central
Pierce County, Washington. Water supply bull. no. 22.
Washington Dept. of Water Resources.
Personal Communications
Carroll, Cecil. February 2, 1981. Environmental Protection
Agency. Telephone conversation.
Dames, Frank. January 29, 1981. University of Puget Sound.
Department of Physics. Telephone conversation.
Douglas, Peter. January 29, 1981. Hart-Crowser, Inc.
Telephone conversation.
Erdahl, Marty. December 30, 1980. Pierce County Utilities-
Telephone conversation.
Fisher, Georgia. December 18, 1980. Pierce County Traffic
Engineering Division. Telephone conversation.
Keuler, Ralph. January 29, 1981. U. S. Geological Survey.
Telephone conversation.
Larsen, Bud. December 22, 1980. Sales Manager, Glacier Sand &
Gravel Company. Telephone conversation.
Martz, B. A. December 22, 1980. Resident manager, Boise
Cascade, Steilacoom. Telephone conversation.
Miranda, Henry. December 30, 1980. Pierce County Public Works.
Telephone conversation.
Nelson, Ron. December 22, 1980. Lone Star Industries, Inc.
Telephone conversation.
Peterson, Roy. Miscellaneous dates. Assistant Director,
Pierce County Dept. of Public Works. Telephone conversations.
Tonkin, David. Miscellaneous dates. Kennedy/Jenks Engineers,
Tacoma. Telephone conversations.
56

-------
Appendix A
- PROFILES OF PUMP STATION AND TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES
- DESIGN FLOWS FOR YEAR 2000 - PUMP STATION AND
TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES
57

-------
FIGURE A-1
230
• 200
«*»
z 150
o
p 100
s
bJ
-J
GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
50 -
WESTStDE SEWER 1
DISTRICT INTERCEPTOR I
GROUND SURFACE
42 FORCE MAIN
SEWER-
/
FORCE MAIN'
UNIVERSITY PLACE
SOUTH INTERCEPTOR
]
250
200 S
150 gT
o
100 p
50 ^
- 0
J-
0+00
20+00
40+00
60+00	80+00
STATION
100+00
120+00
140+00
160+00
SCALES:
MORIZ r=2000'
VERT :f. 200'
PROFILE
PIERCE COUNTY ULID 73-1
CHAMBERS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN ALTERNATIVE
FROM;KENNEDY ENGINEERS
JUNE I960

-------
flQURS A-2
CP.
o
GROUND SURFACE-
TUHNEb-

0+00
204-00
40+00
60+00 804-00
STATION
100+00
1204-00 <404-00
SCALCS
HO mi ia«2000*



PROFILE

PIERCE COUNTY UUD 73-1
CHAMBERS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE
VEftV 200*




FflOM K£f4K£!>Y EN01NEE35 JUWt l&BC

-------
FIGURE A-3
(Jv
FIRCREST
Sunset Beach ?
: Narrow* \'ww 'I
.=~s,h n
r • •" !<.
ADWF
PDWF
PWWF
UNIVERSITY PLACE SOUTH
WESTSIDE SEWER DISTRICT
AOWF = 0.29
PDWF =0.97
PWWF = 1.3 9
ADWF = 0.95
PDWF = 2.59
PWWF = 3.78

UNIVERSITY PLACE EAST
ADWF =0.18
PDWF = 0.66
PWWF = 0.95
. 21
.. New
TACuMA
CtMtUKV
rx>>
i;
SCALE
|"»2000
LEACH CREEK TRUNK
ADWF = 161
PDWF = 4.06
PWWF = 5.95
QRAVFC
HT
G/avfi
l .' rqach Acres
Wrmt

CHAMBERS CREEK
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
Manitt
FORCE MAIN/GRAVITY SEWER
1
COU»4t
SEE TABLE 2-1 FOR
ACCUMULATED FLOW AMOUNTS
t'^'f
|-
'/ cr4t 'f * i
r-y.A f
P	i Pi*
i-GUcrt
&Mt J
P.I
WEST SIDE OAKBROOK
ADWF = 0.32
PDWF = 1.06
PWWF = 1.5 1
r
PHILLIPS-HIPKINS INTERCEPTOR
ADWF e 4.01
PDWF = 9.1 3
PWWF = 11.88
— \

BRIDGEPORT INTERCEPTOR
WF.STIM1*. WASHINGTON,;
Jf, su'( n,nnm
Sunnyside
lit-arh
ADWF = 12.99
PDWF = 25.26
PWWF = 39.9 2
W53
T.7-S
5 r f
\y l
A rtitt iriL
J— no*.
' \ •! •>! l» N-
PIERCE COUNTY ULID 73-1
CHAMBERS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
PUMP STATION/FORCE MAIN ALTERNATIVE
Mf M<1*M

I YEAR 2000 DESIGN FLOWS
JUNt rjuo
rliOM'.- KLNNLUY LNOINELMS

-------
FIGURE A-4

FIRCREST
ADWF = 1.02
PDWF = 2.89
PWWF = 3.99
Sunsfl I teach
WESTSIDE SEWER DISTRICT
UNIVERSITY PLACE SOUTH
ADWF = 0.95
PDWF = 2.59
PWWF = 3.78
AOWF = 0.29
PDWF = 0.97
PWWF = 1.39
UNIVERSITY PLACE EAST
ADWF = 0.18
PDWF = 0.66
PWWF= 0.95
LEACH CREEK TRUNK
ADWF = 1.6 I
PDWF = 4.06
PWWF = 5.95
CHAMBERS CREEK
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT-
M a n i I
•s.
TUNNEL
ADWF = 18.88
PDWF = 35.94
PWWF = 55.5 4
-o»
28
WEST SIDE OAKBROOK
"X.
ADWF = 0.32
PDWF = 1.06
PWWF = 1.51
PHILLIPS-HIPKINS INTERCEPTOR
V-.
ADWF = 4.01
PDWF = 9.13
PWWF = 11.88
»»
BRIDGEPORT INTERCEPTOR
48
ADWF = I 2.99
PDWF = 25.26
PWWF = 39.92
42
Custer
HL
34
, •
( /:
. 5^ 11' i I iu'oonr
J]	
PIERCE COUNTY ULID 73-1
CHAMBERS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
	TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE	
1 YEAR 2000 DESIGN FLOWS \j
JUNF. I'J HO
FUQM1 KENNEDY ENGINEERS

-------
Appendix B
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES ON GROUNDWATER
By:
Robinson, Noble & Carr, Inc.
63

-------
ROBINSON, NOBLE Sl CARR, INC.
GROUND WATER & ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGISTS
5915 ORCHARD STREET WEST
TACOMA. WASHINGTON SS-1S7
CSG6) 475-7711
80-59
December 22, 1980
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC.
105 South Main Street
Suite 203
Seattle, WA 98104
Attention: Jonathan H. Ives
Subject: Potential impact on ground water from
construction of the Chambers Creek
Interceptor
Gentlemen:
In response to your letter of December 5, 1980, we have reviewed
the Hart/Crowser report entitled "Preliminary Report on Phase II
Geotechnical Engineering Study and Recommendations for Phase III
and IV Investigations, Proposed Chambers Creek Interceptor Tunnel,
Pierce County, Washington", dated July, 1980. We have also re-
viewed information on the ground water hydrology of the Chambers
Creek area from published literature and from Robinson, Noble &
Carr, Inc. company files.
We understand that two alternative methods for routing for the
Chambers Creek Interceptor are being considered. The first method
is by pump station, force main, and gravity pipe to the proposed
treatment facility located near Chambers Bay. The second alter-
native for the proposed interceptor is via tunnel beneath the
upland on the north side of Chambers Creek Valley.
Barring rupture of the force main or gravity line, the pump station-
force main-gravity pipe alternative should have no effect on ground
water in the Chambers Creek area. Operation of the tunnel alter-
native should also have no effect on ground water unless catastro-
phic rupture of the tunnel occurs. We assume the concrete liner
(about 56-inch diameter) will be formed directly against the mined
ground. If so, an impermeable seal will exist between natural
ground and the tunnel exterior. If a tunnel liner was run in by
other means, an exterior conduit could possibly exist. In that
case, exterior grouting rings should be placed at intervals, ana
especially against silt-clay zones where a tight seal can be effected.
65

-------
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
December 22, 1980
Page 2
During construction of the tunnel, serious impact on ground water
in the Chambers Creek area could occur. Analysis of data from the
above-referenced Hart/Crowser report indicates the existence of
two separate aquifers in the proposed tunnel area. The upper aqui-
fer, occurring in Hart/Crowser's "Colvos sand", has a potentiometric
surface ranging in elevation from about 155 to 170 feet above sea
level. Water within this aquifer is perched upon older less perme-
able deposits described in the Hart/Crowser report as: "Colvos
transitional sand and silt; Colvos silt-clay; Kitsap upper gravel;
and Kitsap silty sand".
A lower aquifer system exists in layers of sand or sand and gravel
complexly interbedded with the older less permeable finer grained
deposits. Potentiometric surfaces in this lower aquifer range
from about 90 to 120 feet above sea level. The hydraulic gradient
of this potentiometric surface along the tunnel alignment slopes
generally from east to west. The potemtiometric surface of the
lower aquifer appears to represent the regional water table, below
which all sediments are saturated.
The proposed grade of the tunnel invert is below the upper aquifer
for the entire length of the alignment. The tunnel invert is be-
low the potentiometric surface of the lower aquifer for the western
7,000 feet of the proposed project. Stratigraphic and water level
information from test borings 1A and 7 do not sufficiently define
the vertical limits of the aquifers at the eastern end of the pro-
posed tunnel.
When boring the tunnel, fine sand layers may be encountered in the
older sediments in the lower aquifer. This condition may cause
flowing ground. Potential flowing ground conditions will presumably
require control by either air pressure within the tunnel or by
lowering the potentiometric surface of the lower aquifer through
dewatering wells.
Washington Water Supply Bull. 22 entitled Ground Water Occurrence
and Stratigraphy of Unconsolidated Deposits, Central Pierce County,
Washington, 1968, lists 6 wells drilled prior to 1960 along the
tunnel alignment. They were for residential, institutional and
irrigation water supplies. While information on wells drilled in
the area from 1960 through the present time is available from
several sources, it is not presented in published form. Budget
and time constraints of this review have prevented acquisition
of this later well data.
66

-------
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
December 22, 1980
Page 3
Robinson, Noble & Carr, Inc. records indicate the presence of at
least 3 additional wells along the tunnel alignment. The total
number of wells anticipated to exist along the alignment may reach
25. With the exception of wells drilled to supply the New Tacoma
Cemetery, Charles Wright Academy and Sunrise Terrace Mobile Home
Park, most are expected to be of relatively small diameter and
low yield designed to supply single family residences. Inventory
and testing of all potentially affected wells is essential prior
to tunnel construction and dewatering.
Water Supply Bull. 22 also notes two springs along the northern
wall of the Chambers Creek Valley. Spring No. 20/2-22Pls is
located in a small ravine just north of the tunnel alignment and
east of Charles Wright Academy. Discharge from the spring was
estimated at 400 gpm. A smaller spring, 20/2-22Dls, is listed as
discharging about 25 gpm and is located just east of the tunnel
entry. Numerous other springs exist along the northern valley sids
of Chambers Creek. These springs and seeps should be located and
their discharges estimated prior to tunnel construction. Water
samples should be collected and tested from the springs and wells.
Water from local wells drilled along the proposed tunnel alignment
is withdrawn from both upper and lower aquifers. The upper aquifer
yields water to spring 20/2-22Pls, while the hydrologic relation-
ship of the aquifers to spring 20/2-26Dls is uncertain.
Any attempt to lower the potentiometric surface in the lower aquifer
to minimize flowing ground conditions during tunnel construction
could result in lower water levels in local wells. The effects of
dewatering procedures on the local wells should only last as long
as construction dewatering is necessary for tunneling. Dewatering
the lower aquifer may also lower water levels in wells completed
in the upper aquifer. The hydraulic relationship between the two
aquifers is not clearly presented in the Hart/Crowser report, and
should be determined by extensive hydrologic testing prior to
tunnel construction.
Conclusions
• Assuming complete structural integrity of the pump station-
force main-gravity pipe, this alternative should have no
effect on local ground water during either construction or
operation.
67

-------
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
December 22, 1980
Page 4
•	The tunnel alternative will impact ground water only during
the construction phase, barring an unforseen catastrophic
breaching of the tunnel during operation.
•	Two separate aquifers exist in the area of the tunnel align-
ment. The hydraulic relationship between these two aquifers
has not been clearly defined.
•	Local wells are completed in both aquifers.
•	Springs discharge where the land surface intercepts the aqui-
fer along the steep northern side of Chambers Creek Valley.
•	Intentional (through dewatering wells) or accidental (by en-
countering flowing ground) lowering of potentiometric sur-
faces of aquifers during tunnel construction may adversely
affect yields from local wells and springs.
Recommendat ions
•	All local wells along the tunnel alignment should be invento-
ried prior to tunnel construction. Inventory should include:
Location
Depth
Altitude
Aquifer elevation
Inlet elevation
Depth to water
Well yield
Specific capacity
Use
Water quality
Depth to p.ump inlet
Type of pump
Driller's log
•	Springs along the north side of Chambers Creek Valley should
be located, their discharges should be measured, and their
water quality determined.
•	Future test borings should be completed with multiple piezo-
meters in different aquifers encountered.
68

-------
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jone & Stokes Associates, Inc.
December 22, 1980
Page 5
•	Water level measurements from existing and future piezometers
should be taken regularly and compiled to better define
potentiometric surfaces, hydraulic gradients, and seasonal
water level fluctuations.
•	Hydraulic continuity between the upper and lower aquifers
should be established through hydrologic testing.
Implementation of the above recommendations will provide a data base
from which to choose the best method of dewatering along the tunnel
alignment. The inventory of local springs and wells will provide
a record of discharges and quality in the event of conflict with
local well owners during construction and after completion of the
tunneling project.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBINSON, NOBLE & CARR, INC.
Mackey Smith !/
John B. Noble
McS:JBN/in
69

-------
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
DEPARTMENT OF GAME
600 North Capitol Way, GJ-U O'ympia, WA 93504 206/753-5<00
£E3 9 1381

LJ
£WVji?0«M£NTAL EVALUATION
BRANCH
Mr. Clark H. Smith
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue \
Seattl^, Washington ' 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
We have completed a review of our files for information on significant
natural features in thp study area. The result of this review is presented
in the following enclosures:
Enclosure 1 summarizes the occurrence of special plants,
animals, and plant communities reported within or adjacent
to the study area.
Enclosure 2 is a summary of national and statewide status of
special animals reported to occur within the study area.
In order to ensure the protection of the special species and plant communi-
ties occurring in the study area, we recommend that the specific locational
information presented here not be published or distributed. If general
information is distributed, please provide the Nongame Program with a draft
of any document in which information from the Natural Heritage Data System
is incorporated or referenced.
If your office should publish or distribute any of the information presented
here, please cite the Natural Heritage Data System as follows:
Natural Heritage Data System
Washington Natural Heritage Program and
Department of Game - Nongame Program
c/o The Evergreen State College
3109 Seminar Building, TA-00
Olympia, Washington 98505

-------
Appendix C
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE
71

-------
Enclosure 1
ELEMENT OCCURRENCE SUMMARY
Introduction
This enclosure summarizes the element occurrences reported within or adjacent to
the study area and catalogued in the Natural Heritage Data System. An "element"
is a natural feature of particular interest because it is exemplary, unique, or
endangered on a statewide or national basis. An element can be a plant community,
plant species, or special animal.
The Natural Heritage Data System was established by the State of Washington and
the Natural Heritage Program of The Nature Conservancy. It is currently maintained
by the Natural Heritage Program and by the Nongame Program of the Washington Depart-
ment of Game. Information on plant and animal occurrences in the state is gathered
from various sources. Through historical data, scientific literature, field observa-
tions, and herbarium and museum species, the Natural Heritage Data System is estab-
lishing a base from which to work in evaluating Washington's natural features.
The Element Occurrence summary table lists those plant communities, special plants,
and special animals that have been reported to the sources listed above to occur in
the area specified in your information request.
-	The first column lists the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) topographic
quadrangles.
- - The second column lists the township, range, and section.
-	The third column entitled "CONF." (confirmation) lists a code indicating
the specificity of the locations recorded for each element occurrence.
Confirmation Codes
C Means the location of the element occurrence is known within a \ rtiile
radius. In addition, the locality has been confirmed by the Nongame
Program or the Washington Natural Heritage Program.
U Means the location of the element occurrence is known within a k mile
radius, but at this time, has not been confirmed.
N Means the location of the element occurrence is known within a 1 mile
radius. This information was derived from secondary sources.
G Means the location of the element occurrence is not known within a
1 mile radius. The element occurrence is locatable only to a general
area, usually denoted by a geographic name. This information was
derived from secondary sources.
-	The fourth column indicates the element's class, i.e. "PC" means plant
conmunity, "SP" means special plant, and "SA" means special animal.
-	In the fifth column, the element is named. For animals, both scientific
and common name is given, followed by letter codes that indicate the criteria
used by data system personnel in determining whether a location is biologically/

-------
Page Two
I hope this presentation will be useful to you. More detailed locational
information from our files can be made available for site planning purposes.
If you have further questions or concerns about special animals, please
feel free to contact me at (206) 754-1449 or SCAN 8-235-1449.
Sincerely,
THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME
ft'
Kelly R. McAllister
Wildlife Biologist
Enclosures

-------
2.
ecologically significant to the species. The following are definitions
for these criteria codes.
Element Occurrence Criteria for Special Animals
10 Individual occurrence. Any record of the species constitutes a special
animal occurrence.
HC Herptile concentration. ¦ Five or more individuals present in the same
location.
HO Haul out area for marine mammals.
CR Colonial roosts.
B Evidence of breeding: nest, young or eggs, adult visiting probable nest
site, nest building activity (i.e. carrying nest material), breeding dis-
play, agitated behavior and distraction display (e.g. feigning injury).
RI Regular individual occurrences at same location. Observations of less
than 10 individuals that have been made during at least 3 different years,
not necessarily consecutive.
RSC Regular small concentrations, 10-70 individuals, in the same location
during any season for 3 years, not consecutive necessarily.
RLC Regular large concentrations, during migration, breeding or winter seasons,
of over 70 individuals, that have been made during at least 3 different
years (not necessarily consecutive).
NOTE: Observations that meet criteria established for a special
animal species are mapped and pertinent information is
stored in a computerized file.
- The seventh column is the occurrence number which can be referred to when
making inquiries about a specific occurrence for which more information is
desired.
Comments
The enclosed information represents the reported element occurrences currently
catalogued in the Natural Heritage Data System. The Data System is constantly
updated as more current and historic information on element occurrences in the
state are reported. Consequently, some of the element occurrences reported to
occur historically within the study area may no longer be present. Likewise,
areas within the study boundary for which element occurrences have not yet been
reported may, nevertheless, support plant communities or special plant or animal
species.
Finally, if additional information is needed on specific animal occurrences within
the study area, please contact the Washington Department of Game, Nongame Program.
If plant communities or special plants occur within the study area, you will be
receiving a separate response from the Washington Natural Heritage Program.

-------
Enclosure I
ELEMENT OCCURRENCE SUMMARY
Quad Name
T
R
S
Conf.
Element Occurrences
Class JName
Number
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
27
G
SA
Charina bottae (rubber boa)

055
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
27
G
SP
Arenaria paludicola

003
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
27
N
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
005
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
22
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
012
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
22
U
SA
Charina bottae (rubber boa)

046
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
015
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
20
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
014
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
N
SA
Sciurus griseus (western gray squirrel)

028
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
N
SA
Butorides striatus (qreen heron)

007
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
N
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
006
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
G
SP
Woodwardia fimbriata

015
Steilacoom
7.5
20 N
2E
*
U
SA
Sciurus griseus (western gray squirrel)

019
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
U
SA
Sciurus griseus (western gray squirrel)

027
Steilacoom
7.5
19N
2E
*
N
SA
Charina bottae (rubber boa)

046
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
on
* Reported to occur in t
ie general
area
)f the
proje
:t.


Page 	 of
NHDS: 12/80

-------
Enclosure 2
ELEMENT STATUS SUMMARY

Element Status
Element Name
Federal State
Charina bottae (rubber boa)
C
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket gopher)
C
Sciurus griseus (western gray squirrel)
C
C - Species of Concern. Active data collection in progre;
s to better understand
the species' status in Washington.

NOTE: The Washington Department of Game's Nongame Program's species list will,
upon completion, include status information for each species..: Status
information for individual species can now be obtained by contacting the
Nonaame Proaram.

-------
EPA to add their letter

-------
U.S.	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
jceoa,REGION X
V	1200 S,XTH AVENUE
5	SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101

WJ
ATTN*Oh M/S 443
January 15, 1981
Mr. Joseph Blum
Area Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2625 Parkmont Lane
Olympia, Washington 98502
Dear Mr. Blum:
In accordance with Section 7 (C) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
we are requesting information on the existence of endangered or
threatened wildlife species or critical habitats in the vicinity of
Chambers Creek, Pierce County, Washington.
The EPA is in the process of preparing a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement on alternative interceptor alignments for the conveyance
of;wastewater from the Bridgeport Interceptor (under construction) to the
wastewater treatment plant near Chambers Creek (the treatment plant is to
be constructed beginning June, 1981). A map of the study area and a
brief description of the project alternatives is enclosed.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Clark H. Smith
Project Officer*
Enclosure

-------
Appendix D
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
73

-------
STATE OF OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WASHINGTON 111 West Twenty First Avenue, M.S. KL-11, Olympia, Washinglon 98504 206/753 4011
KEMNl^Y/JEV'"
ENSJNUS&S, 1''.
TACCiv.A
January 30, 1981	p£g g ^
Mr. Roy H. Peterson
Pierce County Public Works
3551 Bridgeport Way West
Tacoma, WA 98466
Log Reference:' 202-C-PI-12
Project Title: Chambers Creek
Interceptor Tunnel U.L.I.D. 73-1
K/J 4077
Dear Mr. Peterson:
The project plans for the Chambers Creek Interceptor Tunnel were presented
to us by Mr. David Tonkin of Kennedy/Jenks Engineers and reviewed by our
staff. Our comments are as follows:
Excavation of the interceptor tunnel will occur well below the depth at
which we would expect to encounter cultural deposits. All ground surface
disturbance related to this project (excavation for drop structures,
gravity sewers and road easement) will occur in previously disturbed
terrain. In addition, the project is not located in a high potential
cultural resource area. In view of these conditions, we do not anticipate
that this portion of the Chambers Creek Project will affect significant
cultural resources.
Despite its unlikelihood, the possibility does exist that unanticipated
cultural remains may be encountered during project construction. In this
event, work in the immediate vicinity should be discontinued and this office
immediately notified.
If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 754-2856.
Sincerely,
Carol Kielusiak
Coastal Reviewer
db
cc: David Tonkin
75

-------
Appendix E
DISTRIBUTION LIST
77

-------
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Region 10
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U. S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army
U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of Transportation, Region 10
Health and Human Services, Region 10
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 10
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Henry M. Jackson, U. S. Senate
Slade Gorton, U. S. Senate
Don Bonker, U. S. House of Representatives
Floyd V. Hicks, U.S. House of Representatives
STATE AGENCIES
Governor of Washington
Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Management
Department of Ecology
Department of Fisheries
Department of Game
Department of Highways
Department of Natural Resources
Parks and Recreation Commission
Department of Social and Health Services
Office of Community Development
79

-------
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Puget Sound Governmental Conference
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
Pierce County
Town of Steilacoom
Westside Water District
INTERESTED GROUPS
Washington Environmental Council
Sierra Club
Friends of the Earth
The League of Women Voters
Tahoma Audubon Society
Concerned Citizens of Pierce County, Inc.
Cakewood Sewer and Water Committee
Washington Air Quality Coalition
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS
H. A. Bringolf
Edward Burkhalter
William P. Giddings
Edward A. Newton
Joann B. North
80

-------