EPA 910/9-81-082 United States Region 10
Environmental Protection 1200 Sixth Avenue
Agency Seattle WA 98101 July, 1981
Water EPA/10-Pierce Co-WA-ULlD-731-INT-81
Environmental Final
Impact
Statement Supplement
Chambers Creek Interceptor
Pierce County, Washington
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION X
1 200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
REPLY TO
ATTN OFt M/S 443
To: All Interested Government Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Supplement on the proposed Pierce County, Chambers Creek
Interceptor. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has given the County a
grant for planning needed facilities for collecting and treating wastewater
from developed areas of Pierce County. EPA prepared an EIS on the County's
proposed project in 1975. Since that time thgCounty made significant changes
to the proposed routing t\f the Chambers Creek Tnt^rcegtnr. As a result of
tfiese^RahgesrEPA prepared this Supplement to the 1975 EIS. The County is now
applying to EPA for a grant for construction of the first stage of the pro-
posed facility which includes the rerouted interceptor under Section 201 of
the Clean Water Act. EPA has prepared this Final EIS Supplement to the 1975
EIS on its proposed approval of this action, pursuant to Section 102 (2)(c) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and implementing Federal regula-
tions.
In addition, in order to avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary expense,
this Final EIS Supplement is also intended to meet the requirements of the
State of Washington EnvironmenaT Policy Act (RCW 43.21C). Comments, however,
need only be sent to the EPA address listed below. All comments, will be
forwarded by EPA to Roy Peterson, Assistant Director of the Pierce County
Utilities Department.
EPA will announce the availability of this document in the Federal Register on
Friday, July 3, 1981, which will begin the 30-day review period. If you have
any comments on the Supplemental Final EIS, we would appreciate hearing from
you before the close of the comment period on August 3, 1981. All comments
will be used by EPA in evaluating the effects of approving the proposed action.
Please send your coments to:
Clark H. Smith
Environmental Evaluation Branch (M/S 443)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
U.S. EPA LIBRARY REGION 10 I^TERW-S
RXD00D03B17
i
-------
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT
EPA-IO-PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ULID-73-1 INT-81
Prepared by
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance By
Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, California 95816
FOR
CHAMBERS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL:
Regional Administrator
ii
-------
RECOMMENDED ACTION
On February 27, 1981 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released for
public review a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which
evaluates the environmental impacts associated with construction of an inter-
ceptor tunnel alternative for Chambers Creek, ULID 73-1, Pierce County,
Washington. EPA concurs with the County's selection of the tunnel alternative
to build an interceptor tunnel from Bridgeport Way to the secondary wastewater
treatment plant. Therefore, EPA has determined that this segment is eligible
for Federal funding under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. This decision
is based on the results of the analysis in the original and supplemental EIS,
supporting documents and comments, and oral and written testimony received at
the March 31, 1981 Public Hearing process. The following discussion summa-
rizes the salient points identified during these processes.
The original 1975 EIS proposed an interceptor alignment along the north wall
of Chambers Creek Canyon. Detailed field investigations by the County's
consultants to design this canyon interceptor revealed unstable soil condi-
tions along the construction alignment. Although it was technically feasible
to stabilize slide areas the cost of this construction would be very high with
no guarantee that slippage would not occur at some other location in the
future.
The consulting engineers for the County proposed a tunnel alternative as a
feasible construction technique to install the interceptor with minimum risk
to the canyon integrity. This proposed alternative represented a significant
change from the proposal presented in the 1975 EIS and prompted EPA to prepare
this supplement to the original EIS document.
The EIS comparison between the no action alternative, a pump station with
force main, and the tunnel alternative clearly indicates that tunnel construc-
tion minimizes the effects on the environment and is the most cost effective
and environmentally sound alternative for the 20 year planning period. This
alternative removes all construction from the Chambers Creek Canyon and relo-
cates the 12,800 feet of tunnel interceptor under Bridgeport Way, thus re-
ducing environmental impacts on Chambers Creek.
Although the tunnel alternative is recommended by EPA for funding, the level
of Federal funds available for this project is uncertain. There may not be
any new construction funds for the EPA grants program for Fiscal Year 1982.
State and/or local funds could be substituted for any shortfall in Federal
funding. This could have a substantial impact on local residents of the area.
The Final EIS for Chambers Creek sewerage system (ULID 73-1) prepared by EPA
in 1975, contained an "interim cultural resource assessment." Based on the
results of that resource assessment and comment letters from the Advisory
Council on H-istoric Preservation (November 14, 1975) and the Washington State
Parks and Recreation Commission (October 6, 1975), the following grant condi-
tion was defined by EPA:
i i i
-------
"The County shall provide assurances that key contractor
personnel associated with excavation during construction of
the project will undergo an orientation course from a qualified
archeologist on identification of archeological resources. If
an archeological site is found during construction, the excava-
tions involved will be delayed, the State Office of Archeology
and Historic Preservation and the Washington Archeological
Research Center will be notified, and arrangements 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 interceptor route."
This condition remains in effect and must be executed by the County and the
contractor.
The text of this Supplemental Final EIS includes a new chapter entitled
"Comments and Responses to the Draft EIS". In this chapter, EPA has reprinted
letters commenting specifically on the Draft EIS and has attempted to respond
to all questions and requests for explanation of the analysis.
The EPA submits this Final EIS for a public review period of 30 days. Follow-
ing this review period EPA's Regional Administrator will make his final deter-
mination concerning a grant award for the Chambers Creek, Pierce County
project as authorized by the Clean Water Act (PL 95-217).
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Purpose and Need for Action 1
Project Study Area 2
Preferred Action and Summary of Impacts 2
Preferred Action - Tunnel Alternative 2
Wastewater Flows 5
Conclusions 6
Availability of Support Documents 6
Chapter 2 - EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER INTER- 7
CEPTOR FACILITIES
Introduction and Project Background 7
Description of Existing System 9
Alternatives Previously Considered 10
Description of Proposed Action 11
Connection of North Area Trunk Sewers to the
Tunnel Alternative 11
Westside Sewer District 13
University Place South 13
Future Construction of Trunk Sewers 13
Design Flows 13
Tunnel Construction 15
Action to be Taken by Pierce County 16
Chapter 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PRO- 17
POSED ACTION
Introduction 17
Groundwater 17
Present Conditions and Use of Resources 17
Impacts on Groundwater 18
Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Ground-
water 19
Soils and Ground Stability 20
Present Conditions 20
Impacts on Soils 21
Surface Water Implications 21
Existing Conditions 21
Impacts on Surface Water 22
Mitigation of Potential•Impacts on Sur-
face Water Quality 22
Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources 23
Existing Conditions 23
Impacts on Resources 23
v
-------
Table of Contents (cont'd.)
Page
Chapter 3 - (cont'd.)
Spoil Disposal 23
Impact of Spoil Disposal 23
Mineral Resources 24
Existing Conditions 24
Impacts 24
Transportation, Traffic Circulation and
Utilities 24
Existing Conditions 24
Impacts on Transportation 25
Noise 26
Existing Conditions 26
Impacts 26
Mitigation of Noise Impacts 26
Land Use 27
Present Conditions 27
Impacts on Land Use 27
Business Disruption 28
Existing Conditions 28
Impacts 28
Energy Usage 28
Project Costs 30
Chapter 4 - COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 35
Introduction 35
Public Participation 35
Agency Coordination and Consultation 35
Introduction 35
Historical and Archeological Resources 36
Wetlands, Floodplains, and Agricultural
Lands 3 7
Coastal Zone Management 37
Endangered Species 39
Chapter 5 - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO DRAFT SUPPLE- 41
MENTAL EIS
Introduction 41
Public Hearing Summary 41
Letters and Responses 43
LIST OF PREPARERS 63
Responsible Agency and Technical Consultants 6 3
Region 10 - EPA Staff 63
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 63
Subcontractors to Jones & Stokes Associates,
Inc. 6 3
vi
-------
Table of Contents (cont'd.)
Paqe
BIBLIOGRAPHY
65
References
65
Personal Communications
66
Appendix A
67
Appendix B
71
Appendix C
79
Appendix D
97
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the 4
Project Alternatives
2-1 Year 2000 Design Flows 14
3-1 Existing Land Use Along Alignments of
Project Alternatives 29
3-2 Comparison of Project Costs in 1975 and
1980 31
3-3 Capital Cost of Alternative Projects 32
3-4 Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost of
Alternative Projects 32
3-5 Present Worth Analysis of Alternative
Projects 33
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Study Area Location Chambers Creek Inter-
ceptor Supplemental EIS 3
2-1 Tunnel Alternative 12
vi i i
-------
Chapter 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and Need for Action
On February 27, 1981, the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 10, issued a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Supplement - Chambers Creek Interceptor,
Pierce County, Washington. The Supplemental EIS was prepared
to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) re-
quirements for an EIS when a federally-funded project is
judged to have a significant impact on the environment.
Additionally, this EIS fulfills the requirements of the
State of Washington Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC
197-10).
During 1975, Pierce County, Washington and EPA had
prepared separate EIS-s for the Chambers Creek sewerage system
(ULID 73-1). 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 information 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 collection system has been or is under construction
(Step III), and Phase I of the treatment plant at Chambers
Creek is presently under construction. Phase II of the waste-
water treatment plant is scheduled for cbnstruction beginning
Iir~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.
1
-------
The Draft Supplemental EIS issued in February 1981,
described the existing and proposed wastewater interceptor
facilities and the environmental consequences associated
with three alternatives: the Tunnel Alternative, the Pump
Station Alternative, and No-Action Alternative. The Final
EIS (1975), the Draft Supplemental EIS (1981), and the comments
received on that supplemental document were used by EPA to
make the project funding decision presented as EPA's RECOMMENDED
ACTION in the front of this EIS.
On March 31, 1981, EPA held a public hearing on the
Draft Supplemental EIS. A summary of that public hearing
and letters of comment are presented in Chapter 5 of this
Final Supplemental EIS. The 45-day review and comment period
for the Draft Supplemental EIS ended on April 20, 1981.
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 only included the proposed interceptor alignments and
the areas immediately affected by the project alternatives
(Figure 1-1).
Preferred Action and Summary of Impacts
The Draft Supplemental EIS evaluated two project alter-
natives (Pump Station Alternative and Tunnel Alternative)
plus the No-Action Alternative. Table 1-1 presents a summary
of environmental impacts associated with the project alter-
natives as presented in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The
Pump Station Alternative had been analyzed in the 1975 Final
EIS and was still considered a feasible alternative in the
Supplemental Draft EIS. The Tunnel Alternative (EPA's pre-
ferred action) was developed as a result of detailed soils
investigations along the alignment defined as the preferred
alignment in the 1975 Final EIS.
Preferred Action - Tunnel Alternative
The Tunnel Alternative will 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 is located
on county-owned property, while the remaining 46 percent
will traverse private ownership. The depth of the tunnel
2
-------
FIGURE 1-1 . STUDY AREA
LOCATION CHAMBERS CREEK
INTERCEPTOR SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
Commencement
UiiMHili. Boy .¦
WASHINGTON
INDEX MAP
Fiixr«it,
Tocomo
-LEGEND-
CHAMBERS CREEK STUDY AREA
STAGE ICS SEWER
SERVICE AREAS
Paget
Sound
Sltilocoon
Lakt'/.
Laktvood
Sltllocsom
MILES
Gravelly
Lata
GENERAL
DRAINAGE
BASIN
BOUNDARY
Amu icon
Lett
Sponoaoy
SponaM>
y 1 \/////
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Project Alternatives
Tunnel Alternative With Concrete
Economic Factors
Pump Station Alternative
I.-iner (Polyethylene Liner)
No-Action
o Construction cost
$11,407,000
$14,500,000 ($16,307,100)
o Present worth
$14,4 73,600
$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-
Minor
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
- Land use - long'term
None
Non»**
None
- Business disruption -
Access to 5 or 6 businesses
None
None
construction
restricted
- liiiergy consumption
6.2 million kwhr/yr; 10,000
None
None
gal/ fuel/year
- Duration of construction
63-126 weeks
65-73 weeks
(weeks)
*Tliiu quantity of material assumes construction of a 102-inch diameter tunnel.
**l'oriiiaii(.:iit uubsurface easements would bo required along approximately 37 parcont of the alignment but would not adversely affect
long-term land use.
-------
will range from surface level to 150 feet. The major impacts
of constructing this alternative are shown in Table 1-1.
The following mitigation measures will be taken by the
county to gain a better understanding of hydrogeological
conditions along the alignment:
o Inventory to determine locations of local wells
and developed springs along the tunnel alignment.
The inventory will include measurements of well
water level, specific capacity, specific conductance,
temperature, pH, turbidity, and nitrate.
o Installation of test and observation wells along
the tunnel alignment to determine the following:
• Hydraulic continuity between overlying saturated
sand and the interbedded sands within the silt
strata.
• Effect on local wells of dewatering for tunnel
construction.
o Installation of piezometers, one within the tunnel
zone and the second at the contact between the upper
sand and gravel and the underlying silt-fine sand.
Hart-Crows£r & Associates will be undertaking these
tasks as a continuing part of their ongoing Phase III studies.
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 will 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 will handle flows of 55.54 MGD
at the inlet point on Bridgeport Way, and flows of 59.42 MGD
where flows from University Place South and Westside Sew&r
District will enter the system.
Approximately 0.93 MGD of wastewater from Westside Oak-
brook will not enter either the Pump Station Interceptor
or the tunnel, but would instead enter the Chambers Creek
treatment plant via a separate interceptor system.
5
-------
Conclusions
The following conclusions are made relative to the pre-
ferred action Tunnel Alternative:
o Construction costs of the Tunnel Alternative will
be $14.5-$16.3 million vs. $11.4 million for the
Pump Station Alternative; however, the annual
operation and maintenance costs for the Tunnel
Alternative would be $164,000-$197,000 less than
for the Pump Station Alternative.
o Present worth costs for the Tunnel Alternative will
be $13.0-$14.2 million vs. $14.5 million for the
Pump Station Alternative.
o No annual energy costs will be associated with the
Tunnel Alternative.
o Potential impacts of the tunnel construction on
local water supplies (wells and developed springs)
will be better defined by the conduct of a well
inventory and pump well installation and testing
to be initiated by Hart-Crowser & Associates. These
studies will better define the construction methodology
needed along the alignment.
Availability of Support Documents
A large number of reports are related to this Supple-
mental EIS. Those support documents, the 1981 Draft Supple-
mental EIS, a copy of the public hearing transcript, the
1976 EIS prepared by EPA, the 1976 EIS prepared by Pierce
County, the Cost Effective Analysis of the Chambers Creek
Interceptor Alternatives prepared by Kennedy Engineers, plus
the earlier Chambers Creek-Clover Creek Basin Sewerage Manage-
ment 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
A copy of the hearing transcript is also available for
review at:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Evaluation Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
6
-------
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 1969 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 on the Glacier Sand
and Gravel property near the mouth of Chambers Creek.
In the EIS prepared in 1975 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.
7
-------
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.
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.
April 1978 - Pierce County commissioners authorized
Kennedy Engineers to proceed with design of the
Tunnel Alternative.
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.
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.
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.
8
-------
o November 1980 - EPA initiated process of preparing
a Supplemental EIS because of significant changes
in the preferred alternative as described in the
1975 EIS.
o February 27, 1981 - EPA published Supplemental Draft
EIS.
o April 1981 - Hart-Crowser & Associates prepared
Scope of Work to conduct additional Phase III studies
to fulfill mitigation measures defined in Supple-
mental Draft EIS (see Chapter 3 of this document -
Impacts on Groundwater).
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.
9
-------
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.).
Alternatives Previously Considered
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.
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.
10
-------
In addition to the aforementioned alternatives, an ana-
lysis of the "No-Action" Alternative was made in the 1975
EIS.
The Draft Supplemental EIS (February 1981) evaluated
two interceptor alternatives: the Pump Station Alternative
(as presented earlier in the 1975 EIS) and the Tunnel Alter-
native. Also considered was the "No-Action" Alternative.
Please refer to that document for a description of those
alternatives.
Description of Proposed Action
The tunnel will be approximately 12,800 feet long
following the alignment shown on Figure 2-1. The tunnel
will receive flows from the Bridgeport gravity interceptor
and will eventually receive flows from areas served in the
future by the Leach Creek and University Place East Inter-
ceptor (Kennedy Engineers 1980).
The tunnel will terminate at the treatment plant on
Glacier Sand and Gravel property. Much of the tunnel will
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 will flow for 1,250 feet through
a conventional gravity pipe to the treatment plant. Appro-
ximately 800 feet of the 1,250 feet of conventional sewer
will 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 will require the use
of compressed air but that the entire alignment will 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 will be to prevent
groundwater from entering the excavation.
Connection of North Area Trunk
Sewers to the Tunnel Alternative
A number of trunk interceptors will eventually contribute
sewage flows to the Chambers Creek Interceptor. These flows
will enter the main interceptor at several different locations,
depending on the alternative. Two interceptors, Leach Creek
and University Place East, will enter the Chambers Creek Inter-
ceptor at the tunnel inlet near Bridgeport Way (Appendix A;
11
-------
Figure 2-1
WW*
&
&
i"»tooo"
INLET
OUTLET
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
Wrfeju Aid*mfL t *\
MSI it
MfAbOW PAfi*
COIF rOUH«
TUNNEL
BRIDGEPORT
INTERCEPTOR
MH B-6
e
/¦
. .. CRAV(i
irJi
CHAMBERS CREEK
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
"* HurTtliff
Jr H«h Scbltj
Sunnyitide /¦*.
Kcurh
NUJM
i ; i \"?J r-T (• '"'^AT'
i !
v
i*>r~i
>\lp!
>-'f % f'-P+j
~ PLAN | 'J 1
li | . J
11 .1 I «T
PIERCE COUNTY ULID 73-1
CHAMBERS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE
FROM> KENNEDY ENGINEERS
JUNE 1980
-------
Figure A-2). Other interceptors from north of Chambers Creek
will enter the system at a number of locations as described
herein.
Westside Sewer District
Sewage from the Westside Sewer District will flow down
Grandview Drive to Chambers Creek Road.
The Westside Sewer District Interceptor will 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; Figures A-l and A-2). Year 2000 flows will
be approximately 3.8 MGD.
University Place South
Sewage flows from the University Place South Interceptor
will originate from the area south of Cirque Drive. Flows
from University Place South will 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-2). The flows will be
approximately 0.95 MGD.
Future Construction of Trunk Sewers
The future connection of trunk interceptors will be
the responsibility of Pierce County and future ULIDs created
to serve the Westside Sewer District and University Place.
Some future construction will occur along Chambers Creek
Road. While construction of the Tunnel Alternative will
avoid Chambers Creek Road, the construction of the University
Place South and Westside Sewer District trunk sewers, as
now defined, will ultimately require some construction within
the roadway. The Westside Sewer District Interceptor is
presently 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'will be 60.35 MGD
(Kennedy Engineers 1980). The Tunnel Alternative will handle
55.54 MGD of those flows (Table 2-1).
13
-------
Table 2-1. Year 2000 Design Flows
Accumulated
Accumulated
Accumulated
Trunk
ADWF
ADWF
PDWF
PDWF
PWWF
PWWF.
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
mgd
Flows crlbucary to cunnel and pump scacion:
Bridgeport Interceptor
12.99
25.26
39.92
12.99
25.26
39.92
Phillips-Hipkins Inc.
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. Flrcresc/Tacoma
1.02
2.89
3.99
B. Pierce County
0.59
1.77
2.56
Universicy Place Ease
0.18
0.66
____
0.95
Total
18.88
35.44
55.54
Flows eribueary to treatment
plane:
University Place South
0.29
0.97
1.39
19.17
36.45
56.47
Westside Sewer Dlscricc
0.9S
2.59
3.78
20.12
38.21
59.42
Westslde Oakbrook
0.32
_____
1.06
1.51
_____
Total
20.44
38.69
60.35
1The 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 gee the accumulated Peak Dry Weacher Flow (PDWF). Accumulated in-
flow and infiltration amounts are Chen added to the accumulated PDWF to gee Che accumulated
PWWF.
SOURCE: Kennedy Engineers 1980.
14
-------
The Tunnel Alternative will receive 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-2). Those flows will enter the
Chambers Creek treatment plant via separate interceptors
as discussed in the previous section.
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)j 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-l in Appendix A.
Tunnel construction will involve the following basic
features:
o Staging Areas - The staging sites will be estab-
lished at the outlet of the tunnel and will
consist of an area of approximately 3-4 acres.
This area will support the equipment and material
necessary for tunnel construction. The staging
area will be on the Glacier Sand and Gravel pro-
perty. A smaller staging area will 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 will 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.
15
-------
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 will
involve the use of a boring machine with a tunnel
shield. The shield will be forced ahead in steps,
keeping pace with the progress of excavation and
erection of tunnel support system behind. The
tunnel diameter will range in size from 72-102
inches. The tunnel will probably be mined from
Glacier Sand and Gravel upgrade to the tunnel portal
at Bridgeport Way west. Blasting will hot be
required except in rare situations where a very
large boulder is encountered (Douglas pers. comm.).
o Mucking and Spoil Disposal - Material excavated
from the tunnel will 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 will 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 will be 15-17 months. Under
good working conditions, the tunnel excavation will
proceed at about 100 linear feet per day.
Action to be Taken by Pierce County
Pierce County must await the EPA Record of Decision
and approval by the Department of Ecology regarding funding
for the Tunnel Alternative. The county will then authorize
the engineers to proceed with design of the project, to be
followed by Step III, project construction.
16
-------
Chapter 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
THE PROPOSED ACTION
Introduction
This chapter of the Supplemental EIS discusses the major
environmental issues associated with construction of the
tunnel alignment. Each subsection deals with an individual
issue. The issue is identified, pertinent background data
are presented or cited and the nature of the impact is dis-
cussed. Mitigation measures are identified where significant
adverse environmental impacts have been identified.
As mentioned previously, most of the impacts associated
with the proposed action 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 1975 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 (1975). 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).
17
-------
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.
Hart-Crowser & Associates, Inc., recently prepared a
preliminary report entitled Chambers Creek Interceptor
Tunnel, Phase II and III Geotechnical Engineering Study
which provided more detailed information on soils and ground-
water conditions.
Impacts on Groundwater
Tunnel Alternative. The proposed tunnel will 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
will be driven using a pressurized system or possibly
with a tunnel boring machine designed with a tunnel
shield system to prevent groundwater infiltration
into the tunnel. The use of dewatering wells will
be employed along approximately 9,300 feet of the
tunnel length (73 percent) to reduce the water
pressure above 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.
-------
No long-term (postcoristruetion) adverse impacts on ground-
water resources are anticipated as a result of tunnel operation-
Other Alternatives. In the Draft.Supplemental EIS and
EPA's 1975 Final EIS, it was indicated that no-action would
result in continued use of septic systems and a likelihood
for contamination of the groundwater.
The Pump Station Alternative would have no effect on
groundwater (see Appendix B).
Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Groundwater
As previously mentioned, the use of air or dewatering
wells or a combination of both during tunnel construction
would eliminate any likely impacts of tunneling into "flowing
ground" conditions (i.e., fine saturated sands or springs).
A number of measures will be taken to more precisely
determine or to prevent impacts on local wells. Hart-Crowser &
Associates has prepared a scope of work to conduct a well
inventory and to install two test pumping wells and eight
observation wells along the alignment. The purpose of the
test wells will be to establish effects of dewatering on
local wells and to better understand the hydraulic relation-
ship between the saturated sand and interbedded sands within
the silt layer. The program will include:
o Inventory of local wells within the area between
Chambers Creek Canyon and 1,000 feet north of
Chambers Creek Road, along approximately 8,000 feet
of the tunnel alignment.
o Water quality testing and well data measurements
which will include such information as:
- well diameter
- depth
- location
- surface elevation
- static water level
- well yield - specific capacity
- use
- aquifer elevation
- specific conductance
- temperature
- pH
- turbidity
- nitrates
19
-------
o Construction of pump test wells and observation wells
within installation of multiple piezometers.
o Determination of hydraulic continuity between upper
and lower aquifers.
The additional groundwater studies will provide data
to aid in selection of the best method of dewatering along
the tunnel alignment. The inventory of wells and developed
springs will provide a record of water depth and water quality
and quantity in the event of conflict with local well owners
during construction 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.
20
-------
Impacts on Soils
Tunnel Alternative. Construction of the tunnel will
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 more recently com-
pleted Phase II and Phase III studies by Hart-Crowser &
Associates indicate that dewatering will be required along
approximately 9,275 feet of the alignment. Dewatering is
not anticipated along 2,000 feet of the western end of the
alignment or along 1,500 feet at the eastern end. No ground
stability problems should occur with proper dewatering and
use of earth balance tunneling technique.
As shown on preliminary drawings, the tunnel alignment
will 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), will prevent ground loss problems. Impacts on the
ground surface will 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 will be required if large boulders
are encountered (Douglass pers. comm.).
Other Alternatives. Since no construction would occur
with the No-Action Alternative, there would be no impact
on soils within the study area.
A discussion of the impact of construction of the Pump
Station Alternative was presented in the Draft Supplement
EIS. The deep trench cuts (20-25 feet) and loose soil would
likely create construction problems along portions of Chambers
Creek Road.
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 1975 Pierce County EIS (page 111-23)
and in the EPA EIS (page 57) and therefore will not be re-
peated here.
21
-------
Neither alternative alignment will cross any watercourses
and the alignments wi'll, for the most part, be well away
from Chambers Creek.
Impacts on Surface Water
•
Tunnel Alternative. Dewatering of 9,275 feet of tunnel
alignment will require the removal and discharge of ground-
water. Groundwater will be removed above the alignment (per-
haps 20-30 feet of groundwater), transported in an irrigation
type portable pipeline and discharged into Chambers Creek
or Puget Sound. Water discharged should be good quality
and will not adversely affect surface water quality.
Because of a change in proposed tunnel alignment since
preparation of the Draft Supplemental EIS, there is a pos-
sibility that some surface construction will occur in the
small canyon located just south of Charles Wright Academy
(see Figure A-l). The bottom of the Canyon is located at
elevation 125 feet, the estimated top of the tunnel invert
(Tonkin pers. comm.).
A small stream flows through the Canyon and thence
into Chambers Creek. Any surface construction will require
alteration of the streambed and temporary diversion of flows.
Turbidity will likely occur and result in some turbid con-
ditions in Chambers Creek.
Other Alternatives. The no-action impact on surface
water quality was presented in the 1975 EIS (page 96).
A discussion of the impact of construction of the
Pump Station Alternative was presented in the Draft Sup-
plemental EIS (page 28).
Mitigation of Potential Impacts on Surface Water Quality
Any proposed discharge of groundwater into Chambers
Creek or streambed alteration will require coordination with
the Washington Department of Fisheries. Mitigation of poten
tial impacts oh surface waters will include:
o Coordinate with Washington Departments of Game
and Fisheries and develop a plan to minimize
impacts of construction on streambed and stream
flow.
o Define, with the Washington Departments of Game
and Fisheries, the location and means of dis-
charging groundwater into Chambers Creek or Puget
Sound.
22
-------
Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources
Existing Conditions
A detailed account of existing terrestrial and aquatic
resources was presented in the 1975 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 on Resources
Surface construction activities of tunneling in the
small Canyon will cause some impact on existing vegetation
and wildlife. A strip of vegetation, probably 50-60 feet
in width and of an unknown length, will be cleared.
If the decision is made to place the tunnel at a deeper
elevation, then surface impacts within the Canyon will not
occur.
The locations of the inlet structure near Bridgeport
Way will be within an abandoned gravel pit. Some vegetation,
which has developed since abandonment of the gravel operation,
would be cleared for that structure and for a construction
staging atea.
The remaining components of the proposed action (i.e.,
pipeline, tunnel, outlet structures, etc.), will either be
located within existing roadways or well below the ground
surface and will not affect terrestrial resources. Neither
alternative will adversely ^affect aquatic resources.
Spoil Disposal
Impact of Spoil Disposal
Construction of the Tunnel Alternative will necessitate
the removal and disposal of 13,400-27,000 cubic yards (depending
on tunnel diameter) of spoil material.
All excavated material not used as backfill will be
disposed of at the Glacier Sand and Gravel operation. Ma-
terial removed from the pump station alignment will 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 will
be of little value as aggregate. The material may be useful
in stabilizing slopes or as fill.
23
-------
Mineral Resources
Existing Conditions
Much of the study area is underlain by Steilacoom gravels.
Several active gravel extraction operations are ongoing in
the vicinity - Glacier Sand and Gravel and Lone Star Industries,
Inc. Gravel had also been extracted from a pit near Bridge-
port Way and Leach Creek but that pit is no longer in operation.
Impacts
The tunnel inlet and outlet structures will be located
in gravel pits. The pit at the east end of the alignment
has been fully mined and was abandoned several years ago.
At the west end of the tunnel alignment, Glacier Sand
and Gravel, Inc., has mined to its easternmost property line
and could not mine any further even if the tunnel was not
constructed. That eastern boundary also represents the approxi-
mately eastern limit of good quality gravels (those gravels
not containing large quantities of silts and fine sands)
(Peterson pers. comm.).
Construction of the tunnel will not remove any signi-
ficant portion of the gravel resource from local supply.
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.
Traffic currently is relatively light in the study area,
with Chambers Creek Road having average daily traffic (ADT)
between 3,200 and 4,150. 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 traffic
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.
24
-------
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 1,050
round trips, or an ADT of 1,050. 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 On Transportation
Tunnel Alternative. The Tunnel Alternative will not
cause any road closures, and will not require detouring
of any trucks from Chambers Creek Road. Tunnel operations
will generate some construction-related traffic, mostly
of tunnel construction materials and workers. This traffic,
perhaps 200 trips per day, will use Chambers Creek Road,
increasing traffic levels by about 5 percent. No signi-
ficant impacts are expected.
No impact on utilities will result from tunnel con-
struction because the alignment will be well below the
location of utilities.
Pump Station Alternative. Construction of the Pump
Station Alternative would require closure of Chambers Creek
Road since excavation for the sewer pipe and construction
activities would occupy the entire roadway area. The impacts
associated with this construction were discussed in detail
in the Draft Supplemental EIS (pages 30-36).
It was anticipated that the closure of Chambers Creek
Road would affect the road in sections. The closure would
require diversion of traffic from Chambers Creek Road to
Steilacoom Boulevard and Cirque Drive. Depending on the
section of Chambers Creek Road closed, traffic on other
alternate routes would increase 7-80 percent.
Mitigation measures, which included the development
of a traffic management plan, were recommended (Draft
Supplemental EIS, pages 35 and 36).
25
-------
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.
Impacts
Tunnel Alternative. Noise impacts created by construction
of the tunnel will be highly localized. A majority of the
work effort will be carried out at the tunnel portal loca-
tion on the Glacier Sand and Gravel property, well away from
residential areas. Some construction activity will 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 will occur on Chambers
Creek Road, transporting necessary supplies and equipment
to the tunnel construction staging area.
Pump Station Alternative. Construction of the Pump
Station Alternative would cause temporary noise impacts along
much of the alignment. The construction activities would
include excavation, earth moving, compacting, paving, and
cleanup.
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-1975).
Mitigation of Noise Impacts
Use of construction equipment containing noise control
devices will reduce noise levels 6-18 dBA in the work and
immediate impact area.
26
-------
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 on Land Use
Tunnel Alternative. The localized nature of tunnel
construction will minimize the impacts on land use. Con-
struction and permanent subsurface easements will be required
at the tunnel entrance and terminus and wherever the tunnel
passes beneath private property. Of the 14,700 feet cf align-
ment (including extension of the Bridgeport Interceptor),
approximately 51 percent will be located on county-owned
property while 20 percent will 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) will be required on both ends
of the tunnel alignment.
The tunnel alignment will pass immediately adjacent
to (within 35 feet) two residential structions. Another
16 structures will 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 will not adversely affect future use of land
surrounding them.
27
-------
Pump Station Alternative. The alignment for this alter-
native would be primarily within the existing Chambers Creek
Road right-of-way (Table 3-1). Approximately 570 feet at
both ends of the alignment would not be within existing rights
of-way.
Since neither construction nor permanent easements on
private property would be required, no impairment of existing
uses of residential or commercial property is anticipated.
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
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.).
Impacts
Tunnel Alternative. The tunneling alternative will
avoid construction on Chambers! Creek Road, thereby avoiding
any disruption of adjacent businesses.
Pump Station Alternative. Any closure of Chambers Creek
Road would cause a definable disruption on present use of
the roadway by local businesses. 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 considerably.
Energy Usage
The Tunnel Alternative will not require annual usage
of energy since wastewater flow will be by gravity and no
buildings will be required.
A detailed discussion of energy costs associated with
the Pump Station Alternative was presented in the Draft
Supplemental EIS (pages 40-44) and will not be repeated here.
28
-------
Table 3-1. 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
TOTALS
+ 2 acres
+ 2 acres
480
13,600
570
14,650*
Roadway right-of-way
- Bridgeport Way
- Chambers Creek Road
Gravel pit
Residential/opfen space
- private ownership
- county ownership
+ 2 acres
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.
-------
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 3-2 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.
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 3-3. Annual operation and maintenance costs vary
widely, from $2,500 per year for the polyethylene pipe tunnel
concept to $199,800 per year for the Pump Station Alternative
(Table 3-4). To determine which of the three alternatives
has the lowest overall cost, taking both initial capital
costs and annual costs into consideration, the project
alternative can be compared on the basis of their present
worth. Present worth in this case is the amount of money
which will have to be available at the present time to con-
struct the project and operate it over a 20-year period.
The comparison based upon present worth is shown in Table 3-5.
Overall, the least costly alternative is use of tunnel with
a concrete pipe. This concept is 9 percent less costly than
the Tunnel Alternative with the polyethylene pipe, and is
11 percent less costly than the Pump Station Alternative.
30
-------
Table 3-2. Comparison of Project Costs in 1975 and 19B0
Based on 1980 Kennedy Engineering Report2
Based on 1975 EIS* Percentage Increase in Total
Initial Project Annual OfiM Total Annual3 Initial Project Annual O&M Total Annual* Annual Cost Between 1975
Alternative Concept Cost ($) ODSt (5) Cost ($J Cost ($) Cbst ($) Cost <$) 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
"ftjnnels 14,550,000 36,600 1,238,800/yr
'rinal ifrvirGnmental Impact Statement for Chambers Creek Sewerage System (UUP 73-1) Project IC-530565-01, Pierce County, Washington, prepared by Wiley & Hani
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 coats presented in the 1975 EPA EIS were increased by 25 percent to prcwide allcwance for design cost, construction management, administration, :iule
of bonds, soils investigations, and land and easencnts.
^Tunnel with a concrete pipe.
-------
Table 3-3. 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 3-4. 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/vr
$36,600/yr
$2,500/yr
$199,800/yr
-------
Table 3-5. 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 included 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 on the Draft
Supplemental EIS was held at the Chamber of the
Board of County Commissioners, county-city building,
Tacoma, Washington, on March 31, 1981. A summary
of that hearing is presented in Chapter 5 - COMMENTS
AND RESPONSES TO DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS.
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.
35
-------
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, 1975)
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 frcra 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."
Regulations implementing Section 106 identify the pro-
cedure for evaluating potential impacts on properties on
or eligible for the National Register. This includes: 1)
identifying properties within the project's area of impact
that are on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Places (this includes consulting the National
Register and the State Historic Preservation Officer [SHPO]);
2) determining whether properties on or eligible for the
National Register might be affected by the project; 3) deter-
mining if the effect is adverse? 4) notifying the Advisory
Council and the SHPO of the findings of the impact analysis;
and 5) proceeding with the consultation process if an adverse'
effect is anticipated.
To ensure compliance, the most recent listing of the
National Register of Historic Places was consulted (Federal
Register, Vol. 46, No. 22, February 3, 1981).
36
-------
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., (see accompanying letter).
As a result of consultation with the Washington SHPO
and review of the annual listings of historic properties,
EPA has determined that none of the alternatives evaluated
will affect any historic properties included in the National
Register of Historic Places. In addition, it has been deter-
mined that there are no properties within the area of environ-
mental impact that will be affected which are eligible for
inclusion in the National Register.
In further consultation with the Washington SHPO, the
state archeologist has determined that there are no cultural
resources located within the project area.
The grant condition as presented in the earlier part
of this discussion will remain in effect for this Supple-
mental EIS.
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"
will 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 197 5 EPA EIS and in the 197 5 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."
37
-------
STATE OF OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
WASHINGTON HJ West TwcnlyFrrst Avenue, M.S. KL-11, Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753-4011
KENKESY/JE^-"
ENSINCSSS, I-'.
TA COV.A
January 30, 1981 p£g 3 ]qq]
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
38
-------
The tunnel alignment, which was not evaluated in the
1975 documents, will 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" will be below ground
and there will be no impact on endangered or threatened
species.
39
-------
Chapter 5
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS
Introduction
This chapter presents a summary of the EPA public
hearing on the Draft Supplemental EIS conducted March 31,
1981 and letters and responses to those letters received
during the 45-day review period, which ended April 20, 1981.
Public Hearing Summary
On March 31, 1981, EPA held a public hearing at the
county-city building, Tacoma, Washington. The hearing was
attended by 20 agency representatives and private citizens.
The transcript of that hearing has not been reproduced in
this EIS, however, copies of that document are available
for public review at the following locations:
o Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Room 10D
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
o Pierce County Public Works
Attn: Roy Peterson
3551 Bridgeport Way W.
Tacoma, WA 98466
The public hearing was officiated by Ms. Deborah Gates
of the EPA. Following opening remarks by Ms. Gates and Clark
Smith of EPA, presentations were made by C..David Tonkin
of Kennedy/Jenks Engineers, Inc., and Jonathan Ives of Jones &
Stokes Associates, Inc.
Following the presentation, oral testimony was made
by three private citizens, which was followed by a question
and answer period. A panel consisting of Ms. Gates, Clark
Smith, David Tonkin, Roy Peterson, Peter Douglass (Hart-
Crowser & Associates) and Jonathan Ives answered questions
from the audience.
41
-------
Major comments received during public testimony included:
o Mr. George Hess of Save Our University Place (SOUP)
generally supported the completion of the Chambers
Creek Interceptor but had questions regarding con-
struction of future sanitary and storm water sewers.
He also requested development of public access to
Puget Sound as a part of the treatment facility con-
struction (see letters received section of this
chapter).
o Mr. Edwin Newton protested the project for a number
of reasons: 1) the ULID 7 3-1 no longer applies,
2) no legal boundaries exist, 3) there was no vote
of the people, 4) the county falsified funding
requests to EPA, and 5) EPA did not conduct its
own EIS in 1975, but rather used the EIS prepared
by the Pierce County.
o Mr. George Hutchings felt that charts used to show
the project alternatives should have been more clearly
presented.
During the question and answer period a number of questions
related to project costs were asked, specifically as follows:
o What cost was used to arrive at assessment (sewer
assessment for residents in sewer area)? Mr. Roy
Peterson answered that the costs developed by
Kennedy/Jenks Engineers, Hart-Crowser, Townsend
and Parametrics were used with a 12 percent inflation
factor for each year of delay. He also mentioned
that the county is working with Washington Department
of Ecology regarding state funding in the event
federal monies are unavailable.
o Is the project in compliance with the Shoreline
Management Act? Mr. Peterson answered that to date
everything is in compliance. He also indicated that
land associated with the treatment facilities does
not have access to Puget Sound and.that the easement
for the outfall is only subsurface.
o There was a formal protest of the legality of the
meeting in that it didn't comply with 30-day notice
requirements (that the Draft EIS be available to
the public at least 30 days before the public hearing).
It was later determined that the EIS was available
at least 30 days before the hearing.
o Is there a possibility of seepage from the tunnel
into the groundwater? Mr. Tonkin and Mr. Peterson
answered that there would not be seepage - that the
concern is groundwater entering the pipe rather than
sewage seeping from it.
42
-------
o What is present worth and is that figure used in
the assessment? Mr. Tonkin and Mr. Peterson answered
that present worth represents the annual operating
and maintenance costs over a 20-year period plus
construction costs expressed in terms of present
day worth. The assessment is based on present worth.
o What is estimated easement cost? Mr. Tonkin indicated
it to be $180,000 as an estimate.
o What is the assessment per parcel? Mr. Peterson
indicated it to be 2.6 cents per square foot plus
$12.70 for frontage cost.
o What is purpose of Phase III study? Mr. Peter
Douglass answered that the results will assist in
designing tunnel.
o Won't future soils studies affect estimated cost
of the tunnel? Mr. Peterson indicated that the detail
presently available is sufficient to adequately
estimate costs.
o What other areas of ULID are not engineered yet?
Mr. Peterson indicated that the area south of Fort
Steilacoom has not been completed.
Letters and Responses
The following section contains letters of comment from
agencies, individuals, and groups on the Draft Supplement
EIS. Those letters which commented directly to the Draft
EIS have been reproduced in this section and, where necessary,
are followed by a response page.
The EPA wishes to express its appreciation to all com-
menting agencies, groups, and individuals for the time and
effort spent in reviewing the Draft Supplemental EIS. All
comments were fully considered prior to formulating EPA's
recommended proposed action.
43
-------
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Area Office
252S Farkmont Lane
Olympia, Washington 38502
April 8, 1931
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regional Director, Water and Power Resources Service, Soi?e, ID
r-;0M: A"'~: !'~r3:er, Fish and Wildlife Service, Olvnpia, WA
SI'r-JECT: Draft rj??'•:••".£nt to- the Final Environmental I"act Stat£T;snt,
r-.-.i. 11« •» - v/» - - a - D-'-rrz, r~ —-r<< n ' r 5 0'> ' 07^
UiiCM.taSi S wi -.siv ilii.ii •- .vuwrj . i srce '.'..iii,; , r.n v ui/ Hi.)
Due to recent changes in program emphasis, we will be ur.able to comment on
the referenced draft supplemental environmental impact statement.
It should be noted that the proposed project may be subject to permits for
which we have review responsibilities. Accordingly, our comments do not
preclude an additional and separate evaluation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.G. 661,
et seq.), if eventual project development requires a permit from the
U.S. Coast Guard and/or the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army (Sections 9 and
10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899 and Section 404 of P.L. 92-500).
In review of permit applications, the Fish and Wildlife Service may concur,
with or without stipulations, or object to the proposed work, depending on
specific construction practices which may impact fish and wildlife resources.
In the event that such permits do become necessary, we would encourage the
project sponsor to contact our office (phone 206-753-9440) prior to permit
application. We may be able to give guidance on design criteria which will
facilitate the permit-review process.
We appreciate notification of this proposed project and the opportunity to
comment on its potential impact on fish a-nd wildlife resources.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Blum
Area Manager
cc: WDE
WDG
BIA
NMFS
WDF ,
EPA'
Project Sponsor
44
-------
Response to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter
1. Comment noted. The project sponsor will be required
to contact the U. S. Pish and Wildlife Service if the
Corps of Engineers permits are required (Sections 9
and 10; Section 404).
45
-------
L'nited States Department of the Inter
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
500 N.E. Multnomah Street, Suite 1692, Portland, Oregon 97232
JpramtraH
APR 22 1381
ENVWOMUF'rfT*.' rov 'iAiiOH
i t
April 17, 1981
ER 81/372
Clark H. Smith, M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
We have reviewed the Draft Supplement to the.Final Environmental State-
ment for Chambers Creek Interceptor, Pierce County, Washington and have
the following comments:
Mineral Resources: We feel that the impacts on mineral resources, speci-
fically the local availability of sand and gravel, are not adequately ad-
dressed, as was previously noted in our letter (ER 75/964) to EPA on
November 17, 1975. Both the Tunnel alternative project and the Pump Sta-
tion alternative project begin in a sand and gravel pit and terminate on A
land owned by Glacier Sand and Gravel Company. The following two ques-
tions therefore should be addressed:
1. How much sand and gravel resource will become unavailable as
a result of implementing either alternative?
2. Is this resource a significant portion of local supply?
Fish and Wildlife: Although we have no specific comments on the refer-
enced draft supplemental EIS, it should be noted that the proposed project
may be subject to permits for which we have review responsibilities. Ac-
cordingly, our comments do not preclude an additional and separate evalu-
ation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.), if eventual project
development requires a permit from the U.S. Coast Guard and/or the Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Army (Sections 9 and 10 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1899 and Section 404 of P.L. 92-500). In review of permit applica-
tions, the Fish and Wildlife Service may concur, with or without stipu-
lations, or object to proposed work, depending on specific construction
practices which may impact fish and wildife resources.
In the event that such permits do become necessary, we would encourage ^
the project sponsor to contact the Fish and Wildlife Service area office J
46
-------
in Olympia (phone 206-753-9440) prior to permit application. They may
be able to give guidance on design criteria which will facilitate the
permit-review process.
Recreation: Discussion of recreation and open space opportunities or a
statement explaining the lack of recreation opportunities at the project
site should be included in the DEIS or the DEIS supplement to satisfy
the requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Section 13, entitled
"Recreation and Open Space" of the Clean Water Act amends Section 201(g)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by adding the following para-
graph:
Section 13, Section 201(g) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new para-
graph: "(6) The Administrator shall not make grants from funds
authorized for any fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1978,
to any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency
for the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling,
improvement, or extension of treatment works unless the grant appli-
cant has satisfactorily demonstrated to the Administrator that the
applicant has analyzed the potential recreation and open space op-
portunities in the planning of the proposed treatment works."
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
Recreation and Open Space
Sincerely yours
Charles S. Polityka A
Regional Environmental Officer
47
-------
Response to Office of the Secretary, U. S. Department of
the Interior
1. A discussion of the impact of the proposed action on
sand and gravel resources has been added to the text
(see page of the Final Supplemental EIS). Since
the proposed inlet and outlet structures of the
tunnel will be constructed on lands already mined of
usable gravel and sand resources, no adverse impact
on the resource or local supply will occur.
2. Comment noted. See response to 0. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service letter.
3. Except for the short distances at either end of the
alignment, the tunnel will be constructed entirely
beneath the surface. No surface easements (except
at each end of the alignment) will be required, thereby
eliminating any linear recreation corridor potential.
The 30-acre treatment facilities site (not a part of
this Supplemental EIS) will include an outfall dis-
charging to Puget Sound. The outfall will only have
a subsurface easement and no access will occur.
48
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
115 Ceneral Administration Building • Olympia. Washington 98504 • (206)753-6600 • (SCW) 23-1-6600
April 17, 1981
Clark H. Smith, M/S 443
Fm/ironiTipnt.al Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
After comparison of the two action alternatives, pump station and tunnel,
our staff feels that there is less risk of encountering surface water runoff
problems that could adversely affect fish life on fish habitat in Chambers
Creek by selecting the tunnel alternative.
On that basis, we support the tunnel alternative, along with the proposed
method of disposing of groundwater that might be encountered during tunnel
construction.
Thank you for keeping us advised of the status of the project.
Sincerely,
Draft Supplemental EIS - Chambers Creek Interceptor
Pierce County
WRIA B-12.0007
Rolland A. Schmitten
Di rector
cc: Game Dept.
Department of Ecology
APR 20 1981
49
ENVIRONMENTV EVALUATION
-------
Response to Washington Department of Fisheries
1. Comment noted.
50
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
j-. . | DEPARTMENT OF GAME
Liu CHI • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-5700
April 14, 1981
StfiiCH
Clark H. Smith, M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, VJA 98101
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
Chambers Creek Interceptor, Pierce Co.
Mr. Clark:
Your document was reviewed by our staff as requested; comments follow.
It is stated on page 28 that, "No .impacts on surface water from tunneling are
anticipated." This may be true, but it should be explained that the possibil-
ity of impacts on surface water does exist. Unfortunately, the information
necessary to assess better the potential for impact does not appear to be
available. Our primary concern is that lowering of the surfaces of aquifers
and use of dewatering wells could reduce streamflow in Chambers Creek. We
feel that springs along the north side of the creek should be located and
estimations of their overall discharge should be made to determine how much
water they contribute to Chambers Creek. During extreme low flow conditions,
any streamflow augmentation via springs, seepage, etc. may be vitally import-
ant.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your document. We hope that you find
our comments helpful.
Sincerely,
THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME *
—-—
Fred H. Maybee, Applied Ecologist
Environmental Affairs Program
Habitat Management Division
FHM:1ca
cc: Agencies
Region
51
-------
Response to Washington Department of Game
1. Preliminary indications are that the amount of ground-
water to be removed by dewatering that now contributes
flows to Chambers Creek, constitutes a very small portion
of the total stream flow.
More recent engineering studies have indicated a need
to dewater a majority of the Tunnel Alignment. Ground-
water removed would be piped for discharge to either
Chambers Creek or Puget Sound. EPA identifies the
need for the county and Department of Game to develop
a plan for the method and locations of this discharge.
Please see Chapter 3, SURFACE WATER IMPLICATIONS
discussion.
52
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206)75^2800:
April 8, 1981
Mr. Clark H. Smith, M/S 443
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Evaluation Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft supplemental environmental
impact statement (EIS) for the Chambers Creek Interceptor.
The supplemental EIS addresses the environmental impacts associated with the
new tunnel alternative. Department staff have reviewed this alternative and
have no comments.
If you have any questions, please call me at 753-6892.
Sincerely
Debbie Fristoe
Environmental Review Section
DF:11c
53
-------
410 West Harrison Street, P.O. Box 9363 (206) 344*7330
Seattle, Washington 93109
Mr. Clark H. Smith M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection.
Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, vIA 95101
Dear Mr. Smith:
Chambers Creek Interceptor
Wa have reviewed the draft supplemental environmental impact statement
for the Chambers Creek Interceptor Project. This Agency reviewed the
original draft statement and has no additional comments to make.
Very truly yours,
A. R. Daunkoehler
Air Pollution Control Officer
tj
SERVING:
KING COUNTY
410 West Harrison St.
P O. Box 9863
Seattle. 98109
(206) 344-7330
KITSAP COUNTY
Dial Ooerator for foil
F'ee Numoer Zenitn 8385 j~ r""—r?: Ml *T~
Samoridqe isiana. 98t 10 [j «¦' • V : ''
0«l 344-7330 L-'• >._*_• U '•!/ • % •
P'ERCE COUNTY Ij \\
213 Hess Qijiiama W .2—
Tacoma. 98102 :/iAH 20 138''
'2Q6) 383-5851
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
'206) 259-0238 ENVirtCl^^l EVALLifti iCH
EftAi-iCH
90AR0 OF DIRECTORS
54
CHAIRMAN- Gene L0M Commtssioner K;tsao County: VICE CHAIRMAN James B Ham*s. Counc**an Srcnorr.$n Co-.rv
oon O'jniao. King County executive: Glenn K Jarstaa. Mayor Bremerton: William 6. Moore. Mavor Evere'i M-nePa^er Mavo^acoma
*arvey S. Poll. Memoer at Large: C^nes Poyer. Mayor Seattle. Joe Stortmi. Commissioner Pierce County. A R DammKoemer. A»r Pollution Cc^yo; C!'ce'
-------
IOHN 5PELLMAN
Governor
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Highway Administration Building « Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-6005
March 12, 1981
Mr. Clark H. Smith, M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pierce County
Chambers Creek Interceptor
Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Smith:
We have reviewed the subject document and have no comments to
offer regarding the proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this information.
Sincerely,
ROBERT S. NIELSEN
Assistant Secretary for Public
Transportation and Planning
C2^<{ feu
By / JOSEPH BELL, Manager
Planning Implementation and
Environmental Policy
RSN:kls
JB/WBH
cc: A. R. Worrell
W. A. 3ULLEV
Secretary
lElQWlg
MAR 18 1931
55
-------
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor
WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
7150 Ceanwater Lane, Olympia, Washington 98504 M.S. K Y"1 1 206/ 753-5755
February 25, 1981
35-2650-1820
Supplemental DEIS -
Chambers Creek Interceptor
Pierce County, Washington
(E2143)
Clark H. Smith, M/S 443
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
The staff of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
has reviewed the above-noted document and does not wish to make
any comment.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
David W. Haiser, E.P., Chief
Environmental Coordination
DV.'H/DAP:sh
lOJgl^U
26 1231
56
-------
Sesnre Or?
Statement at Hearing March 31 • 1931
Pi&QQ
Thank you for your invitation to comment on the draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (SIS) Supplement on the proposed Pierce
County, Chambers Creek Interceptor.
S.O.U.P. began as a citizens group disturbed by the undesir-
able ponding of sewerage in our residential neighborhood. We are
eager to see the completion of ULID 73-1 so that the ponds of the
Westside Sewer District will be eliminated. We welcome more ade-
quate treatment of effluent in order that sewerage does not degrade
the waters of Puget Sound.
Members of S.O.U.P. have studied the EIS of 73-1 as well as
the present supplement. Representatives attended the coping
meeting for outlining the tunnel project. We were not happy with
previously considered alternatives for the Chambers Creek trunk.
We were reluctant to choose the combination of force-main and
gravity interceptor as the best of three poor options.
We have studied the new tunnel alternative and consulted a
geologist, a hydraulic engineer, and a naturalist. Our conclusion
is that the tunnel now proposed is the most satisfactory solution
to a very difficult problem. We believe it to be the least disrup-
tive of the environment while being the most cost-effective.
We do have some remaining concerns. They are primarily with
sewer interceptors from University Place on the north. Leach Creek
is a major tributary to Chambers Creek. It is a fish stream with
splendid native flora and fauna. What effects will future sanitary
and storm water sewers have upon this system? The question is not
adequately addressed either here or in the EIS for ULID 73-1•
^ Will other interceptor trunk lines from the north be properly
located with respect to surface topography? Traversing rather than
following natural drainage channels will require deep trenching.
Such trenching to lay and connect sewer pipe should be avoided as
much as possible.
Our final concern relates to the treatment plant site. We
urge th&t it be developed with an additional purpose—a recrea-
tional area. On salt watery recreational areas are much needed.
University Place has five miles of shoreline on Puget Sound but no
public access to the water. The treatment plant site gives such
an opportunity.
We advocate consideration of beach access for citizens as part
of this project.
George H. hess, M. D.
57
-------
Response to Comments from "Save Our University Place"
1. Preliminary alignments of future interceptors are shown
in Appendix A, Figure A-2 of this Final EIS. Of those
interceptors shown, only the Bridgeport Interceptor
has been designed and is scheduled for construction.
That interceptor will cross Leach Creek within the
Bridgeport Way right-of-way. The exact alignments
of other interceptors will be determined at future times.
That planning will include necessary environmental
impact studies. Development of future storm sewer
systems for the area will also require environmental
studies.
2. Interceptor sewers (gravity) are normally^aligned to
take full advantage of topographic conditions. Deep,
traversing trench cuts are typically avoided as much
as possible because of construction costs and environ-
mental impacts. However, sometimes deep trenching
cannot be avoided even if alignments follow natural
contours, particularly where only slight elevation
drops occur over a long distance (for example, Chambers
Creek Road before it enters the Canyon).
3. Although 30 acres of land has been acquired for the
treatment facility, no waterfront access is available.
The outfall easement from the treatment plant to Puget
Sound is subsurface only.
58
-------
12211 G Street South
Taccr.a, «A 98U;U
April 13, 1931
Clark H. Smith, M/S Lii3
2nviromental Evaluation 3raach
Snvironnental Protection Agency
1200 Sircth Avenue
Seattle, '.YA 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
¦ve rrere very pleased to learn from the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Chaa'oers Creele Interceptor in
Pierce County, Y/ashin^ton, that the North Canyon //all route originally
preferred in 1975 has been dropped froa further consideration. The
slope instability'certainly seems to require abandonment of that route
vrith its highly detrimental impact upon Chambers Creek Canyon.
Hie information contained in the Draft Supplemental £13 make
it clear that the Tunnel Alternative is so greatly to be preferred as
to be the only one worth considering. The no-acticn alternative -would
mean abandoning the entire project. The Rap Station alternative would
subject us ratepayers to ever escalating enerriy and maintenance costs
as rail as hazards of malfunction. I support the runnel Alternative as
presented.
Sincerely,
59
EMVmOa&Ttt. EVAiiMlluH
mncH
-------
> U. ** •> Ci . -.K » i # .1 C 1/ <« W *4
~ree L. : ce Investigator)
lib 16 - ' th. Ave. S.'7.
'aconia, . a. 931+99 - Ph. 533 370i+
3ublec 1 fopea letter or comments on ..
i-'A-fO- ierca Co. -',VA- ULID-73-1-81 ' o ,r^
•" Mr- :iark Smith M/s J+A-3 ?t.
Er.' i ronaental Evaluation Branch Wamjk ,Ns
Er."i ro.iaeatal Protection Agency
12' Sixth Avenue
Se••ttl-5, 'Washington 98101
De : Mr. Smith:
It 's ••dth deep regret; That, a^ter more than 11 years of intensive
in .. dt.Lgation that I have not been able to Stop this illaavisec project;
•P 1 ."i t" as an obstructionist of progress, but only an attempt to
br : r -r the attention o^ all officials and others/ the fact that it
is :"T Septic tanks that are causing the water problems through-out
th .'"ation and the World, only in the cases where the greed of developers
wi . ;j ^rrission *rom questionable health officials, allow them to be
pi ed in unsuitable soil, (NO)! it is in reality the (Self-Same)
Ob lets Collective Type Sewer System the County is trying to put in
tfc • area, Note! example: Raw sewage drifting 35 miles from Manhattan
se rs, on to the beaches in Nassau Countyf this was reported to me as
th r major problem, at ay meeting with them tm June 20, 1973.
General Comments on 73-1
rl Chis supplemental is uncalled for, it only reflects my statements
th taq Final SIS by the SPA, was in fact only a copy of the County
SI .VnLch was drawn up by Wilsey .$ Ham Inc. in 6weeks, and v;as not
ar- . naspendent study by the EPA as required by law, therefore it was
vc: ao -'ar as an evaluation o" pollution or point source thereof,
an ao field tests were ever made by EPA personal, thus EPA has never
ha an-: solid plan on this project, and Richard Dunlap, County P.E.
Di ct r ror several years told me, (quote) We do not nesd a plan,
ill plan the project as we go. That Mr. Smith is exactly why costs
ha risen at a much higher rate on this project, more even then the
e:<: er.:> inflation rate. Note! at 200 million the cost to each of the
25 CO parcels is 38,695»65 without owners hook-up, with only little
ec t-.an 10% of the project in.
Advisory Comments -73-1 A««i
ff-S A must declare a moratorium on all construction hap-hazard
pi ni:ig or alternatives after alternative on a project, which was
ne •> r proved to be needed, or financially feasible build in an area
v;h e the soil conditions are extreamely adaptable well designed
on -.-ate systems or where conditions warrant a series of A.W.T. systems
cc; iid be built as they were needed; I ask you why has the EPA, DOS,
an others who are fully aware by their own studys, of there use
nn • success in other parts ct the country
No The D3RS are now conducting Tests we ask 10 or more years ago,
Ic Mr. Smith I begged EPA officials with tears in my eyes to investig-
at to no-avail; Why now are they willing to plunge several hundred
Mi -ion into a project, they could not afford to spend a few thousand
on ¦¦ 'ield investigation 10 years ago???. (Your Alternative) STOP
Th UuID NOW! and do what Public Law #92-500 required of you 10 vearc
ag ; "I'hese are my comments" and I will be at the meeting Mar. 31/81
v Edward A. Newton | ^
60
-------
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM
EDWARD A. NEWTON'S
MARCH 6, 1981 LETTER
1. The need for a supplement to a original EIS is required whenever there is
a significant change in the facility plan that differs from the original
approved plan (40 CFR Part 6 5.6.404).
The tunnel alternative alignment of the Chambers Creek Interceptor from the
canyon wall to the proposed arrangement is shown to be the most cost effective
and environmentally acceptable plan.
2. The cost of this project is admittedly high, however, most of the increase
can be attributed to the high rate of inflation experienced over the past 6 to
7 years. As a result, the County will have to make a determination of which
segments of the overall projects are to be constructed now and which ones will
be delayed for future construction.
3. EPA has no authority to place a moratorium on the County's planning
process. EPA's involvement is limited to providing grant funds for the
eligible portion of projects considered cost effective and environmentally
sound. In addition, EPA has no authority to stop or rescind the formation of
ULID 73-1 in Pierce County, Washington. These are the responsibilities of
local governments and would constitute a breach of local sovereignty.
4. Your continued involvement in this proposed project has been of value to
each of the agencies involved. Keep your constructive input to the decision
making proces and maintain interface with your local County officials.
61
-------
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.
63
-------
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.
. 1979. 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.
65
-------
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.
Douglass, 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.
66
-------
Appendix A
- PROFILE TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE
- DESIGN FLOWS FOR YEAR 2000 - TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE
67
-------
FIGURE A-1
250
S 200
ac" iso
o
P 100
UJ 50
Id 0
GROUND SURFACE
TUNNEL-
•> r
\i
\i
¥
X
JUNCTION-WESTSIDE SEWER DISTRICT INTERCEPTOR
AND UNIVERSITY PLACE SOUTH INTERCEPTOR
_L
280
200 S
ISO z
O
100 p
80 ^
0 hi
0+00
20+00
40-1-00
60+00
STATION
80+-00
100+00
120+00
140+00
SCALES'
HOHIZ: l"= ZOOO'
VERT l"= 200'
PROFILE
PIERCE COUNTY ULIO 73-1
CHAMBERS CREEK INTERCEPTOR
TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE
FROM: KENNEDY ENGINEERS
JUNE I960
-------
FIGURE A-2
-J
3
son.^.».:j^J \ J 0 f \ 1
S' if. •¦>•¦¦. ¦ r J i ?« .
FIRCREST
ADWF =
1.02
PDWF =
2.89
PWWF =
3.99
ITT
N
WESTSIDE SEWER DISTRICT
ADWF = 0.95
POWF = 2.59
PWWF = 3.78
77T
SCALE1
l"=2000'
• 1/
r4ijA« t r I f
CHAMBERS CREEK
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
UNIVERSITY PLACE SOUTH
AOWF = 0.29
PDWF = 0.97
PWWF - 1.39
UNIVERSITY PLACE EAST
AOWF = 0.18
PDWF = 0.66
PWWF = 0.95
V/
Daili Am-
--rftfliu
AOWF = 18.88
POWF = 35.94
PWWF = 55.5 4
WEST SIDE OAKBROOK
a II
?IJ I1
•••)
•a>*
LEACH CREEK TRUNK
AOWF = 1.61
POWF = 4.06
PWWF= 5.95
i • K ;
I* *f. ^ * *11 ^
i
! ; [M
Sunnysidc /-»'
Hi'iu-Jl r. y
AOWF = 0.32
POWF = 1.06
PWWF = 1.51
S7-
t
1
IJ <¦ I:
WASMiNiilt.h.l
X'J > Y H | V
PHILLIPS-HIPKINS
INTERCEPTOR
AOWF = 4.01
POWF = 9.13
PWWF = 11.88
Cut>irr ,
1
/
r' s
*h» ' *K';#v v 8 J
i » /, '"2 ' i I ; ' ' '
v I
OtlSllT
34
u»
^ .V;. .... .
s £*:j-':• a j'V •
^WETT".
rm
Muni
»»
¦ \X .
¦ :
•55} - :iL/. . •
l.y K
1
r;
BRIDGEPORT INTERCEPTOR
ADWF = 12.99
POWF = 25.26
PWWF = 39.92
.- r 1 ^~
-------
Appendix B
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES ON GROUNDWATER
By:
Robinson, Noble & Carr, Inc.
71
-------
ROBINSON, NOBLE & CARP, INC.
G»OL>TMO WATER a ENVIRONMENTAL gsologsts
5915 ORCHARD street WEST
1»COMA. WASHINGTON 9BUS7 X,
(206) U7S-77TI f )
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, and
especially against silt-clay zones where a tight seal can be effected.
73
-------
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones St 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.
74
-------
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 side
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 20/2-22P1S, 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 staxion-
force main-gravity pipe, this alternative should have no
effect on local ground water during either construction or
operation.
75
-------
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jones Si 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 pump 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.
76
-------
Mr. Jonathan H. Ives
Jone St 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
77
-------
Appendix C
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE
79
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Area Office
2625 Parkmont Lane S.W.
Olympia, WA 98502
FEB 23 3231
February 13,1981
fcWaOBKBEitt. EOLUAiiv.;
3PJWCH
Clark H. Smith, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Smith:
This responds to your request of January 15, 1981, for a list of endangered
and threatened species that may be present within the area of the proposed
wastewater conveyor and treatment plant near Chambers Creek, Pierce County,
WA. To the best of our knowledge, there-are no listed or proposed threatened
or endangered species within the area of the project. I have attached a list
of candidate species for your information. These species are presently being
reviewed by this Service for consideration as endangered or threatened. It
should be noted that candidate species have no protection under the Endangered
Species Act, but are included for your early consideration. It is possible
the candidates could become formal proposals and be listed during the con-
struction period. For this reason we suggest you consider informal consul-
tation with this office if your project is likely to adversely impact a candi-
date species.
This fulfills the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to
Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Even if your
biological assessment shows a "no affect" situation, we would appreciate re-
veiving a copy of your assessment for our information. If you have any ad-
ditional questions regarding your responsibilities under the Act, please con-
tact Mr. Jim Bottorff, Endangered Species Team Leader, (206) 753-9440, FTS
434-9440, at the following address:
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Team
2625 Parkmont Lane S.W., Bldg. B-3
Olympia, WA 98502
81
-------
Your interest in endangered species is appreciated.
Sincerely,
y^Joseftf R. Blum
Area Manager
Attachments
cc: Regional Director, Portland, OR (AFA-SE)
ES, Olympia, WA
Washington Department of Game, Non-Game Program
82
-------
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED
SPECIES AND CANDIDATE SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR
IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER CONVEYOR
AND TREATMENT PLANT NEAR CHAMBERS CREEK,
PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NUMBER 1-3-81-SP-ll
LISTED
None
PROPOSED
None
CANDIDATE
(Plant)
Arenaria paludfcola
83
-------
ATTACHMENT B
FEDERAL AGENCIES' REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 7(c)
Biological Assessments
This process is initiated by a Federal agency in requesting a list of proposed
and listed endangered-and threatened species that may be within the area of a
construction project. The purpose of the assessment is to identify any pro-
posed and/or listed species which are/is likely to be affected by a construc-
tion project. When present in the project area, proposed species are included
on the list even though they do not have legal protection under the Act. Their
inclusion recognizes that they may be listed at anytime and have the portent
to cause delays or modifications to the proposed action. In light of this, we
recommend that those species be included in the biological assessment. The
assessment should be completed within 180 days after initiation of the
assessment (or within such a time period as is mutually agreed to by our two
agencies). The assessment should begin within 90 days after receipt of the
species list or a new list should be requested. No irreversible commitment of
resources is to be made during the biological assessment process which would
result in violation of your requirement under Section 7(a) of the Act.
Planning, design, and administrative actions may be taken by your agency;
however, no construction may begin.
Your agency should conduct an on-site inspection of the area to be affected by
the proposal which may include a detailed survey of the area to determine if
the species is present and whether suitable habitat exists for either expand-
ing the existing population or for potential reintroduction of the species.
Review literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, hab-
itat needs, and other biological requirements. Interview experts including
those within Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service,
State conservation departments, universities and others who may have data not
yet published in scientific literature. Review and analyze the effects of the
proposal on the species in terms of individuals and populations, including
consideration of cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its
habitat. Analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures.
At the conclusion of the assessment as described above, the Federal agency
84
-------
THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY
WASHINGTON
3111 SEMINAR BUILDINGISE 3109)
THE EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98505
206-753-2449
NATURAL
HERITAGE
PROGRAM
FEB 25 1981
February 23, 1981
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
BRANCH
Clark H. Smith
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Chambers Creek Supplemental EIS
Dear Mr. Smith:
We have completed a review of our files for information on significant natural
features in the study area. The result of this review is presented in the
following enclosures:
Enclosure 1 summarizes the occurrences of special plants, special
animals, and plant communities reported within or adjacent to the
study area.
Enclosure 2 is a summary of the national and state-wide status of
special plants reported to occur within the study area.
In order to ensure the protection of the special species and plant communities
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 Heritage Program with a draft
of any document in which information from the Natural Heritage Data System
is incorporated or referenced.
If the information presented here is referenced by your office in publications
or correspondence, please cite the Natural Heritage Data System, as follows:
File: F.20.0
Natural Heritage Data System, L981.
Washington Natural Heritage Program and Washington Depart-
ment of Game, Nongame Program, Mail Stop SE 3109, The
Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA 98505.
85
-------
Clark H. Smith
February 23, 1981
Page 2
Two special plant species - Arenaria paludicola and Woodwardia fimbriata -
were historically known from the Chambers Creek area. Arenaria paludicola
was recently published in the Federal Register (15 December 1980) as a
candidate for federal listing as endangered or threatened. Neither of
these species can be considered to be adequately protected in Washington.
Information on state plant species of concern is offered here for advisory
purposes. Information on plant or animal species with current Federal status
will b.e provided, under separate cover, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Recent field studies in the Puget Trough have been conducted by the Washington
Natural Heritage Program and others. This work is expected to continue in the
coming years. The information from these studies is incorporated in the
Natural Heritage Data System and is available for use in both site-specific and
master planning. If your office should conduct or contract for additional
field surveys in the study area, please feel free to contact us for assistance
in field survey planning. In addition, it would be most helpful if you could
provide us with the site-specific field data from any such studies for incorpor-
ation into the Data System.
I hope this presentation will be useful to you in planning for the Chambers
Creek area. More detailed locational information from our files may be available
for site-planning purposes. If you have any further questions or concerns,
please feel free to contact me at (206) 753-2449.
Annette M. Olson
Data Management Specialist
Enclosures
AMO:sp
cc: Joseph Blum
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sincerely,
86
-------
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,
special plant species, or special animal species. An "element occurrence" is a
reported or confirmed locality of a native vegetation community, or of significant
habitat for a plant or animal species of concern.
The Natural Heritage Data System was established by the State of Washington and
the Washington Natural Heritage Program of The Nature Conservancy. It is currently
maintained by the Heritage Program under contract to the Washington Department of
Natural Resources and by the Nongame Program of the Washington Department of Game.
Information on element occurrences in the state is collected from herbarium and
museum specimens, scientific literature, knowledgeable individuals, and field
investigations. This information is compiled in the Natural Heritage Data System
for use in land-use planning and evaluating the status of Washington's natural
features.
Format
The Element Occurrence Summary table lists those plant communities, special plants,
and special animals that have been reported to occur in or adjacent to the area
specified in your information request.
- The first column lists the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) topographic
quadrangle.
- 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 = The location of the element occurrence in known within a k. mile
radius. In addition, the locality has been confirmed by the Nongame
Program or the Heritage Program.
U = The location of the element occurrence is known within a h mile
radius, but at this time has not been confirmed.
N 3 The location of the element occurrence i3 known within a 1 mile
radius. This information was derived from secondary sources.
G = 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 lists the element class code - "PC" for plant
community, "SP" for special plant, and "SA" for special animal.
- In the fifth column, the element is named. For special animals, both scientific
and common name are given, followed by letter codes that indicate the criteria
used to determine whether a location is biologically/ecologically significant
to the species.
87
-------
Element Occurrence Criteria Codes 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 probably nest
site, nest building activity (i.e., carrying nest material), breeding dis-
play, agitated behavior and distraction display (e.g., feigning injury).
RI Regular indivdual 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 necessarily consecutive.
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.
- The seventh column is the occurrence number, which can be referred to when
requesting additional information about a specific occurrence.
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.
(206) 754-1449. For additional information on specific plant community or special
plant occurrences, please contact the Washington Natural Heritage Program (206)
753-2449.
88
-------
Enclosure 1
ELEMENT OCCURRENCE SUMMARY
Quad Name
T
R
s
Conf.
Element Occurrences
Class
Name
Number
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
27
G
SA
Charina bottae (rubber boa)
055
Steilacooin
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
20H
2E
21
N
SA
Sciurus griseus (western gray squirrel)
020
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
N
SA
Butorides striatus (green heron)
007
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
r<
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
006
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
G
SP
Moodwardia fimbriata
015
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
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
~
H
SA
Charina bottae (rubber boa)
046
Steilacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
011
* Reported to occur in t
le general
area
)f the
proje
Page of
NIIDS: 12/80
-------
Enclosure 2
ELEMENT STATUS SUMMARY
Chambers Creek
This enclosure summarises Che statewide and national status of elements
reported to occur within or adjacent to the study area.
Format
Elements reported to occur within or adjacent to the study area (see Enclosure
1) are listed in the first column of the Element Status Summary table.
Federal status of the element (if any) is given in the first column under
"Element Status." The following codes are used:
1, 80FR
Explanation
Candidate species - Category 1. Taxa for which the"
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presently has sufficient
information to support the biological appropriateness
of their being listed as Endangered or Threatened.
2, 8QFR Candidate species - Category 2. Taxa for which infor-
mation now indicates the probable appropriateness of
listing as Endangered or Threatened, but for which
sufficient information is not presently available to
support a proposed rule.
* Possibly extinct species.
3A, 30FR Taxa no longer being considered for listing.
Persuasive evidence of extinction.
3B, 80FR Taxa no longer being considered for listing.
Names that, on the basis of current taxonomic under-
standing, do not represent taxa meeting the Endangered
Species Act's definition of "species."
3C, 8QFR Taxa no longer being considered for listing.
Taxa that have proven to be more abundant or widespread
than previously believed and/or those that are not
subject to any identifiably threat.
Note: Presently, there aren't any officially listed or proposed plant
species which occur in Washington.
The state status, given in the second column under "Element Status," is based
on an analysis of information stored in the Natural Heritage Data System.
Under "Element Occurrences," the first column indicates the total number of
element occurrences in the state which are currently catalogued in the Data
System. The second coLuinn shows the number of these occurrences which have
been confirmed by field investigation.
90
-------
The last column, "Protection Status," summarizes the information in the
Natural Heritage Data Base on the protection of the element. The following
codes are used:
A — Some occurrences of this element can be assumed to be
protected in Washington.
B — Some occurrences of this element are possibly protected
in Washington, but the level of protection is questionable
or unknown.
C — There are no known protected occurrences of this element
in Washington.
Comments
Any estimation of the status of a particular element is based, of course, on
the best information available. It should be noted that the status of the
elements presented here is subject to revision. For example, improved infor-
mation on the biology and distribution of, or threats to, a particular element
can bring about a re-evaluation of its legal status. Based on an analysis of
information compiled on the.biology, distribution, and protection status of
special plant species, the Washington Natural Heritage Program has revised
the state working list of special plants. The legal listing process, itself,
can result in changes in the status of special animal and plant elements.
Thus, recent amendments to the Endangered Species Act and subsequent rule
changes in the legal status of several special plant species.
91
-------
Enclosure 2
ELEMENT STATUS SUMMARY
Chambers Creek
Element Name
Element
Status
Element
Occurrences
Prot.
Status
Federal
State
Total
Conf.
Arenaria paludicola
2 80FR
WA rare
5
1
B
Woodwardia fimbriata
18
5*
B
*incomplete information - 1980 data in process
Page i of
92 WNHP: 4/80
-------
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Dixy Lee Ray
Guuernor
600 North Cjpiiol V.'
-------
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
Kelly R. McAllister
Wildlifo Biologist
Enclosures
94
-------
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 Same, 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 comunities, 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 h rat.le
radius. In addition, the locality has been confirmed by the Nongarae
Program or the Washington Natural Heritage Program.
U Means the location of the element occurrence is known within a k mile
radius, but a't 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 1 ocatable only to a genera"
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
cornnunity, "SP" means special plant, and "SA" njeans 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/
95
-------
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 conmunities or special plants occur within the study area, you will be
receiving a separate response from the Washington Natural Heritage Program.
96
-------
Enclosure 1
ELEMENT OCCURRENCE SUMMARY
Quad
Name
R
Conf.
Element Occurrences
Class
Name
Number
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
27
G
SA
Charina bottae (rubber boa)
055
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
27
G
SP
Arenarla paludicola
003
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
27
N
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
qopher)
005
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
22
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
012
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
22
U
SA
Charina bottae (rubber boa)
046
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
015
Ste
lacoom
7-5
20N
2E
20
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
014
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
N
SA
Sciurus griseus (western qray squirrel)
028
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20 N
2E
21
N
SA
Butorides striatus (qreen heron)
007
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
21
N
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
006
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
G
SP
Woodwardia fimbriata
015
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
U
SA
Sciurus griseus (western qray squirrel)
019
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
U
SA
Sciurus griseus (western gray squirrel)
027
Ste
lacoom
7.5
19N
2E
*
N
SA
Charina bottae (rubber boa)
046
Ste
lacoom
7.5
20N
2E
*
U
SA
Thomomys mazama tacomensis (western pocket
gopher)
Oil
* Reported to
occur in t
le general
area
if the
proje
:t.
Page of
NUDS: 12/80
-------
Enclosure 2
ELEMENT STATUS SUMMARY
Element Name
Element Status
Federal State
Charina bottae (rubber boa)
C
Thomomys mazana 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
-------
Appendix D
DISTRIBUTION LIST
99
-------
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
101
-------
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.
Ilakewood Sewer and Water Committee
Washington A1r Quality Coalition
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS
H. A.Bringolf
Edward Burkhalter
William P. Giddings
Edward A. Newton
Joann S. North
------- |