The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995 Hood Canal Watershed: A Demographic & Economic ProfileTABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1: BOUNDARIES CHAPTER 2: CENSUS This chapter contains reports on population, gender, ethnichy, age, family size and Income. Census reports also appear in many other chapters. CHAPTER 3: BUSINESS CHAPTER 4: HOUSING AND LAND CHAPTERS: UTILITIES CHAPTER 6: EDUCATION CHAPTER 7: SUBASE BANGOR CHAPTER 8: PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM RESERVATION CHAPTER 9: SKOKOMISH RESERVATION CHAPTER 10: SHELLFISH AND FINFISH - CHAPTER 11: TIMBER APPENDIXES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks go to our wives, Mary Rhine and Elisabeth Harrison, for their patience and support during the ten, often arduous, months we worked on this project. Mary also provided a great deal of technical support. Special thanks also to Ernest L Moore, 111, GIS Database Administrator, _ Thurston Co., WA. Geodara Center. His assistance proved invaluable in our determination of the census blocks and parts of census blocks from which to extract Census Bureau data. He also produced the watershed boundary maps located in the Boundary chapter and appendix. We are extremely grateful to the following people for their generosity in sharing time, guidance and knowledge. Though they are by no means responsible for any errors in this report, their assistance made this report . possible. From SUBASE Bangor: Ken WAmato, Director of MWR (Morale, Welfare and Recreation) Mike Denton, Program Analyst, Financial Resource Management Lc Kim Elmer, Former Assistant Public Affairs Officer, Public Affairs Office Susan DaBell, Director, Family Housing Ray Hanna, Administrator, Facilities and Utilities Branch Art Schick, Forester, Environmental Resources Branch Paul Taylor, Deputy Public Affairs Officer, Public Affairs Office From Hcmd Ca I C b' [ Council Neil Aaland, Former Executive Director Wendy Bolender, Executive Director Anne Pavel, Former Chair Donna Simmons, Educational Coordinator From efferson County C t Jeff Chapman, Assessment Operations Manager, County Assessor's Office James Holland, Senior Planner, Planning Department David Young, Coordinator, Integrated Data Management Systems (continued) 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (continued from previous page) From Kitsao County Gawi mment: Robert Alire, Senior Planner, Department of Community Development Phil Best, Kitsap County Commissioner Keith Folkems, Watershed Planner, Klisap County Dept. of Community Development Jerry Hairless, Manager, Geographical Information Systems Valerie Wolf, Building Permits Coordinator, Department of Community Development From Mason County Government: Bill Bullock, Transportation. Planning Specialist, Department of Public Works Rich Geiger, Former Growth Management Planning Intern, Department of Community Development and Planning William O. Hunter, County Commissioner Patti Warlike, Data Technician, Assessors Office Dee Townsend, Former GHCF Clerical Support Robin Tyner, Former Associate Senior Planner, Department of Community Development and Planning From Port Gamble Tribal Government- Phil Dom, Manager of Community Development Steve Moddemeyer, Former Natural Resources Director Bruce Williams, Fisheries Manager From Skokomish Tribal Government: Scott Brewer, Former Fisheries Manager Rita Marko, Health Planner - Bill Smith, Social Services Director From Federal Government (excluding SUBASE Bangor) David Craig, U.S. Forest Service District Ranger, Hood Canal Ranger District, Hoodsport, WA. Charles Odegaard, Special Assistant to the Director, Pacific N.W. Regional Office, National Parks Service Ben Kizer, U.S. Forest Service District Ranger, Quilcene Ranger District Larry Telles, Business Manager, National Fish Hatchery,Quilcene, WA. Sonya Steinke, Information Assistant, Bureau of the Census, Seattle Branch (continued) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (continued from previous page) From Washington State Government Scott Breidenbach, CIS Analyst, Shorelines and Water Resources Section, Department of Ecology Dan Bigger, Former Program Specialist, Forest Practices Program, Department of Natural Resources Eleanor Chase, Head of Government Publications Division, University of Washington Suz alto Library, Government Document Department Doretta Collins, Computer Information Consultant, Department of Natural Resources Sherry Felix, Natural Resources Program Specialist, Department of Natural Resources James Freed, Special Forest Products Agent, Washington State University Cooperative Extension Joe Heller, Stewardship Forester, Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team Lee Holmes, Research Analyst, Department of Fish and Wildlife Brian Holvis, Fish Biologist, State Parks and Recreation Commission David Larsen, Timber Economist, Department of Natural Resources Barbara McIntosh, Team Director, Hood Canal Watershed River Basin Team, Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team Terry Nosho, Aquaculture Specialist, Sea Grant Program, University of Washington Tim Norris, Research Analyst, Washington Employment Security, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch Marie Peters, Environmental Specialist, Water Resources, Department of Ecology - Priscilla Scheldt, Program Supervisor, Instructional Programs, Superintendent of Public Instruction J. Mark Soltman, Supervisor, Wasterwater Management Section, Office of Community Environmental Health Programs, Department of Health Doug Thompson, Fish Biologist, Former head of Enhancement Project, Pt. Whitney Shellfish Lab. Anna Trombley, GIS Analyst, Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team Tom Wolfe, Computer Analyst Programmer, Information Technolgy Section, Department of Natural Resources Bill Wood, Fish Biologist, Head of Intertidal Project, Pt. Whitney Shellfish Lab. (continued) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (continued from previous page) We also wish to thank the following people: Audeen Arnold, Computer Multiple Listing Service, Inc, Silverdale, WA. Thera Black, Assistant Planner, Thurston County Regional Planning Sam Cagle, Defense Commissary Agency N.W., Pacific Branch, Fort Lewis, WA. Bob Chase, Chase Economics, Consultant for Mason County Department of Community Development and Planning David Cunningham, Vice President, Pope Resoudes, Poulsbo, WA Jim Donaldson, Hatchery Manager, Coast Oyster Company, Quilcene, WA. John Gorman, Forest Environmental Manager, Simpson Timber Jeremiah Gorsline, Olympic Area Timber/Fish/Wildlife Representative for the Washington Environmental Council H.S. Guess Jr. Capt, SC, USN., Navy Exchange Service Center, San Diego, CA. Larry Hill, Manager, Seebeck Conference Center, Seebeck, WA Jay Hupp, Director, Mason County Economic Development Council Ian Jablonski, biologist, City of Port Townsend Water Department Jim Kaylor, Finance Manager, Johnson Controls Inc. Kate March, Ex Director, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Jim Olson, owner, Hood Canal Realty, Quilcene, WA Jean Olson, Office Manager, Hood Canal Realty, Quilcene, WA. Bart Phillips, Director, Clallam County Economic Development Council Jerry Reid, developer and owner, Reid Realty, Bremerton, WA. Jon Roberts, Former Executive Director, Jefferson County Economic Development Council Ronald Ross, developer and owner, Silverdale Realty, Silverdale, WA. Tim Smith, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association Doug Williams, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Jack Witschger, The Digest Publishing Company, Port Angeles, WA We would also like to thank the Jefferson County Permit Center for permission to copy data from their Building Division's Annual Report for 1993. INTRODUCTION This is a profile of some characteristics of the people, housing, businesses and natural resources located in the Hood Canal watershed. It is a snap shot at fixed points in time. We do not attempt to analyze the data, the relationship between various sectors, or to explore trends over time. Our primary goal has been to provide information which will be useful to those who are engaged in this kind of analysis, as well as to Providing some baselines for future research. Most people are unaware of the Hood Canal watershed boundaries. yet, Belfair, Quilcene, Hoodsport and Seebeck, as parts of an Important ecosystem, are interconnected. One of our hopes is that the very creation of this profile will encourage readers to consider the virtues of thinking about the Hood Canal watershed as an integrated region. We created this profile at the request of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. It represents our Masters Degree Application's Project for the Master's in Public Administration from The Evergreen State College. This project required finding data sources. It then required trying to find the closest possible ft to the Hood Canal watershed for data originally collected for counties or other geographic areas that were either larger or smaller than the Hood Canal watershed. Neither of us had any experience with a project like this before. Richard Doane is an English Instructor at Centralia College and Richard Rhine has been a social worker in child protective services. We were not prepared for the difficulties, and the lack of methodological guidelines, we encountered. Under separate cover we have prepared an extensive methodology. We describe our dead ends as well the methods that eventually lead to this profile. This information is available by contacting Richard Rhine at (206) 761 -1604. We'd be very pleased if our efforts contribute to making future profiles of the Hood Canal watershed, or other special areas, a little easier. CHAPTER I BOUNDARIES More detailed boundary maps located in appendix section The Hood Canal watershed boundary map on the preceding page was created for this report by Ernest L. Moore, III, GIS Database Administrator, Thurston Co., WA. Geodata Center. Mr. Moore created this map from a computer file provided by the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team.' The Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team created precise maps for the eastern boundary of the Hood Canal watershed. The balance of depicted watershed boundary was also from data provided to Mr. Moore by the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team. The boundaries on this map parallel boundaries, from various sources, that we used for our research. For our research we used the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team boundary for the Hood Canal watershed from north of the Skokomish Reservation in Mason County to an area west of Hansville In Kitsap County. Mr. Moore produced Geographical Information Systems maps that overlaid this boundary on several large maps of census blocks. For a small northern part of Kitsap County (from west of Hansville to Foulweather Bluff) we used a Hood Canal watershed boundary originally created by professional cartographer, Dee Molenaar, and provided to us by the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Among other methodologies, this boundary was created following aerial surveillance. This boundary was reproduced for us on a 1:100,000 - -scale metric topographic-- bathymetric map by Neil Allund, an expert cartographer and former Executive Director of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Data from Kitsap County Geographical Information Systems, showing census blocks crossed by the watershed boundary, are consistent with this boundary. We also used the boundary originally drawn by Dee Molenaar and reproduced by Neil Allund for the southern and western Hood Canal watershed boundary in Mason County. Data we received from the Mason County Department of Community Development, showing which census blocks were crossed by the watershed boundary, helped confirm the accuracy of this boundary. In Jefferson County, from the Clallam County line east to the Hood Canal, we used a Hood Canal watershed boundary created on three USES 1 "= 2000' maps by David Young, Ex- Coordinator of Integrated Data Management Systems for Jefferson County. This boundary was consistent with the boundary drawn by Dee Molenal as IThe Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team consists of representatives from a mand>er of agencies including the USDA Soil conservation Service, USDA Forest Service, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Washington State Department of Ecology, and the US Environmennl Protection Agency. well as with watershed boundary maps for Jefferson County from other sources. The boundary for the Hood Canal watershed in western Jefferson Counry,t Clallam County and Grays Harbor County came from the map by Dee Molenaar, as reproduced by Neil Allund. As these areas have no population, any mapping errors would have no Impact on most of our data. We recreated the above boundaries on maps at many levels of detail including Census Bureau maps, USGS 7 1/2 minute maps, and the Roadrunner Kitsap /Mason County Street Atlas. There were two areas where we questioned whether our boundaries were Correct. The Cooperative River Basin Team's Hood Canal watershed boundary in Kitsap County terminated south of the boundary we used. Team leaders told us that their Kitsap boundary terminated where it did because of political jurisdictional concerns. They said the boundary on our maps was the best boundary to use, as it crossed the Hood Canal at its sill. The following quote from Jeremiah Gorsline explains the significance of the sill. "The arm of the sea we know as Hood Canal is a glacial - carved, 60- mile -long fishhook- shaped fjord and, like all fjords, it has a glacial sill at the entrance which restricts interchange of water with the rest of Puget Sound "s The second area of dispute was the watershed boundary in the eastern part of Jefferson County. A major developer said that the real boundary might have be slightly south of our boundary in the Shine area. He said they had discovered water flowing north from some areas just south of our boundary to an area north of the Hood Canal. An agricultural extension agent alternatively suggested that our boundary really should be placed considerably north (perhaps just south of Port Townsend) as runoff from the Chimacum area that enters Admiralty Inlet eventually works its way Into the Hood Canal. Following consultations with the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team, we decided to continue to use the boundary reflected on the maps from Dee Molenaar, the Jefferson County Planning Department, and the ARC tape file data provided by the Puget Sound River Cooperative Basin Team From Clallam County south to the Mason County line. aFrom an snide titled Twana fjord' byjeremiah Gorsline in An Anthaloov of N My W " k' W d h edited byjeremlah Gorsline and Finn Wilcox, published by Empty Bowl, Port Townsend, Wk in 1986. CHAPTER CENSUS DATA Cm w data a o appean in other chapters Extracting information from the 1990 Census for the Hood Canal watershed was our most time consuming activity. In a separate document we have outlined our methodology. That will make it much easier for data to be extracted from the 2000 Census and for comparisons to be made. We have voluminous census data not included in this thesis. We also have data for discreet areas within the Hood Canal watershed in each county such as the Tahuya area in Mason County and the Quilcene area in Jefferson County. All of the data we extracted for the Hood Canal watershed and our methodology outline are available to interested parties. (Call Richard Rhine In Tacoma; WA. at 761- 1604.) Population of the Hood Canal W t h d^ The smallest units in which some census data is available are census blocks. There are several thousand census blocks in the Hood Canal watershed. Population figures are available for each census block. In order to determine the 1990 population of the Hood Canal watershed we used a number of tools, including geographical Information system maps, to determine which blocks were in the watershed and which blocks were divided by the watershed boundary. There were over eighty blocks crossed by the watershed boundary. In Kitsap County alone over 5000 people lived in blocks divided by the watershed boundary.. We carefully analyzed every block crossed by the boundary to determine the approximate percentage of the block's population in the Hood Canal watershed. We then allowed for a range of population that was wide enough to capture the true population of the watershed for each block. There was no likely population in the Hood Canal watershed in Clallam and Grays Harbor counties. I9 the total population of the Hood Canal watershed in Person County was between 3,161 and 3,214 people. 1990 the total population of the Hood Canal watershed in Icon County was between 10,662 and 10,780 people. 1990 the total population of the Hood Canal watershed in map County was between 15,318 and 16,144 people. The population data on the previous page are from an area that represents the actual Hood Canal watershed. All subsequent Census Bureau Data comes from areas that closely approximate the Hood Canal watershed. The smallest unit at which the majority of Census Bureau Data is available are block groups. While block groups do not overlap county .boundaries they do overlap watershed boundaries. There are 43 block - groups that are partially or totally within the Hood Canal watershed. in extracting Census Bureau Data we have selected the block groups that most closely fit the Hood Canal watershed In each county with the following results: Jefferson County: Census data reported below captures 100% of the Hood Canal watershed's population. Between 7.9% and 9.4% of the people reflected in the data lived outside the Hood Canal watershed. These people all lived in rural areas of Jefferson County that are adjacent to the watershed. Mason County: Census data reported below captures over 93% of the Hood Canal watershed's population. Less than 3.2% of the people reflected in the data lived outside the Hood Canal watershed. These people all lived in rural areas of Mason County that are adjacent to the watershed. Kitsap County. Census data captures over 86% of the Hood Canal watershed's population lover 92% If you include SUBASE Bangor data that is presented separately). Between 153% and 19.4% of the people reflected in the data lived outside the watershed boundary. These people all lived in rural areas of Kitsap County that are adjacent to the watershed. SUBASE Bangor. The Hood Canal watershed boundary intersects SUBASE Bangor. Data for SUBASE Bangor is excluded from the data Presented for Kitsap County as only 702 people out of the 4410 people who lived on SUBASE Bangor in 1990 actually lived within the Hood Canal watershed. I will present information for SUBASE Bangor as a whole In the chapter titled SUBASE Bangor. Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation and Skokomish Reservation: These tribal lands are totally within the Hood Canal watershed. Data for these areas represent 100%oftheir populations and no extraneous populations. Census Bureau Data presented in this report for Kitsap County includes data for the Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation. Data presented for Mason County includes data for the Skokomish Reservation The appendix contains three maps that show where the Hood Canal watershed boundary crosses census block groups within each county. The appendix also contains reports that provide more detailed Information on a county by county basis, including the exact number and percentage of the watershed population for each block group included in subsequent data. It also shows the same data for block groups intersected by the Hood Canal watershed boundary that are excluded from this report. AQ9: Skokomish data also Included in Mason data. Port Gamble S'Klallam data also Included in Kitsap data. . an area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed — see page 2. FAMILY INCOME IN 1989: tmaraa WamlW_Fa Tlrmie fp � _. .. +.T .ZmIII d 1 x 3. 5 6 7 6 9 ID 11 12121 15 17m19m Six ,me D>m xer�cw adnaml - FawN rwre a _ Y a ��sa ^i4r `3 iIX 0 1 1 W 1 3 1 4. 5 6 7 0 9 10 11 11132113 �N IS 19 17 Y b A 31 @ 9 N ID IbYQgVYeN¢fNbM- FaNVhmR 1 3 3 4 5 6 7. $ 10 11 12 13 14 15 IS V 1619 m Z x am xi 1 FarBies Mm hlaane leatlun x,000 13FmTes Wm ireone 5%,OOOmiKIp99 2 Fanlias xitll intone 55,000mS10Aa0 16 FanLeaWtlrirxme5Jf.500m9E,999 3 FsKGS wM ireane x0,000 m x$999 15 FsBea viU incarre 514000 m fkC W 9Farri0es elM Ncane r2,500m519,999 16 FaNiea Wtl3 beans f0 ;500m5M,999 sr- am�N;lu inaare raa96mr�,+99 nF�7alwlrm ire�re s9aao9msa,we 6 Fa18ies v5m llmnerT,500m x8.8% 16 Fanilios Wtl301w99e 5T/Sa9m x8,999 T FarPesvFh nmrre52Q000m 52;d99 19 FamlksxiM inewre 550.0mmfr,898 B FSniiesvdll kma7re 62rg999 20FmTenviO3 ire0rre5$OOOmf5B,898 9 FBniiesWrkewrn 525ANUIp00m52lA99 ?7 FndlivavMh lreanO560p00m $]9,999 10 FaKlienx97h cream 52f.5a0m E29,999 EFS310esvi0l ireare 5]a000m (99.999 11 FndlksviM irewre 530,OOOm532,999 23 FamliesWNlncane r00,000mr20.999 12 Fardlienxitl3 incam ri,500mr11999 MFari0esvim inaxre r24,000mr9a999 E Fnrilies Kilh Inwr9e x60,000 a mxe See Family Income for Sobase Bangor, Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation and Skokomish Reservation in their respective chapters. area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed -- see page 2 10 2 PorsonswM incom*.60 W.74 of poverty level 6 Persams with Income 1.25 W 1.41 times poverty level 6 Fames with income 1.0 W 1.74 Game poverly I*"[ 7 Persons with income 1.75 W 1.841 times Poverty I*"[ 6 persons with income 1.85 to I." times poverty level 9 Persons with Income 100 and over Smes poverty level There am many people other than Skokomish Indians who own land within Skokomish Reservation boundaries. Percentages of people in categories below poverty level would be higher for Skokomish Indians than the percentages shown on the Skokomish Reservation charts. *F,or area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed — see page 2 10 HOOD CANALN)kURSHED` - PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1989 BY BOUNTY AND TRIBAL AREA Per Capita income is total income for a population divided by the number of people in the population (including people with no Income). Per capita income can be significantly skewed by unusually high or low individual incomes. This data comes from data for 36 census block groups in the Hood Canal watershed. The population of each block group ranges from 181 to 2274 people. These populations are large enough and unusually high or low incomes are rare enough to make the following graph a fairly accurate comparison of differences among the five areas reflected. The per capita income figure for Kitsap. County does not include data from the Port Gamble S'Klallam.Reservation. The per capita Income figure for Kltts�ap County dogs not include data from the Skokomish Reservation.(J1LS Within the Hood Canal watershed in each county there are significant variations in per capita Income in different areas. -Those variations are reflected on the next page. area closely approximating the Hood Canal watershed - see page 2. 11 VARIABILITY OF PER CAPITA INCOME BY AREAS WITHIN THE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED IN EACH COUNTY IN 1989 Please refer to commentary about per capita income and graph on previous page. The following charts are designed W show the variability of per capita income by block group within each county. There are imps in Appendix A which show the location of each block group listed below. KITSAP Block Nmn6ering Am 90101 COUNTY Block GW P 1 Per Captls Income 623 242 0101 z 613" 80101 3 $16.207 902 1 902 2 902 $ 902 4 902 6 913. 2 g1136 913 3 913 4 $9016 900 4 61x2" am 2 920 J Area 901.01 BG*2 is Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation MASON COUNTY Bonk Numbering Arm MIN Bbck GrOUP 1 Per CaPaa n 61 662 9662 1 613" 9502 2 $16.207 Into 1 09.5411 98" 3 $10,100 6603 $ $18,1 " 9503 1 5 1$13.947 Wei t 1 8 "b 6 $619" BM 3M 960 2 $9016 900 3- 61x2" Wes t 101,471 8606 2 618.760 9014 1 Area 9614 is Skokomish Reservation •Block Numbering Am 9802 Blxk Group' 1 Per OaPtm looms 10172 9502 1 3 1 W.W 9502 J 1 59 9 "2 4 "Btd 8502 I 6 4" 950 1 4 IVA117 9503 1 5 1$13.947 12 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED — PER CAPFA INCOME BY AREA AND ETHNICIT' F Reservation. Data for Kitsap County doe not include people IN Gamble S'Klallam Reservation. Individuals listed under Hispanic category also appear In data for other ethnic categories. WARNING: Per Capita Income can be misleading. Per capita Income is the total income of a population divided by the number of people in the Population (including dependents with no income of their own). One problem is that individuals with extremely high or extremely low incomes can significant impact the per capita income figure for an entire population. The smaller the Population the greater the impact of unusual income values. For instance, if four people each have an income of'$5000/year and one Person has an income of $1,000,000 /year the per capita Income for the group is $204.000. Another problem with this data Is that people of one ethnicity may be dependents of people of another ethnicity. To determine per capita income for each ethnic group in the Hood Canal watershed in each county, I used data from many small areas (block groups). In 13 some block groups an ethnic group would have population and yet have zero per capita income (because all the people of that ethnic group' in that block group were dependents with no income of their own). I tried to mitigate the degree of severity of the above problems. I did not include information for an ethnic group from a block group when it was clear that all or most individuals were dependents with no income of their own. I also eliminated Information when there were very few members of an ethnic group in a a census block and they had incomes that were unusual (such as four Asians with a per capita income of 550,000 /year.) 14 CHAPTER 3 BUSINESS HOOD CANAL WATERSHED* MUMBER QE RESIDENTS OVER AGE 16 EMPLOYED BY ECONOMIC SECTOR Hood C401121 Kii i Hand Canal WaMal M8 D— manier or mission employee in various attlom Mal 769 raj o 600 E 400 is p pi ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 10 15 16 17 aroladeh 6lx.' 11416MAve, bresay. and Sshodes 10 Flwme.insrwwe,eM Mal am* 2&Sand 11 Buagess and Mies seaiwa 3 Coruaoaron 12 Persowlservices e Mrseawairq.mMUebb good* 13 EMrdlmernaM reveafonwMcea 5 Manchowig,tlrrablegeods 14 Pm6ssioml &rekYtl syw: HeaMaeMwa 6 Transportation IS Pmkssioml &mktltl: EtluwiweleeMCea T COrmuJwiws aM OMrgrrF4o raGees 16 PmLssioral &MW*d Sam: otnr 6 WlgNsak"do 17 PrNkadmirizbaion 9 again Mal Data for Port Gamble. SKlallam Reservation is included in Kitsap data. Data for Skokomish Reservation is included in Mason Data. Data for each tribal area also presented in their respective chapters. area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed — see Census Chapter, page 2 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED* NUMBER OF RESIDENTS EMPLOYED IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS Hp GrolwaM K4sap- naMamatlpunmp01kaM QW p* ms ae enYbynent MOD_ §moO E am 1 2 3 • 6 a sel m bew SM 476 waershaC Jelleraon—waene ypr mpumcam nnDamamDl °�n"°rt Eg D D 1 3 3 • 6 6 1 Srelawrae. HaW GroINaMaMa'Ma30n- rOMeMSypam WD�caM ane PaaaralTeMxnt T ame a =61M 5W °albe Ic D y 1 3- 3 a 6 6 I SeuWSaL 1 private brpm5twge aM aabrywhen em 16 2 Local mcbryxoftwge am salary when 16+ 3 Soul govemmarrtwhers 16+ 6 Fee gocemnemwrtan 16+ 6 Fe6en19owanrn rs 16+ 16+ 6 Unpaid JeM tl wrhers 16+ J UrpaitleMtywrten 16+ Data for Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation is included in Kitsap data Data for Skokomish Reservation is included In Mason Dam. Data for each tribal area also presented in their respective chapters. • area closely approximating Hood Girl wrershetl — see Census chapter, page 2 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED* — RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATIONAL TYPES xepe euw warrsX.tl' Ki�ap — rezia.ae: aasawa9aal bvm E .1 F 2 3 4 66 6 ] a' 9 10v 11 12 10 xaea Camlw9brvaetl'JeBerson- i9sde�16� pa4wW gpza 1tl 1; m ES ro g 1 2 3� a",6 7 6 9 10 11 12 10 XOaI Canal whnM1M• Mason - iv W elm ecwps4dal types em _ . fioo E�9m 00 S q •1 y: : [ 2..aea 6- 6 5..2 6..9 1011 12 12 1 Eucuave,atlniliztra5va , aM mamge5al ouupa4om 2 Pmisaion apedaby p m 3 Technicians aM ne9d su pDonoxpefom 4 Sales o mafom S Atlmida5a5ve sp a f om, indWg dedel 6 Pv Mamup om rowwsom e ocp lom 8 Sentim 0ea5oms,esptp rotefv etM Muaeholtl 9 Pami1m 10 Predon prodwIon AmfLa M mPairac upafom 11 Tmnspoopenbrs,mlonallrnowM impednn 12 Tremem, egimadeanm, e1 n,eMlab 13 Hatdlen,egdpmemdeeren, helpers, antl laborers (continued on following page) Hood Canal Watershed` Resident Employment by Occupational Types (continued from previous page) Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation Is included in Kitsap data. Skokomish Reservation is included in Mason Data. Data for each tribal area also presented in their respective chapters. "area closely approximating Hood Canal Watershed — see Census chapter, page 2 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED' - MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK Kltsap data does not include Subase Bangor 1) Drove Alone To Work 2) Carpooled To Work 3) Bus To Work 4) Ferryboat To Work 5) Taxicab To Work 6) Motorcycle To Work 7) Bicycle To Work 8) Walked To Work 9) Other Means To Work 10) Worked At Home area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed — see Census chapter, page 2 Hood Canal vahrshed'Jefterson: ' Mears; of Transportation to Work See 440 '. JJ�x R S gB 2 E 10 SOL ` 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 8 10 9re late@ Blew Hood Canal vtershed' Mason: Meansof Transportabonto Work 25W 2272 S _ pep w5 taro d a 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 fleaua a Hand Canal vwdenshed' KHSap: Means; ofTrstsspartadon to Work eppp 6]2g p 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 See uwb %M Kltsap data does not include Subase Bangor 1) Drove Alone To Work 2) Carpooled To Work 3) Bus To Work 4) Ferryboat To Work 5) Taxicab To Work 6) Motorcycle To Work 7) Bicycle To Work 8) Walked To Work 9) Other Means To Work 10) Worked At Home area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed — see Census chapter, page 2 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED RESIDENTS: LENGTH OF COMMUTE TO WORK I Less dean 5 minks to work 2 Stoeminrrtestowork 3 10 to 14 minutes to work 4 15 to 19 minutes to work 5 20 to 24 minutes to work 6 25 W 29 minutes to work 1 30 to 34 minutes to work 8 35 to 39 minutes to work 9 40b"minukstowork 10 a to 59 minutes to work 11 60 W 89 mNUtes W work 12 90 or more minutes to work 13 Worked at home area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed - see Census chapter, page 2 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED - KITSAP BUSINESSES AS OF MAY 21 1994 Raw data was provided by Geographical Information Systems in Kitsap County Planning. The following data is based on parcel distribution for Privately owned Property. No public sector businesses are included. No businesses operating from residences are included. If a parcel includes more than one business, or a business with more than one function, only the primary land use activity is represented. This data does not include Port Gamble S'Klallam tribal lands (see Chapter on Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation). Also excluded is Subase Bangor (where all businesses are located just outside the Hood Canal watershed). RETAIL BUSINESSES: Convenience Type Stores (Gee Simom am Gmcenes) 3 mce sumons ocery m ura avems, ounw— Ctber rail 9 mere erc an ue mere ,COmmercu p JDUFVFACrURTNG- BUSINESSES: Heavy industrial: (NClWes Jumper antl woof gmuds (ex F_ umilure) 14 eavyln usmal: Inqutles amne, day, glass am Wwrve`xmuda) 3 -6111, ucelaneous rWrtetries: 3 F¢Ning arM related serdoes 1/ (continued) Businesses in the Hood Canal watershed in Kitsap County (continued from previous page) Agrieultural AedviSas: t6 nW Yre mY typeur AL ES: Mobile Park: 5 Nesort and Greup mps: 2 anna ore zft—OURY on on mrxs n are Dose ereonna rvrces n awiae vadet/ W pnssiWe senl0ea such as Iau ery,. shoe repair. beaiayalwps and fexprepalation) Il of tmsa a eas(induaesawme nsuaof possible esaues wch as banA'�g, au2me aM real eefete) MINING: Sand and Gravel Mines 14 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED - MASON COUNTY BUSINESSES AS OF 1218193 The raw data is from the Washington State Department of Revenue. We sorted data for several thousand businesses in Mason County. Though we vied to screen out duplications, there are still a few businesses that appear in more than one category. The column "Probably in HCW' represents businesses with only a P.O. Box address in our raw dam, no listing in the phone book, and owners in the phone book who definitely live in the Hood Canal watershed. We assume that the businesses are probably located in the owner's home. The column - Possibly in HCYym includes: 1) Businesses on road that intersect the Hood Canal watershed boundary when we could not determine whether the address is inside or outside the watershed. 2) Businesses listed in both our raw data and the phone box with P.O. boxes in Belfair or Union. Datallimitations This report reflects almost all the businesses operating in the Hood Canal watershed In Mason County. Businesses in the watershed that may be excluded from this report include: 1) businesses licensed In care of an owner or parent company located outside the Hood Canal watershed. 2) some businesses with a Shelton P.O. box that are in the Hood Canal watershed in an area west of the Skokomish Reservation, The category most affected by these limitations appears to be agriculture (which is not reflected in the following charts). According to dam from the Mason County Department of Community Development and Planning that there are 11 farms in the Skokomish Valley. They represent the vast majority of the agricultural sector for the Hood Canal watershed in Mason County. (continued) [+..^rsnraaas.�a� a reum �� r.r.- -r.� (continued) Mason - Businesses in Hood Canal watershed (continued from previous page) I��- �J• u�'CGJ YY 00 YY YY 00 Sash (continued) 10 YY 00 YY YY 00 Sash S'ar'a S'as's YY S'as's S'ar'a Imi RV (continued) 10 00 Sash S'as's S'as's 00 S'as's (continued) 10 Mason - Businesses in Hood Canal watershed (continued from previous page) In HCW In HCW In HCW Opamnm npemerrt 0 ema wk a MIS eal we am M e OPer P me Y 0 Tax Prepa an 2 0 0 np 0 eepng uslnea amge Compeer emms e a= an apo n9 eagn I Vngn0 su Hnp me C sew an Masao on e M ro m" penance M rg epmr spar UFF anrg a me m notion mMe np asy er BU Ma 3ry --- aer rpp nary (continued) Mason - Businesses in Hood Canal watershed (continued from previous page) miscellaneous retailer includes stores that sell wood products, leather goods, crafts, aM gifts and knickknacks. balloons, herbs, flowers, baby clothes, sports cards and lace. This category also includes one travel agent and two an galleries. - I - (continued) 12 Yell 00 YS� v0 ®0 S'as'h OS� r:rrrnxa,-za...�.:e...•— rirrr� _YY Ur S S s'as's Y� i lolita miscellaneous retailer includes stores that sell wood products, leather goods, crafts, aM gifts and knickknacks. balloons, herbs, flowers, baby clothes, sports cards and lace. This category also includes one travel agent and two an galleries. - I - (continued) 12 Mason - Businesses in Hood Canal watershed (continued from previous page) 13 gigOvi 13 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED - JEFFERSON COUNTY 'BUSINESSES AS OF APRIL, 1994 The following data is provided courtesy of the Jefferson County Assessor's Office. It is based on parcel distribution for privately owned property. No public sector businesses are included. No businesses operating from residences are Included. If a parcel includes more than one business, or a business with more than one function, only the primary land use activity is represented. RETAIL BUSINESSES: convenience Type Stores (Gas Stations and (Rmdeies) 3 e e ns reoery alone um aveme, Wunge r Refer 8 errem em tre ml mere al Z hardware. Farm Supplies (Wholesale) I am pa as ^current use Property (Mostly Agricultural Lands)" (continued) 14 Hood Canal watershed --Businesses in Jefferson County (continued from previous page) SERVICE BUSINESSES: Mobile Home Park 1 Hotels and Motels 2 9 Hole Goff Course i Resorts, Marina, RV Parks, ETC 20 Recreational and Camping Sties ma a ee 26 Private utility t Banks t Personal Services Launtl .ETC 2 Business Services Real Estate Insurance EfC 9 MiniStoroge Com lea 2 Auto Repair 2 Miscellaneous Service (Tana unwimvn) 1 15 EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS IN THE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED KrrSAP COUNTY FOR THE FIRST OUARTER OF 1 The chart on the following page Is based on raw data supplied by the Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch (LMEA) of Washington State Employment Security. This data is from all census blocks that are totally or partially in the Hood Canal watershed. The geographic area from which this data was extracted is almost completely congruent with the Hood Canal watershed., - Statewide LMEA data covers 85 %of total employment. It covers all employers who pay Into the unemployment insurance fund. Excluded from LMEA data are insurance agents, real estate agents and salespeople paid on a commission only basis; enrolled students and family working for a school, religious organizations, employment at physical and mental rehabilitation workshops, news boys and girls, and causal labor not in the course of employers trade or business. The followIms chart d t ingiude any data from Subase Banco All of the retail business employees and a majority of the other covered employees (non - military employees) work in a part of the base located outside the Hood Canal watershed. Business data for all of Subase Bangor Is Included in the chapter titled Subase Bangor. (continued on next page) 16 Employment and Payrolls In The Hood Canal Watershed in Kitsap County (continued from previous page) The number of employees listed is the average monthly number of employees for each of the three months in the first quarter of 1992. 0o na ewers Kitsap CoT Yof Total tat Businesses Employees quarter wages Total 186 1323 $59520,865 oreatry ial 4- �Wehon an erliiU 7 na npo on, Communication & Utilities 17 93 $2$7,614 Wholesale Trade 11 24 $156,562 Ma rs e manes, naurance Real Estate 3 4 $160100 Services' 1 31 198 $650.168 gimme " Services include personal and business services, hotels and lodging, automobile repair, health services, legal services 17 EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS WITHIN SELECTED AREAS OF THE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED IN MASON COUNTY FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF 1 This report is based on mw dam supplied by the Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch (LMEA) of Washington State Employment Security. The raw dam was organized into Mason County transportation zones. Statewide LMEA dam covers 8596 of total employment. It covers all employers who pay into the unemployment insurance fund. Excluded from LMEA data are insurance agents, real estate agents and salespeople paid on a commission only basis; enrolled students and family working for a school, religious organizations, employment at physical and mental rehabilitation workshops, news boys and girls, and causal labor not in the course of employer's bade or business. This dam in this report covers transportation zones for three areas that are totally within the Hood Canal watershed; Tahuya, the Belfair area and the West of Hood Canal area (which Includes Hoodsport and Lilliwaup). This report also covers one area overlapping the watershed boundary. The transportation zones for the area South of Hood Canal include Union, Alderbrook, and extend eastward to Lake Devereaux. These zones also include areas outside the watershed such as the southern part of the Alderbrook area, Cranberry Lake, Lake Limerick and Mason Lake. The overwhelming majority of the population and businesses in these zones are in the Hood Canal watershed. Excluded from this report are dam for a small part of the Hood Canal watershed area east of Highway 3 and south of Alm Road. Also excluded from this report is data for an area whose eastern boundary crosses the Skokomish Reservation, whose northern boundary is just north of Potlatch State Park and whose southern and wester boundaries are the Hood Canal watershed boundary. In order W protect confidentiality, LMEA will not release dam for this area as there are only a few businesses. This area Includes the Skokomish Valley. We have learned from the Mason County Department of Community Development and Planning that there are 11 farms in the Skokomish Valley. These farms represent the vast majority of (continued) IL Employment and payrolls in the Hood Canal watershed in Mason County (continued from previous page) agricultural production within the watershed in Mason County.' Number of employees indicates the actual number of persons employed and does not distinguish between part time and full time employees. An a indicates inf C hidden by the LMFA I-MEA, in a desire t_o_msure rnntitlentialiN for individual businesses, does not rel e 'nfo Y h th t a few businessies in a oegareohic area Thev also did not release information when one business transportation zone0%of th love 'th' 'ts t 'th' a For all charts the number of employees listed is the average monthly number of employees for each of the three months in the third quarter of 1993. TOTAL #of Businesses 36+ *of Employees 281+ Tonal 3rd quarter wages 784493+ lift 03,647 ManuflColmtr Farm = Emertainment WUMV Its 4 7. Government DD 12 as 5570.170 There are two transportation zones within the Tahuya area for which LMEA did not release data. There were so few businesses in those transportation zones that confidentiality could be violated or one employer had over 80% of employees. The above figures do represent the vast majority of businesses in the Tahuya area (continued) - 'Though we lack employment and payroll data far farms, vre do have the following 1993 estimates provided by Mason County commissioner, William O. Hunter, for farm revenue in the Hand Canal watershed in Mason County: produce, including torn, pumpkins, potatoes and vegetables, 4400,000; came S200,000; hay 5270,000; christmas 52,000,000; nursery S500,000; and personal gardens 5150,000. 19 Employment and payrolls in the Hood Canal watershed in Mason County (continued from previous page) na Iasi LiffiWa Hood= olt #of Businesses 63 #of Employees 254 Total 3rd quarterwages $1,019,007 TOTAL Name Mae Manuflconstr an ons - Farm Farm Office Service Ortice Service 6 14 560,300 Entertainment r Off Wr— 30 a, Govemmerd • + Schools Sahmo s • #1 + "AUUMN HIDDEN 5 76 $461,818 a Including Union& Alderbrook - Total #of Bminesses 82 #of Employees 531 Total 3rd quarterwages $1,900,928 Retail tra Manuflconstr - Farm Office Service ' + Enh rtainmerrt r G nremment + • + Schools • #1 + "AUUMN I 19 192 5558,689 The + sign after numbers in the ;Retail Trade- category indicate that some data for this category was hidden. The numbers before the +sign came from areas that represent approximately 82% of the third quarter wages. (continued)- 20 Employment and payrolls in the Hood Canal watershed in Mason County (continued from previous page) The +signs after numbers indicate that some data for these categories were hidden. For the four Belfair transportation zones for which we have data, the numbers before the +sign in each business category represent approximately 97% of the third quarter wages. There was one transportation zone within the Belfair area for which LMEA did not release data. There were either so few businesses in that transportation zone that confidentiality could be violated or one employer had over 80% of employees. The %oWw row represents the vast majority of businesses in the Belfair area 21 0 Businesses 94+ o Employees 1074+ a quintorwa9ea. 6186962+ Total eta Ira + an ass + + + Farm oe ervice + n them now one one er 3 + 3, + Government Schools : • ..• Idden 19 384 $1,802,431 The +signs after numbers indicate that some data for these categories were hidden. For the four Belfair transportation zones for which we have data, the numbers before the +sign in each business category represent approximately 97% of the third quarter wages. There was one transportation zone within the Belfair area for which LMEA did not release data. There were either so few businesses in that transportation zone that confidentiality could be violated or one employer had over 80% of employees. The %oWw row represents the vast majority of businesses in the Belfair area 21 EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS IN THE Noon CANAL WATMHED Jefferson We do not have sales or payroll values for this area. Washington State Employment Security data is not currently separated for areas within Jefferson County.` There are countywide statistics for the number of businesses In each category along with their countywide total payrolls. However, there is, however, no way to know whether a given business in the Hood Canal watershed would have typical or atypical payroll values compared to average payrolls for the same types of businesses elsewhere in Jefferson County. Therefore, we elected not to present countywide statistics in this report. 'LMEA can generate data by zip code within Jefferson County for a fee. 22 CHAPTER 4 LAND AND HOUSING PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS LVEWIN THE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED (as of 7/1/94), This is an overview of information gleaned from interviews with a number of people, including developers, and information from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The following data is not comprehensive. KITSAP COUNTY: There were large residential developments, such as Driftwood Keys, Shorewood, and Fort William Symington created in the 1950's and 1960's. As shown in following reports, there has been tremendous growth in home construction over the past twenty -five years. Over 100 homes have been constructed in the Seebeck area alone. Unlike much of Mtsap County, almost all new home construction in the Hood Canal watershed over the Past twenty -five years has occurred outside of large Planned developments. However, within the Hood Canal watershed in Kitsap County there - are currently several large scale residential developments, in various stages of planning, including: abeck: 1) Over the next ten years Cascade Evergreen plans to have approximately 480 home sites developed in Seebeck. Sites, all with a view of the Hood Canal, will start at approximately $80,000 (1994 dollars) and homes will probably sell in the neighborhood of $230,000 (1994 dollars). If waivers allowing one or more homes per acre are approved, the plan is to develop several 50 acre parks, sensitive land protection and a natural corridor through the center of the almost 500 acre development. Located just north and east of the Seebeck Conference Center, the development is planned to be part of a Public Utility District with the conference center, a school and 17 other homes in the area 2) Pope Resources is in the process of creating a residential development in Seebeck with approximately 75 lots. 3) Seebeck Partners has 188 acres just behind Seebeck Conference Center. This property, originally purchased from Wycoff Timber, was dear cut over two years ago. Some of this land is being sold in 20 acre parcels. One of the owners told us that the majority of this land will.probably become a residential development, following a five year moratorium. 4) Some people have expressed concern about what will happen to (continued) Proposed Residential Development (continued) State properties in the Seebeck area after they are logged. Will they be sold and developed? The proposed Draft Management Plan for Kusap County does not protect these areas as designated forest lands. North Kitsap 1) Pope Resources would like to develop a whole new town of approximately five thousand to six thousand people in Port Gamble in the next 15 +years. - 2) Pope Resources would like to develop a 99 lot residential development, Homestead, west. of Hansville. Suhase Bangor There are currently 799 family housing units, mostly in 4 plex and 6 plex configurations, on Subase Bangor. There are also approximately 1500 beds in barracks. Only West Family Housing, which has 235 family housing units, is actually in the Hood Canal watershed. Construction started in Fail '94 on 520 additional family housing units (mostly townhouses in 4 plexs) in a 100 acre site new West Family Housing, within the Hood Canal watershed. Logging is already taking place and these housing units should be on line by August, 1996. An additional 34 units have been approved for fiscal year 1996. If funding is approved an additional 352 family housing units are proposed for an 85 acre sight adjacent to current Southeast Family Housing. These 352 units will be outside the Hood Canal watershed. It is uncertain If this project will be funded in the next few years. Jefferson Countv There is little existing or Proposed large residential developments in the Hood Canal watershed. Approximately 86% of land throughoutjefferson County is public lands and approximately half of private lands is owned by large timber companies such as Pope and Talbot, Travelers, Georgia Pacific and Manke. It is estimated that, apart from timber lands, much less than 10% of land In the Hood Canal watershed area is available for private development. Though we are not aware of any publicly disclosed plans for residential developments, timber companies would like the flexibility to (continued) - Proposed Residential Development (continued) be able to create developments on their lands after harvesting. Given the right mix of zoning, water resources and sewage potentials, this could mean that in future years there could be large residential developments in areas such as Coyle. Port Ludlow, just North of the Hood Canal watershed, is a fast growing area where a number of residential developments are being created. Several of our Interviewees anticipate that growth in residential construction In the Port Ludlow area will spill over to the Hood Canal watershed. Even development in Port Ludlow outside of the Hood Canal watershed has impact as much of the runoff eventually goes into the Hood Canal. Current plans for residential developments in the Hood Canal watershed in Jefferson County include: 1) Pacific Fund is planning ahousing development consisting of 21 acre parcels on 1200 acres in Utde Qullcene. 2) Pope Resources is planning for development of 100 lots in the Teal Ysta (Shine Canyon) area. 3) A partial survey of water rights applications that are pending with the WA. State Department of Ecology revealed private developer applications for 17 homes near Shine and 16 homes near Dosewalipps State Park. Mason County _ Data from the Mason County Department of Transportation shows the greatest concentrations of existing homes in the Hood Canal watershed In Mason County are in the South of Hood Canal areajust east of Union, the Lynch Cove area, and the Belfair area These are also the areas with the greatest number of pending water rights applications for residential developments. There are currently nine applications just in the Belfair area. We have no idea how many developments are Planned with wells serving less than three or four residences (bypassing the need for water rights applications). We also have no idea how many of the current water rights applications will be approved and how many of the approved developments will go forward. Current plans for large residential developments within the Hood Canal watershed in Mason County include: 1) Jerry Reid of Reid Realty would like to develop 100 units in the upper Tahuya— Dfendahl Pass area in the next two years. 2) A partial survey of water rights applications that are pending with the WA. State Department of Ecology included private developer applications for 200 units near Alderbrook; 86 homes just West of (continued) Proposed Residential Development (continued) Twanoh; 25 to 35 homes just east of Twanoh Falls; an unknown number of homes on two large sites in Belfair and Lynch Cove; 30 homes in the Belfair /Lynch Cove area; 1. to 36 homes in the Larson Lake area; 17 homes near Triton; and 75 homes near Lynch Cove. There were also a number of water rights applications for 3 to 10 home residental developments (most in the Belfair area). HOOD CANAL WATERSHED• STATUS OF OCCUPIED AND VACANT HOUSING UNITS 1) Occupied housing units 2) Vacant housing units 3) Owner occupied housing units 4) Retderoccupied housing units g). Vacant housing units: For rent 8) Vacant hooting units: For sale only T) Vacant housing unit: Rooted or sold, not oxupied 8) Vacant units: Forseasonal, recreational, or occasional use area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed -- see Census _ chapter, page 2 I ISM snaI 411141 IM a i g- sVr4^iw. 1) Occupied housing units 2) Vacant housing units 3) Owner occupied housing units 4) Retderoccupied housing units g). Vacant housing units: For rent 8) Vacant hooting units: For sale only T) Vacant housing unit: Rooted or sold, not oxupied 8) Vacant units: Forseasonal, recreational, or occasional use area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed -- see Census _ chapter, page 2 ... FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTALS This data is for all occupied units that were remed and all vacant units that were for Sent in April, 1990. 71hese figures include se'victes'liat' _mW-1—nimcluded in monthly rental amounts. lCtsap chart does not include data for housing pmided on Subasse Bangor. %jS IN l; IN 134 Em iF� I Rent less than $100 10 Rent $500tcs$549 3 Rent$15oll;$199 12 Rent $600 to $649 5 Read $250 to $299 14 ReM$700to$749 6 Rent $300 to $349 15 ROM $750W$999 7 Rent $350 to $399 16 Rent $1,000 or mm 8 Rent $400 to $an 17 No cash rent 9 Rent $460 to $499 area closely approximating HoM Canal wacerahed — ue Census chapter Me HOOD CANAL WATE SHED - KITSAP COUNTY PERMITS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ISSUED IN 199 The following data was selected from raw data for all residential construction permits issued in Kitsap County in 1993. The raw data was provided by the Kitsap County Assessor's office, This report is for permits for new construction only. Remodeling and additions to existing structures were excluded from our data. Also excluded from Am p d to data for F rt Gamble S'KI II Re Banaor. We selected data for neighborhoods within school districts that most closely approximated the Hood Canal watershed. Please see man in Wilendix for locations of neighborhoods: For neighborhoods 403D (Gamble Bay), 403F (Hansville), and 403G - (Driftwood Keys) 67 permits for new residential construction were issued in 1993; For neighborhoods 402A (Clear Creek) 4026 (Totten Bolin) and 402E (Eglon) 63 permits for new residential construction were issued in 1993; For neighborhood 411J (Bangor— Newberry — excluding Subase Bangor) S2 permits for new residential construction were issued in 1993; For neighborhood 411 H (Seabeck) 58 permits for new residential construction were issued in 1993; For neighborhood 411 E (Symington) 26 permits for residential - construction were Issued in 1993; For neighborhoods 411A (Wildcat lake), 411 C (Holly), 411 D (Crosby), , 411 F (Lake Tahuyeh) and 4116 (Green Mountain) and 42 IA (Belfair Valley) 30 permits for new residential construction were issued in 1993. The above permits were issued to individuals and to 55 construction companies. The total number of permits issued for residential construction in this area closely approximating the Hood Canal watershed in Kitsap County in 1993 was 296. HOOD CANAL WATERSHED -MASON COUNTY PERmrrS -FOR. NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION ISSUED IN 1992 AND 1993 This report is for new construction only. It does not include remodeling or additions to existing structures. The following data was tabulated from raw dam supplied by the Mason County Planning Department The majority of permits were issued for the Tahuya and Selfair areas.. The lower number in a numerical range are for permits definitely in the Hood Canal watershed. The larger number includes dam from a section within a township and range that overlapped the Hood Canal watershed boundary. In 1992 between 89 and 99 permits were issued for housing - construction in the Hood Canal watershed in Mason County. In 1992 between. 54 and 59 building permits were issued for mobile homes in the Hood Canal watershed in Mason County. - In 1993 between 90 and 100 permits were Issued for housing construction In the Hood Canal watershed in Mason County. In 1993 between 60 and 66 building permits were issued for mobile homes in the Hood Canal watershed In Mason County. 10 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED Jefferson County RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED IN 1992 AND 1993 The following data comes from the Je((erson County permit Center Building Division Annual Report 1993 which was prepared on February 7, 1994. This data comes from areas whose boundaries precisely parallel the Hood Canal watershed boundaries (except in the far west where there Is no population). This data is solely from the Hood Canal watershed and no data from outside the watershed is included. This dam includes permits Issued for new construction, as well as - permits for remodeling or additions to existing structures. The following charts include building permits for single family resldences and do not' include mobile —family units. emo e h omes or mu In --f PLANNING AREA 1990 1991 1992 a PLANNING AREA 1984 1985 1986 198] 1988 1989 SOUTH Pr. /SHINE 3 3 - 7 10 9 10 CHYLE 1 1 3 3 0 3 3 2 4 4 QUILCENE 6 6 6 3 4 6 6RINNON q 14 14 5 6 5 PLANNING AREA 1990 1991 1992 1993 SOUTH PG/SHINE 75 lq 21 I1 COYLE 3 4 3 3 QUILCENE 10 I1 10 19 BRINNON -g 13 14 13 (continued) lei Jefferson County Residential Building Permits (continued from previous page e rmmwm cnar¢ PLANNING AREA 1984 mclube building 1985 1986 pR 1987 ni for 1988 mobile 1989 SOUTH PT./SHINE 2 - 1 9 6 5 6 COYLE 2 0 0 5 1 2 QUILCENE 7 4 6 10 9 11 BRINNON 13 14 15 71 10 7 PLANNING AREA 1990 1 1991 1992 '1993 SOUTH ",./VINE 6 2 0 1 COYLE 0 2 1 1 QUILCENE 9 9 10 14 BRINNON 72 7g 10 16 nomes. There were no multi —family residence building permits Issued in the Hood Canal watershed in Jefferson County since 1985. 12 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED - KITSAP COUNTY NUMBER OF RESIDENCES 5OLD SY AREA AND AMOUNT OF SALE FROM MARCH 1 1993 TO FEBRUARY 2& 1904: The raw dam for this chart came from the Computer Multiple Listing Service, Inc. in Silverdale, WA. We sorted hundreds of pages of law dam. Within each multiple listing parcel area only the number of sales in the Hood Canal watershed are reflected. There are three limitations to this dam: 1) Only sales through realtors are reflected 2) In order to save many hours labor we did not include parcel area 6 -6. Only avery small area in parcel area 6-6 (which includes Poulsbo) is In the Hood Canal watershed. 3) This dam does not differentiate between cabins, mobile homes, and other homes. In a numerical range the lower number is the number of residential sales that were definitely in the watershed. The higher number includes sales that may have been within or outside the watershed (usually on roads intersecting the boundary). Please refer to Multiple L' ling parcel area maris in applandl x MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE B 63 PARCEL 65 AREAS 24 o- 53 999 0 0 0 2 0 0-1 2 0 0 $74496 S]4499 -4 0 1 1 0.1 3. 0 3 -5 0 fl5,po6 $ 9 0 0 15 12 1 ]J9 1 24-25 0-1 5100,000. $124999 3 -5 3 10 16 1 -2 5 -7 2 26-28 0.2 5125,000 5149999 5-a 0 3 7 4 2� 4S 11 -12 0-1 $150,006 5174999 7-11 1 4-5 3-4 7 3 0.5 3 1 -2 Si 951006 519 999 1 0 0 1 2i 0 0 5 0 200,0 00. $ 525 999 3 0 1 6 7 1 1 0 0 $250,006 $300,000 2 0 p 0 0 0 Ql 0 0 OVER 53 OOD 2 -5 0 o-1 2 0 0 4094 4J% 25% 1494 4294 10% 384E 0% >2yM1Omes a2 )r5 Uld^ on tO [p tp to [O b [O to 38% 60% 50% 28% 50% 94% 23% 90% "range of percentages results, in part, hom fact Naz not all tlosur¢ revam included ege OT home 13 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED MASON COUNTY NUMBER OF RESIDENCES SOLO BY AREA AND AMOUNT OF SALE The raw data for parcel areas Y -I and Y -3 came from the Computer Multiple Listing Service, Inc. in Silverdale, WA. The raw data for parcel area Y -8 came from the Mason County Assessor. We sorted hundreds of data entires. Within each multiple listing parcel area only the number of sales In the Hood Canal watershed are reflected. There are two limitations to this data: 1) Only sales through realtors are reflected for parcel areas Y-1 and Y -3. All sales are reflected for Y4L 2) This data does not differentiate between cabins, mobile homes, and other homes. In a numeral range the lower number reflects residential sales that were definitely in the watershed. The higher number includes sales that may have been within or outside the watershed. Pleme refer to Multiple 'stin reel am maps in apoemcli a data fur calendar data for 3/1/93 thrn 228/94 W2r 1993 °n,ge M "minus s rwuhs, In pvt fmm fxttlut no[all Gosure reports induEM age of home 14 Y -1 Y -3 o- 30 30999 IS 0 S40A00 $ ,,M ]4999 1 20-21 4 S91999 $1124,999 1 59 999 5 }56 9 5100,000 5150,009 $12/999 12 -13 6 $125,W0 $1 'S19 999 8-9 4 $150,009 5250,000 $V 1 -2 1 $12SAM es>2 do not S199999 2 2 5200.W0 data S25 999 5 4 $250p S300.000 0 0 OVER S3 0 0 %of homes 3294 34tw >2 yrs old* 39% 43% °n,ge M "minus s rwuhs, In pvt fmm fxttlut no[all Gosure reports induEM age of home 14 Y91 o- 30 T9 99 $74A99 z $ ,,M 2999 9 5 5100009 $1124,999 1 5125.009 $I 0 5150,009 S 1 74,S910 -0 $1 0 0 525 $25 999 9619 0 5250,000 $3 0 . OVER $3 es>2 do not vrs ad• M Wd* Where this data °n,ge M "minus s rwuhs, In pvt fmm fxttlut no[all Gosure reports induEM age of home 14 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED — JeMman County SALES OF RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAl tINDUMIAL PROPERTY IN 1993 This data was provided courtesy of The Jefferson County Digest of Real Estate Sales and Loans and Windermere Realty. The following two charts cover the entire Hood Canal watershed in Jefferson County. Data for the Quilcene area and data for the east end (encompassing Northem Coyle, Tara Point, Paradise Bay, South Point and Shine) were sorted so that only sales within the Hood Canal watershed are reflected. The West End data is not sorted. The West End area continues west of the Hood Canal watershed to the Pacific Ocean. Few, if any, residental or commercial /industrial sales were likely to have occured outside of the Hood Canal watershed in the West End area For OOilrw n.Rr: n_wno CnA a The mean average cost for a used single family home on less than 5 acres was $82,222 and the median Cost was $55,000. The mean average cost for a new single family home was $63,850 and the median cost was $94,950. (Continued) 15 %Of #of Total Countywide PURCHASES Paid Sales ( In $ Value USED SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON LESS THAN 5 ACRES 41 $32371,115 8.3394 USED SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON MORE THAN 5ACRES 5 $465000 16.2456 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME 2 $127700 .94% MULTI FAMILY HOME 1 $725,000 MOBILE HOME WRH LAND 22 $1661107 27%' TOTAL'RESIDENTIAL 71 $4088,115 6.34% COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL 6 $1,630.249 33.37% The mean average cost for a used single family home on less than 5 acres was $82,222 and the median Cost was $55,000. The mean average cost for a new single family home was $63,850 and the median cost was $94,950. (Continued) 15 (continued from previous page) Hood Canal watershed - Upper Coyle, Shine, Tara Point, and South Point The mean average cost of a used single family home on less than 5 acres was $170,643. The range of prices was from 166,500 to 5290,000. The median cost 5166,250. The mean average cost of a used single family home on more than 5 acres was $320,000 and the median cost was $300,000 The mean average cost of a new family home was 5255,494. Seven homes sold for between 5257,000 and S292,000. The median cost for all new family homes in this area was 5264,495. The mean average cost of a mobile home with land was $96,100 and the median cost was $91,250. 16 % of #of Total Countywide PURCHASES Paid Sales (in S Value) USED SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON LESS THAN - $ ACRES 16 $ 733 92 6.76 USED SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON MORE THAN 5 ACRES 3 S 960 33% NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME - 11 $2610430 20.66% MULTI FAMILY HOME 0 MOBILE HOME W TH LAND 10 $961 15.74% TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 40 $7464922 i1 -58% COMMERCIAL ERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL We do not have tlata The mean average cost of a used single family home on less than 5 acres was $170,643. The range of prices was from 166,500 to 5290,000. The median cost 5166,250. The mean average cost of a used single family home on more than 5 acres was $320,000 and the median cost was $300,000 The mean average cost of a new family home was 5255,494. Seven homes sold for between 5257,000 and S292,000. The median cost for all new family homes in this area was 5264,495. The mean average cost of a mobile home with land was $96,100 and the median cost was $91,250. 16 HOOD CANAL WATERSHED —KITSAP COUNTY SALES OF LANE) ONLY BY AREA FROM MARCH 1 1993 TO FEBRUARY 28 1 om The raw data came from the Computer Multiple Listing Service, Inc. in Silverdale, Washington. We sorted hundreds of data entries to determine which were in the Hood Canal watershed. This data reflects only sales through realtors. In a numerical range the lower number reflects sales that definitely occurred within the Hood Canal watershed. The higher number also Includes those land sales could not be definitely determined to be In or out of the Hood Canal watershed (either because there was no street address on the closing document or the property was on a street intersecting the watershed boundary). PLEASE REFER TO MULTIPLE IISTINO PARCEL AREA MAPS IN APPENDIX Parcel area 1 -1: Only one land sale occurred in the Hood Canal. watershed. Eighty acres sold for 5307,500 (an average per acre cost of $3,844). Parcel area 2 -1: Total acreage sold in Hood Canal watershed (HCW): 73.89 Total purchase price for acreage in HCW: 57,093,900 Total number of sales: 24 Average cost per acre: $14,804 - Range of cost --average per acre for each land sale: 54,480 to $211,905. (12 land sales had an average price per acre of less than $14,700) Parcel area 2i: Total acreage sold In Hood Canal watershed (HCW): 28.36 Total purchase price for acreage in HCW: $522,400 Total number of sales: 9 Average cost per acre: $18,420 Range of cost — average per acre for each land sale: $9500w$21,978 (4 land sales had an average price per acre of less than $17,000). Continued 17 (continued from previous page) Parcel area 2 -5• Total acreage sold in Hood Canal watershed (HCW): 1081 S W 715.49 Total purchase price for acreage in HCW: $1,393,725 to 57,477,725 Total number of sales:. 43 to 47 Average cost per acre for 108.15 acres definitely in HCW: 572,887 Range of cost -- average per acre for each land sale definitely In HCW: $2,200 to 587,500 (21 land sales had an average price per acre under 575,625) Parted area 6-1: Total acreage sold in Hood Canal watershed (HCW): 10.81 to 47.17 Total purchase price for acreage in HCW: 57,239,650 W 52,249,600 Total number of sales: 29 to 41. Average cost per acre for 10.81 acres definitely in HCW: S 114,767 Range of cost — average per acre for each land sale definitely in HCW: $36,000 W $400,000 (For the 29 land sales definitely in HCW 14 had an average per acre price under $89,000 /acre) Parcel area 6 -2: Total acreage sold in Hood Canal watershed (HCW): 11.25 to 30.87 Total purchase price for acreage in HCW: 594,000 to $316,900 Total Number of Sales: 2 to 4 Average cost per acre for 11.25 acres definitely in HCW: $8,356 Range of average cost per acre for each land sale definitely in HCW: 56,200- $25,600 Parcel area 6.3: Total acreage sold in Hood Canal watershed (HCWI: 2.16 to 32.02 Total purchase price for acreage In HCW: $92,000 to $512,500 Total number of sales: 4 to 8 Average cost per acre for 2.16 acres definitely in HCW: $42,592.59 Range of average cost per acre for each land sale definitely in HCW: $23,228 to $78,261. Parcel area 6.4: Total acreage sold in Hood Canal watershed (HCW): 45.47 to 62.61 Total purchase price for acreage in HCW: $929,150 W 51,115,650 Total number of sales: 25 to 31 Average cost per acre for acreage definitely in HCW: $20,461 Range of average cost Per acre for each land sale definitely in HCW: $4,000 to 553,846 - (For the 25 sales definitely in the HCW 12 had an average price per acre below $44,000 and 13 had an average price per acre above 547,600.) (Continued) LL (continued from previous page) paroel area 65• Total acreage sold in Hood Canal watershed (HCM 10.93 to 32.69 Total purchase price for acreage in HCW: $392,400 to $732,400 Total number of sales: 8 t 12 Average cost per acre for land definitely in HCW: $35,901 Range of average cost per acre for each land sale definitely in HCW: $12,800 to $210,937 (4 of the 8 sales definitely in HCW had an average price per acre under $33,800) LEE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED - MASOn County SALES OF LAND ONLY BY AREA FROM MARCH 1 1993 TO FEBRUARY 28. 19 The raw data for parcel areas Y-1 and Y -3 came from the Computer Multiple Listing Service, Inc. in Silverdale, Washington. The raw data for Y -e came from the Mason County Assessor's office. We sorted hundreds of data entries W determine which were in the Hood Canal watershed. The data for Y -1 and Y -3 Includes only sales through realtors. The data for Y -8 includes all sales. Unlike our Xitsap County raw data, our Mason County raw data included many land only sales where the purchase amount was reported and the amount of acreage purchased was not reported. In a numerical range the lower number reflects sales that definitely occurred within the Hood Canal watershed. The higher number also includes those land sales could not be definitely determined to be in or out of the Hood Canal watershed (either because them was no street address on the closing document or We property was on a street intersecting the watershed boundary). PLEASE REFER TO MULTIPLE LISTING PARCEL AREA MAPS IN APPENDIX Parcel area Y -1 ( Includes T h rM Belfa" Areas) There were 72 land only sales that were definitely in the Hood Canal watershed (HCW) that had amount of acreage per sale reported. There were 16 land only sales that were definitely in the Hood Canal watershed that did not have the amount of acreage reported. There were 7 additional land only sales that we could not determine were in or out of the Hood Canal watershed. Total acreage sold in the HCW for sales that had amount of acreage reported: 257.57 to 275.62 - Total purchase price for acreage in the HCW: $2,908,325 to $3,124,375 Average cost per acre for the 72 sales that had acreage reported and were definitely in the HCW: $10,520 Range of average cost per acre for each of the 72 land sales that had acreage reported and were definitely in the HCW: $2,151 to $143,519 - (1 /2 of these 72 land sales had an average cost per acre of under $17,093) (Continued) M (Mason County land only sales - continued from previous page) Parcel Area V -3 ( Includes Areas South of Hood 11: There were 11 land only sales that were definitely . in the Hood Canal watershed (HIM that had amount of acreage per sale reported. There were 7land only sales that were definitely in the Hood Canal watershed that did not have the amount of acreage reported. There were 7 additional sales with acreage reported that we could not determine to have been in or out of the watershed. There were also 8 sales without acreage reported that we could not determine to have been in or out of the HCW_ Total acreage sold in the HCW for sales that had amount of acreage reported: 17.32 to 39.36. Total purchase price for acreage in the HCW: S370,223 to $628,255 Average cost per acre for the 11 sales that had acreage reported and were definitely in the HCW: $14,749 Range of average cost per acre for each of the 11 land sales that had acreage reported and were definitely in the HCW: $462 to $94,545 (4 of these 11 land sales had an average cost per acre under $7500 and 5 had an average cost per acre over $18,000) P4Eqel A V8(1 I d A reas West fHood I There were 12 land only sales that were definitely in the Hood Canal watershed (HCM that had amount of acreage per sale reported. There were 28 land only sales that were definitely in the Hood Canal watershed that did not have the amount of acreage reported. Total acreage sold in the HCW for sales that had amount of acreage reported: 95,17. Total purchase price for acreage In the HCW: $1,463,595 (this total purchase price includes one purchase for the unusually high dollar amount of $760,000 for a 12.52 acre property labeled "resorts Campm Average cost per acre for the sales that had acreage reported (excluding the "resorts Camp' mentioned above) $4,972 (most of the sales that did not report acreage were in the $5,000 to $7,000 range) Range of average cost per acre for each of the above land sales that had acreage reported: $833 to S25,000 (5 of these 11 land sales had an average cost per acre under 55,400) 21 HOOD CANAL WATEMHEI) - leffemon ConntY SALES OF LAND ONLY BY AREA for 93 This data was provided courtesy of The Jefferson County Digest of Real Estate Sales and Loans and Windermere Realty. The following two charts cover the entire Hood Canal watershed In Jefferson County. The data for the Quilcene area and the data for the east end (encompassing Northern Coyle, Tara Point, Paradise Bay, South Point and Shine) was sorted so that only sales within the Hood Canal watershed are reflected. The West End dam is not sorted. The West End area continues west of the Hood Canal watershed to the Pacific Ocean. Few if any, land only sales were likely to have occured in the West End outside of the Hood Canal watershed. For Quilcene - Brinnon -West End areas Hood Canal watershed - Upper Coyle, Shine, Tara Point, and South Point # of Sales Toul T$ Value %of County Sales Land only - Platted lot 65 $1333166 8.76% land only -Short Plat 11 5408000 18b2% land on - un lattetl 158 1511,813,219 55.37% Toml 234 $12354,385 31.88% Hood Canal watershed - Upper Coyle, Shine, Tara Point, and South Point 22 # of Sales Total S Value %of County Sales Land only - Platted lot 157 SI 6 72 10.89% Land only -Short Plat 3 3220000 10.04% Land onl -tan tatted 28 1647974 7.7% Total 189 1 $3.S26.389 I 901K 22 CHAPTER S UTILITIES Sources of Water and Means of Sewage for Residences (Continued from previous page) systems.' They also recharge the ground water aquifers that provide most of the drinking water in the Hood Canal watershed. Unfortunately, there are large numbers of failing systems in the Hood Canal watershed.t A few older systems were actually designed to discharge directly Into streams, rivers and the Hood Canal. Many failures are due to persistent overtaxing of systems originally designed for occasional or recreational usage, and /or improper maintenance. However, most drainfield failures are due to soils that are inadequate for effective sewage treatment. The results of these failures include serious public health risks, particularly after periods of heavy rain when sewage can seep out of ditches and carry contaminants for great distances. The soils in large areas of the Hood Canal watershed cannot support the T of vertical separation (distance between the bottom of the drainfield trench and the high level of ground water) that Washington State Department of Health officials believe to be necessary for adequate sewage treatment. This problem is most acute in the Southern Kitsap and Belfair areas.s On January 1, 1995, new sewage treatment regulations go into effect for new construction and most home sales. These regulations will require that any less than 2' of vertical separation for septic tank and dminfleld systems would need concurrence of the Washington State Depatment Health, based on evidence that resulting treatment standards will not be compromised (evidence that many experts do not think exist). In the Hood Canal watershed in Khsap County many current systems have only 12 -to 18 -of vertical separation. The soils will not support 2' or more of vertical separation? Alternative on she systems Include sand filter systems, mound systems, gravity systems and aerobic systems. These alternative systems could add up to $12,000 to the price of most homes and substantially more for some homes built close to shorelines.s (continued) (Washington Stare Department of Health, Bork p ndpl ofOashe Sawage(pamphlen, May, 1991. 21u,ad upon imeMews with many people including developers, envimnmemalums. and Department of Health officials $See above foomom. Also based on review of Knsap draft comprehenswe plans. ^Based on imervlews M Washington State Department of Heahh $From a State Departmem of HeeM1 cost survey of on -site sewage systems - May 1994. Sources of Water and Means of Sewage for Residences (Continued from previous page) Water There are many varied views about potential water resource limitations; and on the impacts of both wells that get water from shallow aquifers and wells that get water from the few deep aquifers existing in the Hood Canal watershed. Some experts believe there are adequate resources and few potential problems in most of the watershed. Others state that there we need further study of the size and interrelationships of shallow aquifers, deep water aquifers, rivers and lakes in the Hood Canal watershed. In many parts of the Hood Canal watershed the boundaries of known aquifers, age of ground water currently being withdrawn, and even the identification of principal aquifers has not yet taken places A number of economic and potential health problems have been created by contamination in some streams, rivers and even parts of the Hood Canal itself. There are some areas with diminished water levels. There is anecdotal evidence of a possible 6' drop in water levels in lake Devereaux since a golf course was built. Many of the people we interviewed expressed a strong need for further study of water resources. (Re: Water — See also Shell Fish and Fin Fish chapter) 6Fram imsap county, Draft COmwehensive Man June 1994. 3 CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION DATA FOR 1993 -94 SCHOOL YEAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS LOCATED WITHIN THE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED This data is only from public schools located within the Hood Canal watershed. A few of these schools serve only residents of the Hood Canal watershed. Most of these schools have enrollment areas that cross the watershed boundary. Additionally, many schools located outside the Hood Canal watershed that serve students residing within the watershed. We present this data in the belief that it provides interesting comparative profiles from different areas within and close to the Hood Canal watershed. This data comes form a Superintendent of Public Instruction integrated school report for the 1993 -94 school year. Except for total enrollment, elementary school data is for 4th graders, junior high school data for 8th graders and high school data for 11th graders. Teal Emoilmem ---Tik TO %students: computes athome oro rnemoxn eras: freelre4uue4 uostlunch 11- zp%l1) yr. enrollment GRA;NRy 88 -95X ltl ut Scores' ( PTedd ewuswel abmeeve {1) Ure a Si3 eves¢ teen— Maln M6 average beck 51 1 -10% 95X kav avenge - avenge ow �erok EmvIlmea 8akh aT aw as- computers atbonle amxas: bealre4uced coatwnch span. enrollment SYabiBty T6 -85% Scares' (m Pkdd ba lw average SaMhIll U frm pW lmv Hawkhls MM4k 585 53% 11 -30% 86 -85% average average NaM Nasan Brat ae% 11 -10% 88 -95is aboveave. YWh Camp(noahw Wlo:a%i lank) 'as compared to national averages (continued) Dam for Public. Schools (continued from previous page) Total Enroll"m Brimwn 110 %sbdents: computers ehme 10% %sUkems: hvelroduced ooelhmeh 51 -]5% School W. enrolhreM Sbm-ay 51 -]5% Mean Test Scares` (c5wv2ee7 Brk69k) low average 'bens 26%- 41-5g% 76.5514 bw Ouileam 25% 41-3g% ]6 -&4% bw 'as wmparalto ne5an7 aver " 2751 mmbinetl enrollmem im Wik�me Elemantery cad OuSOww Hgh Sdw7 was 2)5 sbtlen6 5 E Hood Canal Watershed* Mason/ Residents age Highest Educational Level Achieved 2 3 a 5 6 Sm Labels "N grade, no diploma (includes equivalency) ]) Graduate or professional degree Skokomish Reservation data included in Mason chart. Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation data included in Kitsap chart. Residents of SUBASE Bangor not included in Kitsap chart. This data for Port Gamble S- Klallam Reservation, Skokomish Reservation and SUBASE Bangor is available in their respective chapters. . area closely approximating Hood Canal watershed -- see Census Chapter, page 2 3 CHAPTER 7 SUBASE BANGOR INTRODUCTION: The Naval Submarine Base Bangor ( SUBASE Bangor) is intersected by the Hood Canal watershed boundary (Please see map in Boundary Chapter). The majority of the 6,129.68 acre main site is in the Hood Canal watershed. The waterfront operations area, the ship and weapons systems maintenance facilities and West Family Housing (accommodating approximately 18 percent of the base residents) are within the Hood Canal watershed. Also totally within the Hood Canal watershed is the 768 acre Toandos Peninsula Reserve, located across the Hood Canal from the SUBASE waterfront This area, controlled by the Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, is currently undeveloped and functions, in part, as a security perimeter for SUBASE Bangor- The Southeast section of the SUBASE that Is located outside the Hood Canal watershed contains all the businesses that operate on the SUBASE, the majority of family housing, all barracks housing, all administrative offices, public works, the training facilities, and all personnel support facilities (such as the community center, counseling . center, on base medial services and the athletic center). The SUBASE main site is integrated in terms of function and design. To confine our profile to the area within the Hood Canal watershed would provide Incomplete, and perhaps meaningless, data. We have decided W provide a profile of the entire main base. This is the only chapter in which we have deliberately chosen to include an area outside the Hood Canal watershed. SUBASE BANGOR'S PRIMARY MISSION: "The general mission of the commands within the SUBASE Bangor complex is to support and maintain aTRIDENT submarine squadron and other ships home ported or moored at SUBASE Bangor. The TRIDENT system, an advanced submarine -based weapon system, provides for extended operation at sea as a highly survivable and reliable deterrent to hostilities. The three major components of the TRIDENT system are the submarines, the missiles and the shore based support site." The operative word for SUBASE Bangofs primary mission is deterrence. Source: The above quotation is from Chapter 4, page 7 of an unpublished document titled "Master Plan Naval Submarine Bangor." This document was created in 1985 by Richard Carothers Associates, Seattle, WA. SUBMARINES: SUBASE Bangor is the smaller of the two home ports for TRIDENT Submarines. The other home port is in Kings Bay, Georgia. SUBASE Bangor is currently the home port for 8 TRIDENT Submarines. Kings Bay, Georgia is home port for 4 TRIDENT Submarines. Each TRIDENT Submarine Is S60 feet long (almost as long as the Seattle Space Needle Is high), and each has four decks. Each submarine carries 24 TRIDENT 1 Missiles; each missile is 34 feet in length, 6 feet in diameter, and weighs 71,000 pounds. Each missile has rapacity for multiple nuclear warheads. Each missile has a range of over 4000 nautical miles. (The submarines home based in Georgia are equipped with TRIDENT 2 missiles, which are described as "larger and more sophisticated with even greater capacities than the TRIDENT 1 Missile.*) Each TRIDENT Submarine is equipped with four torpedo tubes. When In service, each Submarine carries more fire power than has been used in all of the wars in human history. Each TRIDENT Submarine has two crews. Each crew consists of approximately 160 people. A crew Is usually continuously submerged at sea for between 70 to 80 days. Following each patrol the crew participates in an approximately month long refining and supply period. The first crew then has four months for training and personal leaves while the second crew takes over. In addition to the enormous responsibility involved in their mission, hardships for the crew Include no contact of any kind with friends or family for ten to twelve consecutive weeks, extremely limited personal and occupational space, no sunlight for 10 to 12 weeks, no Pon holes, and no fresh foods (Including fresh fruits or vegetables) after the first couple of weeks at sea. Nevertheless, all the crew members volunteer to be at Bangor, and the retention rate is approximately 97%. In the Fall of 1994 SUBASE Bangor also became the home port for the USS Parche. The Parche is a Sturgeon Class (688 Class) attack Submarine. It has one assigned crew of approximately 160 (including officers and enlisted personnel). Its mission is described by the Public Affairs Office for SUBASE Bangor as "oceanographic research and other projects." Somas: Handouts and oral presentations during a tour of SUBASE Bangor in June 1994; and conversation with Paul Taylor of the SUBASE Public Affairs Office. SUBASE BANGOR PERSONNEL: The graphic below is an approximation of the breakdown of civilian and military personnel engaged In on base supported activities at SUBASE Bangor in 1991. 6.e.aw p0mr m.,,.l� NOf � y r Yy cw.11 t.mP cmlYe P.m, ,r l,law nz w 811106E WM00.- FMPLOYYENTOr1e0.4E 199t NAFS (Non appropriated funds) refers to positions primarily funded by revenues as opposed to taxpayer funds. NAFS include some of the businesses and services on base. Please refer to the Business and Services section in this chapter. Johnson Controls World Services Inc. has had the Base Operating Services Contract (BOSC) since July 2, 1992. The BOSC is a single large contract covering all services required for base operations. For more information about the BOSC Contract and Johnson Controls please refer to the Contracts section in this chapter. Somme: All the data in the preceding section came from an unpublished memo titled *Manpower Matrix" It provides the number of personnel in many categories for activities supported on- station and off- station in 1991. This documentwas provided to me by Mike Denton, Program Analyst for the Financial Resource Management Department of SUBASE Bangor. MILITARY PERSONNEL AND PAYROLLS In 1991 there were 252 officers and 2,473 enlisted men assigned to the 16 TRIDENT crews, roughly the same as now. There were also an additional 249 officers and 2950 enlisted men assigned to activities at SUBASE Bangor. Some of these assigned activities fall within the broad categories of training, and weapons and submarine testing and maintenance. Nine of the officers and 324 of the enlisted personnel were Marines, who provided security on parrs of the base as one of their main functions. All other members of the armed services were Navy Personnel. Included in these 1991 figures were 36 officers and 488 enlisted personnel who were primarily students. - Thus, the total number of on base military personnel in 1991 were approximately 501 officers and 5,423 enlisted personnel. SUBASE Bangor also supports off - station activities at various sites. Included are some of the activities at the Naval Hospital, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) at Keyport. Engineering -- Facilities Activity N.W. and the Manpower Analysis Team of the Commander -In- Chief of the U.S. Fleet Office in Seattle. These off - station activities supported by SUBASE Bangor included an additional 182 officers and 638 enlisted personnel in 1991. The estimated combined annual payroll for military personnel employed on -base and military personnel employed off -base In base. supported activities was $156,556,000 in 1991. We do not have a 1991 estimate that includes only payrolls for military activities on SUBASE Bangor. The only other aggregate military payroll figure we have secured is that on base military employment generated approximately an $85,800,000 payroll in fiscal year 1993 (October 10, 1992 to September 30, 1993). Sources: 1). All the data In the preceding section, except in the last paragraph, came from an unpublished memo titled 'Manpower Matrix.- It provides the number of personnel in many categories for attivides supported on. station and off- station in 1991. This document was provided to me by Mike Denton, Program Analyst for the Financial Resource Management Department of SUBASE Bangor. 2) The data in the last paragraph came from a one page handout titled ' SUBASE Bangor Financial Fact Sheet.- Paul Taylor of the SUBASE Public Affairs Office told me that the data was for fiscal Year 1993. CIVILIAN PERSONNEL AND PAYROLLS: There are several types of civilian employment on base. There are permanent civilian employees of the Navy, employees directly under contract to the Navy, employees of organizations under contract to the Navy, employees of businesses or services fully or partially subsidized by the Navy, employees of SUBASE sponsored business supported fully by user fees and other charges, and employees of private businesses permitted to operate on base (such as McDonald,). 1991 Civilian of Of activities supported b Permanent civilian employees approx. 2533 Temporary civilian employees approx. 17 Civilian employees (non appropriated funds) approx. 482 Contractor employees approx. 2035" 'Includes 1,093 people employed under the BOSC contract. 1921 Civilian Of activities supported criffbase SUBASE Bangor also has a budget for activities off - station that included 3077 additional employees (the majority stationed at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center at Keyport). The estimated combined civilian annual payroll for base supported activities (on and off of SUBASE Bangor) was $194,993,000 for FY 1991. Of the personnel represented In the above figure only approximately 45% were actually employed on -base. The above figure does not include the estimated $50,796,000 in contractor payrolls estimated for base supported activities in 1991. A financial fact sheet released through the NSB Bangor Public Affairs Office estimates that the FY 1993 SUBASE civilian payroll for activities on base was approximately $142,900,000. It is not clear if this estimate Includes all civilian contractor activities. The estimates of civilian payrolls on SUBASE Bangor are many times higher than the approximately $26,000,000 in annual payrolls for the Hood Canal watershed in Kltsap County outside of SUBASE Bangor. Sources: 1) All the data in the preceding section, except for data in the last two Paragraphs, came from an unpublished memo titled "Manpower Matrix." It provides the number of personnel in many categories for activities (continued) Civilian Personnel and Payrolls (continued from previous page) supported on- station and off- station in 1991. This document was provided to me by Mike Denton, Program Analyst for the Financial Resource Management Department of SUBASE Bangor. 2) The data for the last Paragraph came from a one page handout tided "SUBASE Bangor Financial Fact Sheet" Paul Taylor of the SUBASE Public Affairs Office told me that the data was for fiscal Year 1993. 3) The Statistic for the Hood Canal watershed in Kitsap County (in the last Paragraph) came from the labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch of Washington State Employment Security payroll data for the first quarter of 1992 (see Bus and Employment chapter). I multiplied the first quarter 1992 wages by four to achieve a very rough estimate of annual wages in the Hood Canal watershed in Kitsap County, excluding wages earned on SUBASE Bangor. CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL AND PAYROLLS A Base Operating Services Contract (BOSC) is a single large contract covering all services required for base operations. Since July 2, 1992, the BOSC contractor has been Johnson Controls World Services, _ Inc. The Johnson Controls contract includes the following functions: 'Operation of utilities systems, maintenance of facilities and structures, design engineering, subcontract administration, family housing maintenance, vehicle maintenance and operations, pest control, grounds maintenance, regulated substance handling, hazardous waste spill response, supply support and subsistence provisioning, security services, fire protection and inspection, trash collection, janitorial services, mall delivery, operation of bachelor quarters and operation of the base technical reference center.' The original contract value was for approximately $55 million per year plus a performance bonus award of up to 5725,000 quarterly. At some point prior to the following report a budgetary cutback resulted in a reduction of approximately 60 on -base Johnson Controls employees. The current year appropriation remains at approximately 555 million. The number of positions funded through Johnson Controls, Inc at SUBASE Bangor in 1993 was 900. The distribution of these positions was as follows: Public Works (utilities operations, facilities and ground maintenance, vehicle operations: 545 Protective Services (Security and Fire services): 160 Custodial Services 75 Mail Services 7 All other 113 The annual Johnson Controls, Inc. payroll from their SUBASE Bangor contract in 1993 was 524.497.000. In addition to Johnson Controls personnel there are large numbers of other civilian contractor personnel on base. For instance, there are several hundred contractor employees working in the TRIDENT Refit Facility. We were also told there could be as many as 200 independent contractors on base every day. The only overall figures we have for the number of Contractor personnel are from 1991. At that time of the estimated average of 2,035 contractor employees working on base a maximum of 1,093 (approximately 54%) were employed by Johnson Controls, Inc's predecessor (continued) Contract Personnel and Payrolls (continued from previous page) Sow: T) The source for all data in the preceding section, other than dam in the second and the last paragraphs, come from a letter from J.E. Kaylor, Finance Manager forJohnson Controls dated June 13, 1994. 2) The dam in the second paragraph comes from unpublished resource material provided by the SUBASE Public Affairs Office and conversations with Mike Denton, Program Analyst for the Financial Resource Management Department of SUBASE Bangor. 3) Dam for the last paragraph came from an unpublished memo titled 'Manpower Matrix.' 8 BUSINESSES AND SERVICES There are a number of businesses and services on base including a McDonald's franchise, Kitsap Bank, Kitsap Federal Credit Union, the Commissary (operated by Defense Commissary Agency N.W.); Navy Exchange Bangor (operated by the Nary Exchange Service Center in San Diego) and activities operated through SUBASE Bangor Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR). MWR's businesses and services include an athletic complex, community center, youth activities, a latch key program, child - development/family home care services (day care), an auto hobby shop, Trident lakes recreational sites, a car wash, RV /Boat storage, household goods storage, an animal care resale store; the base theater, an athletic pro shop, a travel office, and a 16 lane bowling center with snack bar. MWR businesses also include restaurant, nightclubs and catering services such as 48" North, the Food Court (Parcheezi Pizza, Cactus Cantina, Oscars American Grill), The Razers: Club; Acey Deuey lounge . and the Khaki Club.. There are also other personnel services on base, such as the Naval Hospital branch at Bangor, the Naval Dental Clinic, and career counseling. We have personnel and sales data for the Nary Exchange, Commissary Bangor's McDonalds, and some MWR businesses and services as follows: McDonalds McDonalds has entered into a contract with the Naval Exchange to pay a percentage of profits for the right to sell their product on SUBASE Bangor. At the end of 1993 the McDonalds on SUBASE Bangor had 96 employees. Approximately 40 were full -time employees and the remainder were part-time employees. Their total sales volume at the SUBASE McDonald's franchise totaled $1,162,000 in 1993. Navv Exchange Employees as of July 6, 1994 Full -time 76 Part -Time 83 Temporary 76 Total gross sales at the Naval Exchange for fiscal year 1993 was $22,620,657. (continued) Businesses and Services (continued from previous page) Commissarv: Total gross sales for 1993 was 518,592,000 Total gross sales for 1994 was $17,960,000 The Commissary Is operated by The Defense Commissary Agency. Goods are sold at cost plus a 5% surcharge. The surcharge covers the costs of building construction and some other non personnel overhead costs. As of February 1995, there were 52 federal civilian employees in the Commissary. They are paid through appropriated funds. There are 16 full -time employees and the remainder of the 52 Federal employees are part -time. Additionally there are some comract and vendor employees. There are also baggers, who are remunerated only through tips. Bangor Morale. Welfare and Recreation The MWR is responsible for 36 activities in 7 divisions. MWR had 317 employees as of June 1994. The salaries of 74 of these employees were fully taxpayer funded. The salaries of 239 employees were paid by revenues generated though user fees and charges (NAFS). Only 45 of the 239 NAF employees were full -time, 179 were flexible employees (they worked up to 40 /hours a week and had benefits), and the remainder were part -time employees. There are three categories of MWR services based on funding sources. Category A: Mission Fssential. Activities (such as the portion of athletic funding used by military personnel). Mission essential activities are funded 100% through appropriated (taxpayer) funds. Category B. Community Support Activities (such as arts and crafts, child care and youth services). Community support activities are tax- supported up to a level around 70% of cost — the balance being paid through user fees and charges. Category C: Business Activities — supported primarily by user fees and charges, these activities are only directly or indirectly taxpayer supported to the extent of provision of space and some landlord type relationships. Some of the businesses Included in this category are restaurants, the veterinary clinic, the movie theater, the bowling alley and the travel office. (continued) 10 Businesses and Services (continued from previous page) The total revenues generated by all MWR activities in Fiscal '94 was approximately 55.4 million. Approximately S2 million was appropriated funds. Approximately 75% of appropriated funds went to Category A activities and 25% to Category B activities. No appropriated funding was used for the category C activities. Approximately 52.5 million was income generated from local fees and charges and $.SM was generated from the SUBASE Nary Exchange. Another way of looking at MWR revenue is that in 1993 approximately $800,000 was generated by Category A activities, $1.2 million by Category B activities, and 52.7 million by Category C activities. Some FY 93 MWR approximate gross income figures include "l.azers" $1,600,000; Food Court 5270,000, bar $80,000 and lounge CPO, $110,000. The approximately $5.4 million- revenue for MWR activities in fiscal year 1994 resulted in only an approximately $8,000 profit. Since the end of the fiscal year there has been loss of four positions as a result of slight revenue losses. Some MWR expenses include MWR's required payment of a share of the BOSC Contract (for fire and safety), payment of metered utilities, higher than prevailing community wages for the majority of positions, FICA, and approximately 2/3 of health benefits (the balance paid for by employees who desire more than the basic coverage package). Banks Kitsap County Bank and the Kitsap Federal Employees Credit Union both operate on lands leased from the Navy. Their current leases expire in 2005. If either lease is not renewed the facilities can be purchased by the government for one dollar. Sources Data sources for this section include: 1) A letter from H.S. Guess jr. Capt, SC, USN., of The Navy Exchange Service Center in San Diego, Calif., dated july 6, 1994. 2) A phone conversation with Sam Cagle, Defense Commissary Agency N.W., Pacific Branch, Fort Lewis, WA., on February 22, 1995. 3) A telephone conversations injure, 1994 and February, 1995 with Ken D'Amato, Director of MWR. ( coniinued) Businesses and Services (continued from previous page) 4) A phone conversation with the manager of the SUBASE McDonald's on June 7, 1994. 5) Several conversations with Mike Denton, Program Analyst, for the Financial Resource Management Department of SUBASE Bango, 6) A pamphlet titled - Bangor MWR,' and other resource material Provided by the SUBASE Public Affairs Department 7) Data for the section on banks came from page 11, chapter 5 of an unpublished document titled 'Master Plan Naval Submarine Bangor.' Originally this document was created In 1985 by Richard Carothers Associates, Seattle, WA. It has subsequently been updated. 12 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR RESIDENTS OF SUBASE BANGOR From 1990 Census The following census data for SURASE Bangor does notovedap with census data presented for the Hood Canal watershed in Kitsap County within other chapters. As less than 19 %of SUBASE Bangor's residents live within the Hood Canal watershed, census data for SURASE Bangor was not included in the census data presented in other chapters. Currently approximately 21% of the military personnel assigned to SUBASE Bangor live in the barracks an base. Another 34 %of the military personnel live in family housing on base. Approximately 45% of military personnel live in off base community housing. - In 1991, shortly after the 1990 census, there were approximately 5,924 military personnel employed on SUBASE Bangor. These personnel - had 9,260 dependents (including 3,658 dependents of submarine crew members). The 1990 census indicated that in 1990 there werel 385 people living in military barracks on SUBASE Bangor and 3925 people (792 families) living in family housing on base. The number of people living on base in 1990 was less than 30% of the number of military . personnel employed on base and their dependents. In reality, some of the military personnel assigned to SURASE Bangor live in military family housing off base and approximately 30% to 40% of the families living on SUBASE Bangor are families of military personnel who work at Klmap County locations other than SUBASE Bangor. Only the people who actually lived on SUBASE Bangor are reflected in the following 1990 census data SURASE BANGOR: AOE OF RESIDENTS (1990) Aspel -41 Age49F A98 X30 zx tx 1as4 uMer Age to 32% Ag61S b 00 49X 13 Demographic Data for Residents of SUBASE Bangor (Continued from previous page) 2 s 4 aesrasruum. I Male 5 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 2 Female 6 Asian or Paegk Islander 9 White 7Other nee 4 Black 6 Persons of Hispanic origin, total Other Race refers to people who did not check a box.on the census form for ethnicity that fit within the above categories 4 through 7 and instead wrote something to Indicate that they were of mixed race or simply wrote Hispanic. Hispanic Origin is a separate census category from all the categories above. All individuals listed under Hispanic Origin were also counted in one of the other ethnic categories. Included are people of Spanish origin or ancestry from Spain as well as Mexico and the Spanish speaking counties of Central America, South America and the Caribbean. (continued) 14 Demographic Data for Residents of S11BASE Bangor (Continued from previous page) Incomes of families residing on Sl16ASE Bangor in 1990 1 Famllin SIN Income ka man 55.000 2 FmAlMS ISM income 0,000b $10.000 3 FamIIMe ISM Income MIMI) W 512,6" 6 Fmnilim ISM l=ane 212,600 "10 ,099 5 Faml1W with income $15.000 w $11,099 6 Families ISM moms WIND "10,999 1 F0lniin ISM income $30,"0 N $4699 9 FURIUM wan income $32,500 W $MN 9 Famlrn wan imams 525,0" w $V,,u* 10 Famllin ISM Mcwne $22,500 W $39.9" 11 Famllin wan Income 550A" W $32,699 12 Femllin wM Income 02A" W $36.9" 13 Families SIM Income 6.15A00 W"F] 16 Famllin ISM Ncco a $31.500 W 559A98 15 Families with Mwme WAN W W.6 16 Families ISM Income M5W W 5 W SM 11 Families wM income BC5,600 W B61.b9 19 Families Sikh Income $61,500 W $x.999 19 Families Ivan Income $90.000 W $56, "9 " Families wan income $0,000 W $59. "9 milie 21 Families Satin income $ ",000 W $20. "9 M Fmnllies wan Intone$1;00010 $M 23 Famifcs wan Income $100,00010$130."9 26 Fonllies ISMS Income $125,000 60,M0 car a m"8 35 FamIIMS ISM Intone $150,000 m owe 15 Demographic Data for Residents of SUBASE Bangor (Continued from previous page) Highest educational level achieved by residents of SUBASE Bangor who 8 �vd HpSStUUmIvial ledecbiaW by resuenb d5UEAEE Reno[ anoart mer�e25 Sft n asue. t)l laneBngrsde a) Some college, no Degree 2)aditolitmimu .nodiploma S)AUocirt degnw 3) High school graduate S)Bacbek degree lincludes"uhmiancy) ]) Gradualist or prelesslonal degree Sources 1) Data In the introduction of this section came from an unpublished memo titled 'Manpower Matrix -for activities supported on station and off station in 1991 and conversations with Susan DaBell of SUBASE Family Housing. 2) The data on ethnicity came from a conversation with Sonya Steinke of the Bureau of the Census and a document titled 'User-Defined Areas Program Technical Documentation' published by The Bureau of the Census December, 1992. 16 HOUSING ON SUBASE BANGOR Rough estimates of current SUBASE Bangor military personnel are that 21 %live in barracks, 34% in military family housing and 45% in private community housing. Approximately 71% of military family are In pay grades E6 and below, receiving housing allowances between approximately 5450 /month and 5700 /month. In a county with high rents and low vacancy rates this results in long commutes or separation from families for many military personnel who do not live in military housing.. Currently family housing on SUBASE Bangor has a population of 799 families and approximately 2,687 people. They live mostly in 4- plexes or 6- plexes). There are approximately 702 people living in West Family Housing and 1985 people living in South East Family Housing. Roughly 30% to 40% of the families living on base are families of military personnel who work in locations other than SUBASE Bangor. There were 1,137 enlisted military personnel and 52 military officers livings in Naval barracks on SUBASE Bangor as ofjune 1, 1994. These barracks encompass 50 building wings. In addition there are also approximately 280 Marines living in Marine barracks on base. They represent approximately 70% of the just under 400 Marines assigned to duty on SUBASE Bangor. There are an additional 28 units controlled by SUBASE Bangor in Kingston and Winslow. An additional 520 housing units (mostly 4 -plex townhouses) should be completed by August 1996. Logging is currently raking place in a 100 acre parcel adjacent to West Family. There are an addition 34 units budgeted for FY 1996 in West Family Housing. An additional 352 family housing units have been proposed for SURASE Bangor on an 85 acre site near Southeast Family Housing. Funding has not been approved for this project. There are currently an additional 170 family housing units under construction in Jackson Park, near Bremerton (outside SUBASE Bangor). Currently approximately 20% of all military personnel working in Kitsap County live in military housing. With current military populations, it is anticipated that if all countywide planned military housing secures funding that figure will increase to 27%. Following down sizing on some other Naval bases, the number of military personnel assigned to SUBASE Bangor will increase over the next several years. There is no way to 17 Housing on SUBASE Bangor (continued from previous page) accurately anticipate the size of that increase. There are some educated guesses that housing will be required for an additional 1000 to 2000 families over the next flve years. There are currently approximately 1300 military personnel in Kitsap County on the waiting list for £amity housing. Sources: Sources for the preceding section Include: 1) Conversations with Susan DaBell of the SUBASE Family Housing Department; 2) June 1994 telephone camersations with M.S.I. Duncan who works with the BEQ (barracks housing for enlisted personnel 3) a telephone conversation with Marine Sgt. Major Pussly on February 22, 19951 4) Conversation with Act Schick, Director ENV Program, in June 1994. 18 PHYSICAL PLANT AND UTIUTIES Physical Plant On SUBASE Bangor there are approximately 480 buildings (excluding family housing) which comprise almost four million square feet SUBASE family housing consists of an additional 254 buildings with a total of 1,334,648 square feet. On SUBASE Bangor there are 106 miles of water lines, 73 miles of electrical lines, 54.7 miles of telephone lines and 36 miles of sanitary sewer lines. Sege; There are over one million gallons of raw sewage generated on base every day. Sewage is treated at KiUap County's Brownsville Sewage Plant and Is subsequently deposited in Dye Inlet. The Brownsville plant is currently able to process two million gallons a day. Projected growth on base and in the community will require the plant to upgrade its Processing capacities. On base there are oil /water separators at each pier facility and for discharge into the extensive SUBASE storm drain system. There is no. likely waste discharge from either SUBASE Bangor or the submarines Into the Hood Canal. Water: Much of the surface water on SUBASE Bangor is contaminated. Much of this contamination results from munitions handling and on base hazardous waste disposal practices (burning, detonation and direct disposal) between the early 1940's and 1977. Most base property is on the EPA's national priorities list. There are twenty-two contaminated or potentially contaminated sites on SUBASE Bangor. There are many active projects to evaluate hazardous waste area reclamation and water quality. One project alone has 50 to 60 employees. On SUBASE Bangor there is a sea level aquifer outflowing at Delta Pier, producing 4000 gallons a minute: The base also sits on top of one of the two biggest deep water aquifers in- Kitsap County. (The other large deep water aquifer is located under Seebeck). There are four wells, approximately 324' deep, Into this aquifer. This aquifer produces 1100 gallons of water per minute. Water quality is continually tested and this has proved a good source of quality drinking water. Most on base and off base experts we spoke with do not believe that water usage on M Physical Plant and Utilities (continued from previous page) SUBASE Bangor has arty impact off of the base. Some off base professionals believe that the Issue deserves further study as little is known about the relation between deep water aquifers and other water resources. They suspect that increasing water usage on SUBASE Bangor may possibly effect water levels in other areas. Utilities : Electricity is provided by the Bonneville Power Administration. There is also limited generating capacity on base. Much of the electric utilities operations fall under the BOSC Contract. Cascade Natural Gas has a ten year contract to operate on SURASE Bangor. In nine years; at the expiration of the current contract, their real property on base, including gas lines and easements, is to be transferred to the base. The base can then continue to secure gas from 'Cascade Natural Gas or select a new natural gas provider. Telephone services are provided through contract with United Telephone and Americal. The United Telephone Company operates on land leased from the Navy for five year periods. If the lease is not renewed the its facilities can be bought by the government for one dollar. Fire and Safety: Provided through BOSC Contract. The SUBASE participates in a mutual aid agreement among three neighboring fire districts. Included are resources planning, consultation and marshaling of resources in the event of a major fire. The base also is able to provide to major oil spills and acid spills both on -base and In the greater community.. Recycling Program: SUBASE Bangor has an extensive recycling program. There is an on -base drop off recycling center that has an on site attendant 24 hours a day (accepting 10 different commodities). Each family housing resident has weekly curbside recycling on the same day as trash pickup. Recyclable Industrial and office waste are also collected, including submarine waste. In FY 1992 the waste returned to productive use was 4.5 million pounds and generated $100,00 for environmental and recreational projects on base. There is also an area where grass 20 Physical Plant and Utilities (continued from previous page) clipping and other compostable materials are deposited for use in soil remediation. 1) Physical plant data came from a memo tided SUBASE BANGOR VITAL STATISTICS- provided in June 1994 by the SUBASE Public Affairs Office. 2) Sewage data came form a June 1994 meeting with Ray Hanna, administrator of Facilities and Utilities. Branch of SUBASE Bangor 3 Water data came from Ray Hanna; The Kitsap County Draft Compmhenslve Plan dated June 1994; Marie Peters of the Department of Ecology; Phil Best, Kitsap County Commissioner, Fact Sheet #7, Naval Submarine Base, Bangor published by the Installation Restoration Program in May 1992; and chapter four, pages 21- 22 of an unpublished document tiled 'Master Plan Naval Submarine Bangor.' Originally this document was created in 1985 by Richard Carothers Associates, Seattle, WA. It has subsequently been updated. 4) Utilities data came from a meeting with Ray Hanna (see #2 Above) and page 11 of chapter 5 of 'Master Plan Naval Submarine Base Bangor (see #3 above). 5) Recycling data was liberally paraphrased from an unpublished and unsigned one page report provided to me by the SUBASE Public Affairs Office titled *Naval Submarine Base Bangor Recycle Program. - 6) Fire and safety data came from a conversation in June 1994 with Sharron Kantor, Contract Specialist. 21 NATURAL RESOURCES: I would encourage the reader to consider avisit to SUBASE Bangor. The SUBASE appears designed to have Its many buildings blend into and not overwhelm the natural environment. 'Developed military facilities occupy less than 10% of the base. Sixty -five percent of the base is managed as commercial forestlands." Tim r, Coniferous and deciduous forests cover over sixty percent of SUBASE Bangor. The SUBASE forest management plan is based on a 100 year rotation. The SUBASE forest management plan goal is to harvest approximately one percent of the forestevery year. The would result in a cut of approximately one million board feet per year. An plan is to. harvest the oldest stands first The harvested areas are generally restocked with Douglas -fir seedlings. Recent harvests include 139,000 board -feet, in May 1990 (sold for 540,113); 59,000 board -feet, injure 1990 (sold for $9,978); 391,000 board -feet, in April 1991 (sold for $177,334); 10,000 board -feet, in April 1992 ( (sold for $850); 15,000 board -feet, in August 1992 (sold for $2,100); 380,000 board -feet, in December 1992 (sold for S202,870); 586,000 board -feet, in Apol 1993 (sold for 5435,125) and 37,000 board -feet ins July 1993 (sold for $7,500). Currently over 100 acres are In the process of being harvested to clear land for new housing near Southwest Family Housing. Lakes and wetlands; There are approximately 152 acres of wetlands and 135 to 140 acres of water on three SUBASE lakes. In addition to hazardous waste area reclamation and activities related to water quality, there are plans and activities geared to wetland preservation. Snecies Management, Blacktailed deer is the primary game species found on base. The goal is to maintain a population of between 300 and 400 animals of .these animals. Among the many other species on SUBASE Bangor are (continued) 'Fro Team, April, 1�3�— written and published by the Puget Sound River 22 Natural Resources (continued from previous page) wild turkeys that have been reintroduced to the area through a SUBASE program. Fish: The following fish enhancement dam is from an unpublished document titled 'Master Plan Naval Submarine Bangor.' It was originally created in 1985 and updated in the late 1980s: 1) A concrete fish ladder was constructed in 1981 to allow passage of anadromous fish between Devil's Hole take and Hood Canal. 2) Between 1981 and 1987, approximately 130,000 Coho Salmon were released from a SUBASE hatchery. 3) There was an effort from 1987 to 1992 to reinstate a viable Coho run from SUBASE Bangor into the Hood Canal. 4) In 1988, 200,000 Coho eggs were hatched and raised at the SUBASE hatchery. Devil's Hole, Cattail Lake and Trident Lake all support significant recreational trout fisheries. Trident Lakes has been stocked with rainbow trout on a put and take basis since 1981 In July, 1986 there were an estimated SUBASE population of approximately 550,00 oysters. From 1983 through the end of the decade, recreational harvests averaged 42,000 oyster per year. Sources- 1) Chapter five of an unpublished document titled "Master Plan Naval Submarine Bangor.' Originally this document was created in 1985 by Richard Carothers Associates, Seattle, WA. It has subsequently been updated. 2) Conversations in May, 1994 with An Schick, Acting Director of the SUBASE Environmental Resources Branch 23 CHAPTER 8 PORT GAMBLE S'KLALLAM RESERVATION • Prior to the 1930's the United States Government attempted to unite Port Gamble S'Klallam people with Skokomish people on the Skokomish Reservation. However, Port Gamble S'Klallam people kept leaving the Skokomish Reservation area and returning to their native area. The Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation was finally created in the 1930s. This Pon Gamble S'Klallam tribal area is known to its inhabitants as Little Boston. We will use the term Little Boston interchangeably with Port Gamble S'Klallam Reservation for the balance of this report. When Little Boston was created, tribal members had seen the erosion of the percentage of Indian owned land on other reservations (including the Skokomish Reservation) where allotments of land were made to individual tribal members. After a number of years individual tribal members could sell their land, to Indians or non - Indians. As a result of land sales to non- Indians, many Northwest reservations were reduced in size, and some were nearly decimated. In order to avoid the negative consequences of such allotment practices, from the outset Little Boston has been 100% trust land. All the reservation land is owned by the tribe, and there is no individual ownership of any reservation land. Demographics As of March 1995 there are 862 enrolled tribal members. There are 386 enrolled tribal members actually living in Little Boston. There are an additional 151 enrolled tribal members who live outside the reservation in Kitsap County. There are 325 enrolled tribal members who live outside of Kitsap County.' The tribe owns a mobile home park located on the reservation. As of March 1995, there are 176 people living on rented property in the park. The majority of households are families. Few of these, if any, are Indian. The 1990 census showed a population of 553 people living in Little Boston. A March 1995, there are 552 people, according to a tribal survey. The population ratio of Indians to non - Indians currently living on the reservation is close to that reflected in the following chart from the 1990 census. • 1 These population figure were ere provided by Phil Dorn, Manager of CommuNty Development for The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. s w 8 w s m e m E 10 i Port Gamble SKlallam Reservation ssx Gender and Ethnicity of Residents t 2 3 4 5 6 ] 8 8 8m ladYBelew CM rmale 7"an cr Pacific Islander 3 Female 8 Wier race awbim 9 Femora of Hispanic might, total 5 Hlack QdIRge refers b people wbo tlW not nerk a bra on rite maws farm for eNnidry rho fit nidlln the above megorles 4 through ] aM inneatl wroce something m indicete that they were M mixVI race m Simply wMe Hispanic Hisnnic nrioin was a sepvate census category from all the rnegoHea above. NlindMdualslis uMrHisre cndonwerealwwuna inmed the other ethnic cecegories. Inducted are people of Spanish wigin or ance5by fmm Spoin w well u Nexiw and the Swnish speaking counties of Cemnl Mlenq South Nnerice and One Gdbbean. • The following chart Includes only Indians who live in Urde Boston. It also includes all non- Indians who live on the reservation. Please refer to the dam presented on page 5 of the Census chapter for comparative dam from other locations in the Hood Canal watershed. I • Income The per capita income of Indian people who lived in Little Boston in 1989 . was $5,930. The per Capita income for non - Indian people who lived in Little Boston in 1989 was $9,085. In contrast, 1989 per capita income for'WhiW people in the Hood Canal watershed in KRsap County was $17,127.2 Please refer to page 13 of the Census chapter for a - complete breakdown of per capita income by area and ethnicity. Per capita income is the aggregate income of a population divided by the number of people (including dependents) in the population - Individuals with extremely high or extremely low incomes can significant impact the per capita . income figure for an entire population. Therefore, there may be many families living in Little Boston whose per capits . income may be significantly lower than the above figures. The following chart includes data for all families (Indian and non- 2Fati $withmcwte65.000W$Jo W0 14Far1iesw0 hincanc637,500to$3@998 3 Faries With hacrm 610,000 b 612499 15 Fades With i corre 640,000 W $42498 4 Fames with Income 61 ;500 b 614,M 16 Famlieawin hcarre 662,500 W$44888 S FmN'as w3h icarle 615,0001* 617,488 1] FstOies reN hlMne 6as,060 b 6n499 6FarBime401hcane$17S0Qtp618.88B 19 Far0iesWN- vcme6T/.500b6M,999 ] FarOiesw4h Ywme 620,0004622.499 18 FaWies WM trcme f50,000b 556.898 B FaNies Wih hlmne 622SW 46M,898 WFad0uv4N'vcpne �S,OW 4699,999 B FSnlimviltircane 625,0001062!,0.99 21 Fatiliesv9tll'plwne �,OW 4pg989 10 Fat01esW4irleone 6225W 4529.888 22 Faml'es v4N hlcprre 6/5,OW4699S99 11 FadliesW011[cme630,000tp$}2,488 DFaKFrs WN"vegre 6100.000b S12A,98B 12 FadliesW4ircone f31,W04$KM 26 Famliaawith (cone 612UWW 614R.M E Fadlies Wtlt 61mre 6'ISO,OW ortmn 2 Per tapirs income dam is from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing 3 Income (continued from previous page) • A representative of the tribal government estimates that the majority of Indian families living in Little Boston have an annual income of less than $12,000 per year. The following chart includes data for all households (Indian and non Indian) living in Little Boston. Port Gamble S'Khgmn Reservail n Sources of Household Income for Resident Households 2 Households with farm seKamploymerrtincome • S Households with interest, dividend, or net rental income 6 Households with Soelal Security income 5 Households with public assistance income 6 Households with retirement income l Households with other income (continued) • • 3 Persons with Income M m.76 of poverty level a Persarw with incmne.75 m.a9 ot ppymty level a Pwmia; wah Income 1.8o m 136 time poverty level S Persona with Income 135 to 1A9 Sawa poverty keel a Pensmis with income 1Spm 1.76 amen povery level 8 Persww waa income 1.75 m 1.0 ones poverty keel 9 Pena with income 1.95 m 1.99 amen poverty level B Pelson¢ with in care 3.00 antl overtimes poveMkvel Unemployment rates among Indians living in Little Boston has often exceeded 50 percent. According to Bruce Williams,. the tribal fisheries manager, there are 192 tribal members (including people who live off the reservation) who have tribal fishing licenses. He estimates that most of these people probably earn less than S7,000 to 52,000 /year from all finfish and shellfish activity. 5 Business and Occupations • the following chart Includes data for all families (Indian and non- Indian) living in Little Boston. Port Gamble VlGallam Reservation .Residents employed in various business sectors � w 33 36 e§ o 20 a MMM a dam 1 2 3 4, 6 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 iT Sre Wet &bv t gg6cWYe.bnsry,eM SShenea 10 FblYa.immamn,a�k aelenY i N.inn 11 Omar" am rapaixMces 12 Personal ser ices 41ArrpPSp"vg,mrtivahls goods t3 ErhrYlmieleartl recnafonseMeea 6 FLrrRessbg,tlYabYgoe6s l4 Pmiasioml &nk44 swa: aeaMaeMres 6 Tnnpoosion 16 PmBasnral &nkbtl: Etlum6mal wMga l 16 Pmkuimal &nlawdswa: Oter 8 Wlaksols R6e - 17 lWk adnYissagon 9 RetaasaEe fhe following chart includes data for all families (Indian and non - Indian) • iving in Little Boston. - Pod Gamble SWailam Reservation Residents: public and private employment in W `CO w 56 w 2 ID 2 i 4. 6 6 t 8n LeheYerA ir-M 16+ (continued) •. • Business and Occupations (continued from previous page) chart includes data for all families (Indian and non - Indian) 3 Tedi icians and mIaed aWportomupafons 4 Sales aceupalom 5 Adm aisirrhm cupportocoupalom, inciW i g dedod 6 Pdvae household occupations Proemw service ocoupolom 8 Service ucaupalom,exeaptpmeaive and hous fxiid 9 Famfrg,fuesay,an,amte ocmp from 19 Predsbopenmus ,n,arslhaW.antimpeworsm 11 Malice aniona a,nmedalmeA W i=Walo 12 Tmmers, eq i a W rmedal m. help os, andlab 13 Ha Wkrs,e4upna!mdeacers,helpers , arN laborers As of March 1995, only 14 to 20 tribal members work at the Pope and Talbot Paper Mill in Port Gamble. Many of these people are discouraged by frequent shutdowns and layoffs. The tribal government currently employs approximately 80 people. Federal funding accounts for approximately 55% of the funding for tribal .government. Most of the employees are tribal members. The annual Payroll is approximately $1,500,000 per year. Approximately 30 people work in the health clinic, including physicians, physician assistants, nurses, in -home care workers, mental health counselors, youth workers and substance abuse counselors. Tribal government also includes a pre- school, Head Start, tribal police and tribal governance. The fire department is avolunteer department, with many services contracted to other local fire departments. • (continued) Business and Occupations (continued from previous page) • The combination tribal store and gas station has annual sales of approximately $1,500,000. A major tribal enterprise is the development of the Salish business park, on 25 commercially zoned acres. It will contain ten to twelve tribal and non tribal businesses or industries that are deemed to be compatible with community values. The project has secured financing. Groundbreaking will occur in Spring, 1995. It is anticipated that this venture will create approximately 150 new jobs. A current project, providing temporary employment ro many tribal members, is the development of a septic system effluent pump. The Clean Water Act of 1987 awarded one half of one percent of EPA sewer construction funds to Indian lands. In 1988 $1,000,000 was granted to the Port Gamble SWIallam Reservation for construction of a STEP (septic tank effluent pump) system. Currently there is a $1,900,000 projectto connect an effluent pump to the line. Previously, individual drain fields have mused considerable cliff erosion on the reservation, especially at the Hood Canal coast line. This new system will pump effluents from residences and businesses to a common area with a large series of drain fields on optimum ground. The tribe also runs Its own water system — including community wells and a concrete reservoir. Following 18 months of study, in February 1995 the tribal leadership gave unanimous permission to develop gaming enterprises on the reservation. Construction of a center featuring bingo and other gaming activities could be completed by early 1996. Possibly as many as 120 new jobs will be created in gaming activities, security and food services. It is anticipated that any tribal member who needs ajob should be able to have one. Source: The non census data for this section came from Phil Dorn, _ • manager of tribe's community development department • Education Pre school and early child education is offered for tribal members on the reservation. Kindergarten through 12th grade education is not offered by the tribe. Port Gamble 5'Klallam children Irving in little Boston — attend kindergarten through twelfth grade in schools in public schools in the greater community. These schools are reimbursed approximately $200,000 per year by the Federal Government It is hard for many reservation residences to find the time and money for off - reservation higher education. The Evergreen State College and North West Community College offer some college level classes on the reservation. The following chart Includes data for all families (Indian and Non- Residents enrolled in various types of schools Port Gamble li'Rlallem Reservation 115 1) Enrolled in preprimary school: Public school 2) Enrolled in preprimary school: - Private school 3) Enrolled in elementary or high school: Public school 4) Enrolled in elementary or high school: Private school 6) Enrolled in college: Public school 6) Enrolled in college: Private school _ • (continued) Education (continued from previous page) - • 0 10 L CIIAPTER 9 SKOKOMISH RESERVATION 0 • The Skokomish Tribal Reservation consists of 4987 acres (approximately 7.5 square miles) in the Skokomish River delta area of Mason County. The Skokomish River flows through Reservation lands for approximately six miles, and the Reservation also features about three and one -half miles of shoreline on Hood Canal. As late as 1880 a federal government census found that the Skokomish Tribe owned 2550 acres of land within the Reservation and 40 acres outside. However, in 1887 Congress passed the Dawes Act, which reduced Native American land holdings in reservations and tribal sovereignty over reservation lands. The Act also dictated that most of the Reservation was to be allotted to each of the enrolled tribal members in parcels of about 40 acres each. The Reservation land remaining after completion of this original allotment was then sold to non - Indians by the U.S. government, who also actively encouraged tribal members to sell their Individual allotments to non - Indians. Because the original allotments went to private individuals within the Skokomish Tribe and not to the Tribe as a whole, no legal means existed to prevent the gradual erosion of the Tribe's holdings within the Reservation. In fact, this erosion is exactly what occurred until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 reduced this trend toward °alienation" of Skokomish Tribal lands and increased the power of tribal governments • in general. Nonetheless, today only about 3% of the land on the Skokomish Reservation is included in the Tribal Trust Lands- -i.e., lands that are owned by the Tribe as a whole. Of the remaining land, about 57% is "allotted" land (remaining from the original allotments to Tribal members) and 40% is "alienated" land (owned by persons who are not members of the Skokomish Tribe - -see fig.1). Some of the individual parcels of "alienated° lands are quite large - -up to 300 acres. It should be noted that the pattern of land ownership on the Skokomish Reservation is subject to change. That is, while the Trust lands can not be sold away to non - Indians, the allotted lands belonging to individual members of the Tribe are vulnerable to such transactions; likewise, alienated lands may be purchased by the Tribal Trust, and allotted lands may either be purchased by the Tribe or acquired through "exchange assignments" (voluntary transfers of individual interests in exchange for the right to live on the same or comparable land). Involuntarily transferring their heirship interests to the Tribe, individuals would prevent the possibility of either condemnation by the government (federal or state) or purchase by non - Indians. • • LAND OWNERSHIP ON SKOKOWSH RESERVATION TRIBAL TRUST LMlos N ENATED ax LPNDS eox r LOTTED UNDS M One problematic feature of the land base on the Skokomish Reservation is the long - standing aggradation of the Skokomish River bed. As the flow -rate of the river has decreased in the wake of Cushman Dams construction, the siltation -rate in the Skokomish delta has increased. In other words, because the river has less force now than it used to, a lot more river -borne sediment gets deposited in the delta area (where the Reservation is situated), thereby filling in flow • channels and forcing the water out of them. Thus, the Skokomish River tends to flood more easily and "pond" over a larger area than before. There are two major consequences resulting from this tendency. First, the amount of swampland in the delta is increasing (thus reducing the amount of buildable acreage); second, the water table is rising and thus threatening the already - tenuous quality of septic systems in the delta area. In order to avoid further environmental and economic damages from continued aggradation of the river -bed, the Tribe is lobbying - -as an "intervener" In the current Cushman Dam relicensing negotiations - -for increased flow rates in the Skokomish River. Tribal officials feel that an increase in the river's flow rate would not only help to reverse the trend toward aggradation, but they also anticipate that increased flow rates would facilitate the restoration of badly-damaged salmon runs on the Skokomish, thereby also contributing to improved economic sustenance among tribal members. n • Demographics The 1990 U.S. Census contains a block numbering area (BNA) whose boundaries are the Skokomish Reservation boundaries. In 1990 the Census found a total of 614 people living on the Reservation. Of this number, only 7096 were Native American, about 29% were whites, and less than one percent were Asians. (see fig.2). As of April 1995, the Skokomish Tribe lists 715 enrolled members. About 430 of these live on the Reservation itself, and most of the rest live in nearby areas of Mason County. Some enrolled members, however, live as far away as California, and a handful live in other areas of Washington State. Nearly 48% of enrolled Skokomish Tribe members are under the age of 18, a figure which has dramatic implications for future decisions regarding the allocation of social, health, and educational services. Tribal members are split about evenly between male and female. Housing and Sewage Of the enrolled Tribal members who live on the Reservation, • about 255 live in HUD - sponsored housing located on lands belonging to the Tribal trust. The remaining members live in private housing on both SKOKOMISH RESERVATION: POPULATION AND ETHNICITY IN 1990 t al As of April 1995, the Skokomish Tribe lists 715 enrolled members. About 430 of these live on the Reservation itself, and most of the rest live in nearby areas of Mason County. Some enrolled members, however, live as far away as California, and a handful live in other areas of Washington State. Nearly 48% of enrolled Skokomish Tribe members are under the age of 18, a figure which has dramatic implications for future decisions regarding the allocation of social, health, and educational services. Tribal members are split about evenly between male and female. Housing and Sewage Of the enrolled Tribal members who live on the Reservation, • about 255 live in HUD - sponsored housing located on lands belonging to the Tribal trust. The remaining members live in private housing on both allotted parcels and trust lands. All of these housing units rely on • septic systems for wastewater treatment, but many of these systems have not been maintained and serviced regularly owing primarily to financial limitations. Income Aided by a grant from the Indian Health Service the Skokomish Tribe conducted a random survey of enrolled tribal members In 1992 and 1993. Out of 234 tribal households 210 households lived on or near the reservation. Of these 210 households, 150 were randomly selected to be surveyed. Surveys were actually completed for 129 households, approximately 71% of which were located on the Skokomish Reservation. Figure 3, showing the relation of household Income and the federal poverty level, is from survey data. r9.3 HOUSEHOLD INCOMES FOR SKOKOMISH TRIBAL MEMBERS IN 199243 (Induden eo Olds m and ara Mereudn) On1ER BELOW PoveRPY tEVEL H1% aZK 1Ai ABOVE POVERTY POVERTY tEP0VE1rrV` LEVEL POVERTY 7memfrTeygr[�7 LEVEL The Other' category includes households that did not know or did not provide income data. (Income continued on next page) • • • Census data for 1989 shows that Indians living on the Skokomish Reservation have much lower per capita income than Indians or whites in other areas of the Hood Canal watershed. They also have much lower . per capita income than whites living on Skokomish Reservation land.(see figure 4) 118,00 INION Stgow sizon :+0,000 H.WO w.00o NAND tt,m w living PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1989 pindian �wnite $1],127 o @z Omt 0 Uee me 0a rY,e $Y 0 O x°'3� In otsap County does not include pe nation. The dam for the Hood Canal lude people living on the Skokomish Business and Occupations Unfortunately, there are no reliable data on employment patterns among enrolled members of the Skokomish tribe. We did not include occupational data from the 1990 Census as it lumps data for Skokomish 5 people with data for the almost 200 non Indians living on the • Reservation. Anecdotal information suggests that between 60 and 80 people are employed in Tribal Government, primarily In the delivery of social, educational, and health services. virtually all of the funding for these services comes from federal government grants and contracts -- primarily the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services --with additional funds coming from Washington State and from grant programs sponsored by non -profit foundations, such as the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. In years past, significant Individual income in the Tribe came from fishing. The Tribal Fisheries Manager is empowered to supervise harvests, habitat maintenance, and regulations enforcement with regard to tribal commercial fisheries. The Manager has also been involved with non - treaty fisheries and ceremonial and subsistence fishing among tribal members. However, the long -term decline of salmon runs M the Hood Canal watershed has forced most commercial fishers within the Tribe to abandon this as a full -time occupation (see also Finfish and Shellfish chapter). Currently, a substantial amount of revenue to the Tribe comes from the Twin Totems Store and Deli located along Highway 101. Tribal officials estimate that the Store generates approximately 51.6 million in sales revenues per annum, and an expansion of this facility is currently being planned. In addition, the Tribe has recently negotiated a gaming compact with Washington State and plans to build a casino in the area. The Tribe is presently conducting market studies with regards to developing the casino operation, and four specific sites are being investigated for feasibility. Education Please refer to information about the tribal survey under 'Income" on page four of this chapter. When asked what the highest educational level attained by a household member was, 48% of survey respondents said "some college," 28% indicated that the person with the greatest amount of education in the household had finished high school or a GED, and 24% reported that the person with the greatest amount of • education had not finished high school or a GED. Only about 5% of all • responding households reported that someone in the household had finished college (see fig.5). HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL LEVEL ATTAINED . Bya MOMWOMem r HM wColNge :Iw Primary- school -aged children from the Tribe attend the Hood Canal School, which is located on the Reservation near the intersection of U.S. 101 and S.R. 106. However, Skokomish social and educational services personnel estimate that at least 60% of children from the Skokomish Tribe drop out of school by the 10th grade. Thus, most Skokomish school children are not acquiring the kinds of intellectual and technical skills increasingly sought by employers in both private industry and the public sector. When considered in light of the fact that close to half of enrolled Skokomish tribal members are below the age of 18, the dropout rate is especially alarming. A number of reasons for the high dropout rate have been suggested. Especially important is the fact that the standardized curriculum does not take Into account important cultural differences between white and Native American kids. Some educators have observed that Skokomish children tend to be more right- hemisphere dominant than white children, possibly for cultural reasons. Thus, the learning styles of Skokomish children may respond more favorably to holistic educational approaches that combine intellectual growth with emotional and cultural inputs. Because Skokomish children may not respond favorably to the standardized school curriculum, they may tend • to be labeled as less intelligent or less motivated than their white peers. Thus, they are also more apt to find the public education process unrewarding or even painful than other children, which. helps In pan to • account for the high dropout rate among Skokomish children. Other factors that may contribute as well are a relatively high staff turnover rate at Hood Canal School and the difficult social and educational transition between the eighth and ninth grades ii.e., from middle school to high school). A number of programs (funded by the State of Washington) have been implemented to help remedy this situation. First, under the Habitat program selected school -aged children are invited to work with adults in the Tribe's natural resources programs (e.g., water and fisheries). These children acquire valuable "real world" experience in these vital areas, possibly spurring interest in obtaining further academic or career - training education. Furthermore, working In these fields also stimulates growth in intellectual and social skills for these children. Second, the Tribe also offers a GED prograrn at the Skokomish Tribal Center where people can complete their GEDS under the supervision of certified teachers. In addition, the Tribe has developed a Choice program in which primary school children receive their basic education within a more holistic structure that recognizes the Important learning -style differences evidenced among Skokomish school children. Finally, the Tribe also provides a vocal rehabilitation program in which approximately fifteen enrollees learn basic and Intermediate skills in electronics, mechanics, and other work - related areas. These programs have not been studied systematically enough to assess their effectiveness with sufficient accuracy, but anecdotal evidence suggests that they may be making some inroads into the educational and vocational training gaps among Skokomish children and young adults. 0 0 • CHAPTER 10 FINFISHAND SHELLFISH 0 • FINFISH AND SHELLFISH In this chapter we will present data that offer a profile of the economic impact of the fishing industries upon the Hood Canal economy. Most of the harvest numbers come from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Fisheries). The business and employment figures come from the Washington State Department of Revenue, the Labor Market and Economic Analysis branch (LMEA) of the Washington State Employment Security Department, the Shellfish Section of the Washington State Department of Health, the Planning Departments in Mason and Kitsap Counties, the Jefferson County Assessor's Office, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Additional information comes from the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Association (PCOGA), a private industry group. As with much of the data that we present elsewhere in our report, the numbers offered here vary somewhat in terms of how closely they approximate the economic realities we are trying to portray. The main reason for this is that each agency collects and sorts data in different ways -- different geographic units, different time frames, different assumptions for the purposes of estimating certain values, and so forth. Accordingly, in order to help the reader understand the data more fully we will highlight such differences as we present the data. Finally, we present the information in this chapter in the following - sections: first, relevant business and employment information; second, commercial finfish and shellfish harvest data; and third, recreational finfish and shellfish harvest and user data (and some economic ramifications of these data). • Business and Employment • Some of this information was also presented in the Business chapter. In the Klmap County portion of the Hood Canal watershed there are 14 firms involved in "Fishing and Related Services." The Planning Department in Kitsap County bases this number on land -use data, which thus excludes businesses and services that operate on land whose primary designation is residential. This data also does not suggest how large or small each of the businesses is, nor the specific products and services each provides. The figures for Jefferson County are for a more specific category , "Fish /Shellfish Processing." They too are based solely on land -use data from the Assessors Office. In the Jefferson County portion of the Hood Canal watershed, 4 firms are shown to be involved in "Fish /Shellfish Processing' lastly, the business information for Mason County- -which is based on business license listings from the Washington State Department of Revenue - -is the most detailed of all. Here we find 8 firms "definitely" within the Hood Canal watershed involved in "Commercial Fishing; with as many as 4 others "possibly" within the watershed (one of these 4 firms is "probably" in the Hood Canal watershed). An additional 14 Mason County firms - -all "definitely" within the Hood Canal watershed - -are listed as fish and seafood wholesalers, although this listing does not specify that these companies process only fish harvested within the Hood Canal watershed. By putting all of these figures together, we come up with an aggregate figure of 40 firms inside the Hood Canal watershed that are involved in the fishing industry at a primary level -- harvesting, processing, or wholesaling - -with 4 additional firms that are possibly inside the Hood Canal watershed. Here we should mention some of the limitations of this data. First, the land -use data from county assessors is not sensitive to cases where property may have more than one "use" Thus, small growers or harvesters operating out of private homes will not be indicated if the primary designated use of the property is "residential.- Second, the licensing data from the Washington State Department of Revenue (DOR) is disaggregated only by "Incorporated" and "unincorporated" areas. Thus, for Mason County, where the only 'incorporated* area is Shelton, DOR does not separate economic data pertaining to firms within the Hood Canal watershed from data on firms outside the watershed; rather, they separate firms based in the Shelton area from those based outside of this area. Consequently, all of our business data disaggregation for Mason County had to be done *by hand; as it were- - using detailed maps, company addresses, and telephone books to Identify firms operating within the watershed. The reader will perceive • at once how labor - intensive and potentially darn - insensitive this is. Because EMEA lumps fishing industry workers with those in agriculture • and forestry, their data are not very useful for determining how many people are employed by those 40 fishing-related firms in the Hood Canal watershed. . However, using techniques developed by Radtke et al (1988, 1993; cited in the USFS's Forest Ecosystem Management, P. VI -30), we can use harvest data to estimate the number of people employed in the regional fisheries Industry. These authors found that the Northwest fishing industry sustains an estimated .041 jobs for every $1000 of "fish landings" Thus, our estimated Hood Canal annual average of $5.1 million in fish landings for 1989 through 1991 yields a figure of roughly 210 jobs directly related to fishing in the Hood Canal watershed regional economy (see harvest data below). For commercial shellfish production in western Washington, the Pacific Coast Oyster Growers - Association estimates that there is approximately one industry worker for every $36,900 worth of harvested product. Using this estimator and an average annual Hood Canal commercial shellfish aggregate value of 52.52 million (for 1989- 1991), we calculate that about 70 jobs are directly related to the commercial shellfish economy in the Hood Canal watershed economy. - The Washington State Department of Health's Annual Inventory of Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas in Puget Sound offers reliable estimates of the number of commercial shellfish growers in the Hood Canal watershed, As of December 1994, the Department of Health (DOH) reported, 37 growers were operating on Hood Canal in Jefferson County, 7 growers were on the Canal in Kitsap County (although 3 are in Seebeck Bay, which is classified by the DOH as "Prohibited" owing to contamination from Seabeck Marina), and 39 were operating on the Hood Canal in Mason County (7 of these are in a "Prohibited" zone on the South Shore of Hood Canal). Thus, excluding those growers in areas currently classified as "Prohibited; a total of 73 commercial shellfish growers are operating on Hood Canal. Obviously, some of these are very small firms, but a number of them are large and extremely important in the shellfish industry as awhole. • Commercial Harvest Information: • Most of the information in this section comes from reports provided by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife - -a "Harvest -By- Species" computer printout and the annual Fisheries Statistical Report. The commercial data in both reports is generated by Washington State law, which requires that commercial fishers "sell their catch to a licensed wholesale dealer (1991 Fisheries Statistical Report, i). During such transactions the dealer must enter certain information onto a receiving ticket -- including relevant catch dates, the dealer's ID number, the fisher's ID number, the relevant catch area numbers, species Involved, catch numbers, catch pounds, and dollar values. Fish and Wildlife then enters the data from these receiving tickets Into their computer system for storage, sorting, and retrieval. The "contained" nature of fishing areas within the Hood Canal watershed. -I sh are harvested only from waters that are easily identifiable as "within the watershed " - -made the task of disaggregating this harvest data far easier than, say, accomplishing the same task for timber harvest data. In fact, the Department of Fish and Wildlife has already done this for us - -with one exception. DFW divides Hood Canal below the Hood Canal Bridge into three "management and reporting • areas" but lumps the extreme northern end of the Canal into a catch area -- labeled 42H (specifically for aquaculture harvests) or 25C (for non- aquaculture fisheries)- -which also includes Port Ludlow, Mats Mats Bay, and a portion of Puget Sound outside Hood Canal proper. Catch area 9 (specifically for commercial salmon harvests) includes Hood Canal north of the Bridge, but also all of Admiralty Inlet as well as Puget Sound from the south end of Whidbey Island all the way to Edmonds. Within these catch area designations data reflecting harvests from Inside the watershed are confounded with those from outside the watershed. Therefore, we exclude data from catch areas 25C, 42H, and 9. Some data from area 9A (Port Gamble Bay) will be included in the last section of this chapter. The reader should bear in mind that virtually all of the data in this report are for catch and management areas south of the Hood Canal Bridge (See Appendix for maps showing relevant catch and management areas). Catch weights from these records are given in "numbers of fish" (including shellfish), "round pounds" (to the nearest whole number), or both, and the dollar values cited here are based on formulas developed by Professor Crutchfield at the University of Washington, which Fish and Wildlife information specialists have adapted to their information system. Using these two sources of information in combination we have • estimated the total economic value (in terms of ex- vessel —or "farm - gate "-- dollars)of the commercial flnfiish and shellfish industries. Readers who are interested mainly in these Canal -wide aggregate figures may skip ahead to the Economic Values section beginning on P.20. Those readers who are interested in particular portions of the Hood Canal fisheries economy will want to survey the figures presented In the intervening pages. Readers wishing to know howwe generated our Canal -wide aggregate Income estimates will also want to scan the data offered in those pages. 0 Commercial Finfish Harvest Data • From their receiving ticket database (described above) the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has provided us with a comprehensive record of commercial fnfish and shellfish harvests in Hood Canal for the 5 -year period 1989 -93. Figures for the first four years are considered firm; data for 1993 are considered to be "preliminary ," although no major changes in these numbers are currently anticipated. The first commercial finfish data we shall present are for salmonids, largely owing to the historical, cultural, and commercial importance of these fish in this region. The most plentiful species harvested during the five -year period, as figs. 1 through 10 show, was chum, in terms of both numbers of fish and pounds landed. Although the data reveal significant annual fluctuations in the chum catch, even in the lowest harvest year (1990) the chum take was roughly 2.4 million pounds of fish. The greatest chum harvest during this time -frame was in 1992, when over 4.7 million pounds of chum were landed in Hood Canal waters (Including the freshwater catch). - (Commercial Finfish Harvest Data continued) • 0 The Hood Canal Chinook harvestwas substantial for 1989 -91, but then it declined markedly in 1992 - -by more than 94% below 1991 levels - -and remained flat in 1993. The coho harvest picture for this period Is similar to that for Chinook- -three substantial annual harvests followed by a decline in 1992 of more than 92% below the 1991 harvest level (see figs 2 and 3). • (Commercial flnflsh Harvest Data continued) The Hood Canal pink salmon harvest was substantial in 1989 but • thereafter virtually nonexistent. Finally, the Hood Canal sockeye harvest for 1989 amounted to only 88 pounds of Fish, after which it declined to nothing except for 9 pounds in 1991 (see figs. 4 and 5). (Commercial Finfsh Harvest Data continued) 0 • Figures 6a through 10b graphically demonstrate the overwhelming dominance of the chum runs in the Hood Canal commercial salmon harvest, in recent years at any rate. In 1989, chum represented a sizable 83% of the total salmon catch (In numbers offish); by 1992 and 1993 that proportion had risen to more than 99% of the Until salmon take from Hood Canal waters. a9Ae 1989 HoW Canal Commemial Salmon Hama (%bfal aaaam ) 49aa 1990 Hood Canal Commercial Salmon Harvest ( %mtal aatlman) ag9a 1992 Hooa Canal Commercial Salmon Momaj monam) If we examine the annual Hood Canal commercial salmon harvests for this period in terms of the number of pounds offish harvested, the industry dominance of chum remains nearly as pronounced as we saw in the case of numbers of fish, as figures 6b through 10b demonstrate. ro.ab 1999 Hood Canal Commercial Salmon Harvest Mlinal aoums) 10 • • U • r 7b 1990 Hoof Canal Commemial Salmon Rana[ Mog,l p,m o) Wa 1991 Hood Canal Commercial Salmon HamestManalpaumn) 1p.9a 1992 Hood Canal Commemial Salmon Harvest H:bdl poun6) 11 1983 Hood Canal Cemmemisl Salmon Harvestp6bYl Wind%) • Turning to the salmon egg harvest figures for Hood Canal, we find huge increase of more than 760% In 1993 over 1992 (see fig.11). Likewise, for the rainbow /steelhead fishery we find an even greater proportional jump in production numbers from 1992 to 1993- -more than a 1300%jump, in fact (see fig. 12). The last Hood Canal salmonid harvest figures we present here are for a small commercial steelhead fishery that is of limited importance from a purely economic standpoint • (see fig. 13) 12 C] ft-12 Hood Canal Conmercial RainbovAtealhead Harvest 1989-93 JMSP� ONO 12 C] • Finally, several miscellaneous harvests round out our account of Hood Canal's commercial finfishery. In 1989, 49 pounds of green sturgeon were harvested. Also in 1989, 25 pounds of rockfish were harvested; however, no other rockfish were caught until 1993, when only 2 pounds were harvested. In 1992, 58 pounds of octopus were harvested. In 1993, 30 pounds of Pacific cad were harvested, along - - with 12 pounds of aquaculture Atlantic salmon. • 14 Commercial Shellfish Harvest Data •: A number of shellfish species are economically valuable in the Hood Canal fishing industry. Manila clams and pacific oysters are far and away the most abundant commercial shellfish species, together accounting for around 90% of annual commercial harvests in Hood Canal during the period 1989 -93 (see figs. 30 -34).. (Commercial Shellfish Harvest continued) • 15 • Oyster seed, other clams and oysters, and a mix of other commercial species round out the commercial shellfish economy (see figs. 23 -29). After a banner year in 1989, oyster seed production fell by a whopping 98% in 1990. Native littleneck clams have maintained a small but steady share of the market, and butter clams had a strong year in 1993. • aN'Z Hood Canal Commercial plater geed Harvest 9BBd3 6934 Mod Coal Commercial native Lltlleneck Hams[ 1989-23 16 J L IUIQ TTT 16 Softshell clams were strong producers in 1991 and 1992 but declined by 55% in 1993. European and eastern oysters both had strong but Intermittent productions, and geoducks became dominant in 1992 -93, assuming more than a 3096 sham of production in those years. 17 0 CM 199043 Moh 10��j 17 0 CM 0 Figures 30 through 34 show the combined annual commercial shellfish harvests for Hood Canal (in percentages of total harvest Weight). Note the dominance of two species, manila clams and pacific oysters, which together account for about 90% of the total commercial harvest in 1989 -91. In 1992, geoducks contributed hugely; these three species accounted for over 95% of the combined harvest in 1992 -93. fig at 1890 Hood Canal Commercul Shellfiah Harvest l%man Wanda) mngem,zcram % P U% NOW IiaMecas 1% Manila Calm 58X 1 Las c1% Mbrcnms v% • (Commercial Shellfish Harvest continued) iil • (Commercial Shellfish Harvest continued) . 19 • Economic Values In order to estimate the dollar value of any harvest, we first need to establish some kind of unit value for each type of fish harvested and sold in a given year - -in this case, the dollar value to the fisherman (also called the "ex- vessel" value) for every round pound of fish sold. From the receiving ticket entries generated every time fish are sold in the state, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife calculates the aggregate economic value of each harvest species during a given year. Although ex- vessel values for a given species will differ according to time and place as market conditions vary , dividing the total ". vessel harvest value for a given fish in a given year by the total number of round pounds of that fish species harvested in that year will yield an average value- per - pound. Applying these statewide average ex- vessel values to the commercial harvest in Hood Canal will not generate the precise market value of the harvest, but since prices for Hood Canal commercial species vary only slightly from place to place, such average unit values offer a useful yardstick for measuring the economic value of the Hood Canal commercial fish harvest. By then multiplying the annual catch weight for each commercial Hood Canal species times the average unit price of that species for that specific year, we can arrive at figure representing the total economic value of that species in the Hood Canal commercial harvest for that year. Finding the total value for each commercial • species and then adding all of these total -value figures together will - yield an aggregate economic value for the combined Hood Canal 20 commercial fish harvest in a given year. We stress once more that these - • annual aggregates are NOT mathematically precise In minute detail; rather, they represent useful estimates for gauging the economic value of the fishing Industry to the Hood Canal watershed's economy. They are the best figures that exist specifically for the Hood Canal watershed, as far as we know. (q35 Annual Fggmga9ayalua: Xoaa anal COmmamXl ilnfiGlfuedl 3 z sm?m 3 ;OW,OW i f.w,wo a1.mz wz 1m9 1990 1 01 (Economic Values continued) 21 • N By combining the figures reflected in the two charts immediately above we obtain an overall estimate of the dollar value of fisheries in the Hood Canal economy. for the three -year period depicted in these charts we calculate an average annual combined aggregate of $5.1 million for the commercial fishing industry in Hood Canal. Shellfish harvests account for about $2.5 million of this total, and finfish harvests make up the other $2.6 million. Since we do not have an accurate estimate of the total aggregate value of the combined regional economy, it is virtually impossible for us to appraise the exact contribution of fishing to the economy as a whole. We can, however, use these figures to calculate employment effects (see the Business and • Employment section earlier in this chapter). The reader will also want to bear in mind that these three -year averages do not reflect some 22 Important underlying economic trends; figures 35 and 36 show clearly •. that the overall economic trend in the shellfish sector is upward for these three years, while It is clearly downward for the finflsh economy. Furthermore, it is important to remember that we really do not know the extent to which these aggregates reflect an actual -regional - economy for the Hood Canal watershed. That Is, our question still is this: what portion of the money earned by the Hood Canal fishing sector is actually economically productive within the watershed, as opposed to being earned within the watershed and then spent elsewhere. Many of the people contributing to the fishing sector probably live outside the watershed, thereby seriously challenging the notion of a truly regional economy. Finally, the reader will also want to remember that our aggregate figures are based on ex- vessel values — that is, the value received by fishers when transferring their harvests to wholesalers. Wholesale -level and retail -level aggregate economic values are likely to be anywhere from 150% to 250% (or even higher) of the ex- vessel values we have cited. • 23 • Recreational Fishing Information We include this information in our Fisheries chapter because It is clearly relevant to a complete understanding of the value of fishing to the Hood Canal watershed economy. The harvest figures we offer here may be useful In a number of ways - -to estimate the market value of the catch for the purposes of doing cost - benefit analyses; to estimate the value that recreational fishing adds to the tourism industry forthe Hood Canal watershed; to gauge the ecosystemic health of various recreational fisheries and thus their future prospects as part of the Hood Canal tourist economy; or a host of other potential uses that readers may envision. We have very limited anecdotal information concerning the direct impact of recreational fishing on the Hood Canal economy. However, this information suggests strongly that many small business owners within the watershed are heavily dependent on this economically vigorous but short-lived seasonal economy -- particularly the large influx of tourists who are drawn to Hood Canal for the recreational . opportunities it offers in late spring, summer, and early fall. To cite just one example, the Hood Canal recreational shrimp fishing season has grown shorter and shorter in recent years- -dawn from fifteen days N in 1969 tojust five in 1992- -but the catch levels and the numbers of licenses sold have remained fairly constant. Thus, for example, small regional retailers who rely on the influx of revenue brought by recreational shrimping have an even smaller window of economic opportunity than they did in earlier years. `J A number of studies have been published recently in an attempt to calculate the economic impacts of recreational fishing and other forms of tourism on local economies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service researchers have determined the following: recreational shellfishing is potentially quite lucrative to local economies; shellfishers have higher - than- average incomes; Washington State ranks fifth in the nation in terms of the percentage of residents who participate in this activity; most recreational shellfiishing participants are white, male, and between the ages of 25 and 44; a higher proportion of females participate in shellfishing than in hunting or angling; shellfishing participants spend more money annually on their sport than participants in those other sports (an average of $603 per annum); about 47% of their expenditures go for "trip related" expenses, especially food and lodging;. and, finally, in the Pacific region shellfishing enthusiasts spend an average of about 6 days per year pursuing this form of recreation (see the USFWS publication, "Recreational Shellfshing in the United States," 1991). 24 More recently, Cordell, Bergstrom, and Watson (1992) found that • the economic impacts of recreation on local economies were limited by the proportion of non - residents involved. That is, average expenditures from non - residents were significantly higher than those from local residents, not surprisingly, so the percentage of non - residents involved in any form of recreation is a useful estimator of the local economic impacts generated by recreation. Unfortunately, data on license purchases and user -trip activity for recreational finfishing and shellfishing suggests that upwards of 90% of all participants in these sports on Hood Canal are Washington residents. For recreational shrimp fishing this percentage hovers consistently at about 95 %, so the total economic Impact on the regional economy may not be as great as some had previously hoped owing to consistently low levels of non- resident participants. In any event, a comprehensive analysis of the full impacts of recreational fishing on the Hood Canal economy Is beyond the scope of our project. Certainly additional data and further study In this area are warranted. 25 • Recreational Finfish The figures in this section are organized like those In the commercial section -finfishing first, shellfishing second. We begin with recreational salmon fishing. Figure 39 shows the overall trend in Hood Canal recreational salmon catches - -from a high of nearly 27,000 salmon in 1978 to a low of 1618 salmon in 1990. fi999 Hood Care) Annual Spit Sahan Catch: 1a9921aam) I m fi¢ao Hood Caul Salmon Catch &&Angler Trips :1990 -92 �^Fd' 1990 1991 low The numerical discrepancies between figures 39 and 40 stem from the fact that some reporting areas used in figure 40 were not used in figure 39. Figures 40 through 44 show annual Hood Canal sport catches for individual species. These graphs are for marine sport salmon fishing. Almost all of the freshwater sport salmon catch in the Hood Canal watershed comes from two rivers - -the Quilcene and the Skokomish -- except in 1989, when nearly 900 fish were taken from the • Dosewallips (over 2000 salmon were taken from the other two rivers as well). • Figures 45 through 46 (e) show the remainder of the Hood Canal sport finfishing harvests for 1990 through 1992. Numbers In figure 46 represent numbers of fish caught. (-t • 19W 1981 1988 18tl IM 1991 1912 W., 9 IlcotltYm h: CHCh, I 998d2 1"s ,M ,988 ,%9 ,99J ,m im ,M 1M ,BM 1989 ,9M ,991 29 • t-) • • Recreational Shellfish Recreational shellfishing in Hood Canal is also immensely popular. As figure 47 demonstrates, this recreational activity generates well over I SO,00O -user trips- (the total number of participants, multiplied by the number of days each one spent) a year for Hood Canal recreational shellfishing areas. Additionally, as figures 51 (g) and (h) show clearly, the recreational harvest of oysters from Hood Canal compares favorably with the commercial harvest of oysters from the Canal -- averaging roughly 15-20% of the annual commercial take. What follows is a presentation of 1990 -1992 data on recreational harvests for all Hood Canal shellfish species included by the Department of Fish and Wildlife In their 1992 Sport Catch Report. I* • k,47 Hopi Canal Reorea9iplal Shellnsh MeardW two-9x XgMLenbal,Gnbal,anE BOUN GnN •CHC OSXC imam Bmw ZODO 1990 101 1993 EE V49 tact llcaa qvl MacmnalMl cMm Wrvealyan slaMal ww rau.a _ cw aaMmr x�.. fig'so IM Kwd Canal aecmatimml Clam Mam (nnM ") Isam 9E 4 S E LV Ma wtlw 9maa f ak £on 11 wma wea Figures 51(a) through (h) show the recreational shellfish harvests for 1990 -1992 by individual species. Note the huge predominance of recreational oyster harvesting shown in 51(g) and (h). V.51(a) Wtlw lMereW (e) Manila Llama 31 • IN • Figures 52 through 55 represent the recreational shrimp and crab activity on Hood Canal. Note that the number of shrimp licenses has remained fairly constant over the 15 -year period shown, while the fishing period has declined steadily. Hood Canal S"d Shmnp Llconra Sold in WA: tall 1999 1999 lose Is" IM 1N9 1999 1991 1993 32 t. 1- 0 CHAPTER 11 TIMBER IN 0 • In this section we will consider some of the important economic aspects of the timber industry in the Hood Canal watershed. The - information we present here comes mainly from government sources: From the Federal Government, the Olympic National Forest provided us with copies of a number of reports, including the federal Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team's Forest Ecosystem Management. An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment (1993), and Olympic National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (1994). as well as valuable assistance in interpreting the contents of those reports. From Washington State government, the Timber Tax Division of the Department of Revenue and the Forest Landowner Assistance Section of the Department of Natural Resources both provided us with data on timber harvest value and tax policy trends; the Forest Practices Section and the Division of Information Systems at the Department of Natural Resources provided us with a printout summarizing all Forest Practice Permit Applications during the period 1989 -1993, and they also offered expert guidance on how to interpret this information; the Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team (housed in the Department of N Ecology) offered expert assistance and information as well as copies of their published reports - -Lower Hood Canal Watershed (1991) and Upper Hood Canal Watershed (1993). The Mason County Assessors Office provided as with data on property values in the watershed, as well as expert guidance on the subject of forest tax programs. Computer Multiple Listing Service, Inc., a private real estate service, provided us with land transaction information for Kltsap and Jefferson Counties. Finally, several private timber companies provided valuable information and expertise regarding the timber industry in the Hood Canal watershed. Historic Overview Because the demand for wood products from the Hood Canal watershed has historically been subject to national and international economic conditions, we start with a brief discussion of those "global" forces which have an impact within the watershed. We do this also because it is virtually impossible to isolate most of the forest - products • information specific to the Hood Canal watershed economy. Thus, in order to convey much Information at all about the highly important forest products sector, we must present data that can not be cropped to •. fit within the watershed boundary-- mostly in the from of county -wide figures. Our assumption here is that such county-wide figures are representative of the forest economy in the Hood Canal watershed. For some kinds of data such as average stumpage values, this assumption probably holds true. However, with other kinds of figures, like those for average wages and salaries, this assumption may be less tenable since high -end wages generally are paid In the milling and processing jobs characteristically found outside of the watershed. Other figures, like gross volumes harvested in individual counties may reflect county-wide conditions that are less operative inside the watershed. The demand for finished lumber, plywood, and other products is heavily dependent upon conditions In the national and regional housing market. A national recession In the housing market during the early 1980s, for example, toppled nationwide lumber production from a then - historic high of more than 30 billion board -feet in 1977 down to a production low of less than 25 billion board -feet In 1982. Although nationwide timber harvest levels have rebounded substantially since that time, timber- related employment has not kept pace. Some major reasons for this employment lag are the timber industry's Increasing reliance on log exports in recent years and also productivity improvements that have made the industry less labor- intensive. Thus, employment in mills has tended to be stagnant since the logs that those mills might have processed in days gone by are now shipped overseas, often to markets in Asia where raw logs from the Pacific Northwest have commanded top prices in recent years. The Impact of the 1980s national recession on timber production In Washington State was both immediate and dramatic. From a statewide harvest level of around 7 billion board -feet In 1979, timber production dropped to less than 5 billion board -feet in 1981. The impact of this drop on employment was dramatic. From a historic high of more than 75,000 statewide jobs in the timber and forest products industry in 1977, employment in this sector declined to around 57,000 jobs in 1982. Since then statewide employment levels in the timber products industry have never risen above 64,000 jobs in a given year (the high was In 1989), and at present the statewide level of employment in the timber Industry hovers between 57,000 and 60,000 total jobs. The one exception to this general rule is in the "secondary" portion of the timber economy - -paper production and finished wood products. The pulp- and -paper sector of the timber products industry, one that tends to rely on "more stable and diversified markets; has . been marked in recent years (i.e., since 1988) by both productivity gains. • (roughly 10 %) and modest increases in employment - -about 1,000 jobs (Conway 4). On the whole, however, it is clear that the long -term trend in timber employment will continue to cycle downward. Automation and other technical improvements in productivity have decreased the Industry's traditional labor- intensive approach to production. To offer some perspective on this issue one needs only to realize that timber's share of the statewide employment picture has declined from around 14% in 1960 to about 7% in 1992. However, timber employment in Mason and Jefferson Counties has not paralleled this statewide decline. The percentage of jobs directly related to the timber industry in Mason County stood at about 13% in 1988; adding indirectly related jobs to this figure yields a total share of jobs related to the timber industry of about 38% for that year. In Jefferson County these percentages were about 15% (direct employment) and 37%(indirect employment) respectively (FE6, P. 180). However, Conway estimates that between 1988 and 1992 timber - related employment declined by about 21% throughout the Olympic Peninsula region. Local communities that are heavily dependent on the timber - products industry have historically been buffeted by large cyclic fluctuations in demand for timber products. Generally, industry "bust" M periods have been followed by "boom" ones. However, recent decisions regarding harvest levels in public forests -- driven in large part by triggering of the Endangered Species Act with respect to spotted owl and marbled murrelet populations - -have added to the economic woes in timber - dependent communities. This is especially true in areas of the Olympic Peninsula that have traditionally depended on harvests from within Olympic National Forest (such as western Clallam County). In Washington State it is estimated that by the year 2000 continuing federal forest closures will combine with intra - industry developments (e.g., additional automation) to result in the further loss of about 11,000 timber - related jobs (compared to 1988), with catastrophic economic effects on local communities (Conway, 1994, p. 37). The Olympic National Forest's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat (1994), adds, 'There are no major economic activities (e.g., higher paying timber jobs) in the federal forests which will increase when timber harvests decline" P. 308). We should also mention here that the Olympic Peninsula region as a whole has relied heavily on revenues from log exports; historically, about 43% of the Peninsulas annual harvest is exported, mostly to Japan (LRMP, III -182). Declining Japanese demand In recent years has reduced this outflow of logs to a degree, however. Since log exports from both state and federal forests are currently banned anyway, Impending decisions regarding harvest levels on federal lands will not affect the log -export market situation. Additionally, reductions in log- exports •: tend to preserve -value-added" jobs in the forest products industry In Washington State (Conway, pp. 24, 34). Log export reductions tend also to have smaller negative employment effects than changes In other sectors of the forest products Industry, since log exports produce "fewerjobs per million board feet of harvese than do other wood products sectors (FEIS 182). Figure 1 shows the dramatic decline In the volume of timber harvested from the Hood Canal and Quilcene Districts In Olympic National Forest. This decline is not due only to the 1990 listing of the northern spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act, but that event certainly has played the biggest role in national forest harvest reductions in Mason and Jefferson Counties. Some small resurgences in timber volumes are due to salvage operations in the wake of large blowdowns (for instance, the 11.41 million board -feet harvested from the Quilcene District in 1991). The reader will note the precipitous decline between 1989 and 1991 in the Hood Canal Ranger District, and between 1989 and 1992 in the Quilcene Ranger District. Virtually all of the sales in both districts have resulted from either commercial thinning or sporadic commercial salvage operations (source: Harvest Volume Summary for Olympic National Forest, Chris Anderson, personal communication). t!lnDer Naree9tvolume Nwel Care! aM D W icom D s W as - mrnpe NF M.L Ism 1989 1880 Ism 1982- 1993 [rY We should note here that dependence on timber from federal forests in the watershed was declining before the recent spotted owl closures. The Cooperative Sustained Yield Unit (CSYU) agreement between the U.S. Forest Service and Simpson Timber Company had enabled Simpson to rely on a steady supply of federal timber for nearly NI forty years, and during this period of time Simpson's own forest lands • recovered to harvestable levels of maturity. Thus, Simpson —far and away the largest private employer in Mason County—will have a stable supply of mature timber from its own holdings to meet market demand for the next several decades. In addition, under the terms of the CSYU agreement Simpson continues to enjoy a right of 'first refusal" on all proposed sales within the Sustained Yield Unit. Historically, harvests from public lands in Jefferson County have generally far surpassed public -land harvests in either Mason or Kitsap. In one often- overlooked but crucial respect the reduction of federal forest harvest levels will dramatically affect the economic balance in two of the three counties bordering on the Hood Canal watershed (Mason and Jefferson). This involves the amount of revenue allocated to county governments as a result of timber sales and other cash income to federal forests. By law, one - quarter of the cash income to Olympic National Forest is paid out to the five counties whose land the National Forest occupies. Each county receives a fixed percentage reflecting its proportion of the land in the National Forest. As the largest - contributor" of acreage to the Olympic National Forest complex, Jefferson County has received substantial reimbursement under this law - -more than $12.3 million in the five -year period between 1985 and • 1989, or roughly 45% of the total paid to the five counties in that period (see fy.2). Thus, the governments of these counties find signlfcant sources of revenue in decline just as demand for community services is rising as a result of distress in the timber economy (FSEIS 309). u S f 2 £ 05 county Receipts From 01y kNational Fond 1985 19M 1987 1989 1989 .Overall, then, the importance of timber - related jobs to local economic communities cannot be stressed too much. Conway (1994) • found that the implied employment multiplier effect of the timber industry on the rest of the economy in Washington State is about 5.2. This means that for every Washington timber job that produced "goods • for final sales," about 4.2 "supporting jobs" existed In the rest of the economy (p.18). Another indicator of interest here is Conway's finding that "[alnnual income in the industry averaged 437,490 per person, compared to the 426,800 average income for all workers in the state" (p. 15). In rural areas of Washington —such as most of the Hood Canal watershed - -the consequence of losing such jobs is that "these communities will experience absolute declines in total employment and personal income" (Conway, p.31). • • • Watershed Profile Unfortunately, much of the relevant employment data for the Hood Canal watershed can not be disaggregated to 'fit---either within the watershed boundaries or in categories that are specific to the timber industry. Census Bureau information for 1990, for instance, combines forestry employment figures with those for agriculture and fishing. Payroll data from the Labor Market and Economic Analysis branch of the Washington State Employment Security Department also combine timber - related employment figures with those from agriculture and fishing, so neither source is very helpful for this chapter. The Kitsap County Planning Department provided us with business information based on their land- parcel distribution data, and these figures show 14 'Heavy Industrial' firms that include lumber and wood products. An addition 19 firms are listed under "Agricultural Activities,' although neither of these designations is very specific. From Jefferson County, the Assessor's Office provided us with information based on their land -use data. These figures show 1 "Operating Mill' and 1 Wholesaler of "Lumber, Hardware, Farm Supplies." The information for Mason County came from the Washington State Department of Revenue information supplied to us by the Mason county Planning Department. These figures show a total of 152 'Wood Products' firms defnitely with in the Hood Canal watershed, all but 9 of which are listed under "logging." An additional 23 wood products firms are probably inside the watershed (18 of which are listed under "logging"), and another 52 wood products firms (43 under "logging ") are possiblyinside the watershed (see Business chapter). Some description of other relevant watershed features may be appropriate here. On the eastern side of the Hood Canal watershed, from Fairweather Bluff all the way around to the edge of the Skokomish Basin, forested land accounts for over 86% of the land area, or about 139,000 acres. Roughly 70% of this forested land is used for commercial forestry purposes (see Lower Hood Canal Watershed, pp. 6, 17; Upper Hood Canal Watershed, p. 107). Much of the forest stands on soils that are less productive than in other Umber- growing areas of the State (the upper Tahuya Peninsula Is one example of such a soil - poor area). On the western side of the Canal an even higher percentage of watershed lands are forested, although here most of those lands are within National Forest and National Park boundaries. About 280,000 acres of the National Forest are in Jefferson County, and another 136,000 acres are in Mason County. • Figure 3 shows the average stumpage values for timber cut in Mason, Jefferson, and Kitsap Counties from 1988 through 1993. In general, market prices were significantly higher in Mason County than in • either of the other two watershed counties, and more than 90% of the harvest in Mason and Kitsap Counties came from private lands- -much higher than in Jefferson, where in recent years the harvest of timber from public lands has been greater than in the other two counties combined. For example, In 1992 roughly 123.7 million board -feet of timber were harvested In Jefferson County, of which about 50.3% came from private lands and 49.6% came from public -- mostly DNR -- lands. In Kitsap County during the same year roughly 39.5 million board -feet were harvested, more than 95% of which came from private lands. In Mason County the total harvest for the same year was about 237.8 million board -feet, and 90% of that total came from private lands (Mason County Growth Management Background Report, P. 85; Forest Tax County Summary, Washington Timber Harvest 1992 p.13). Note the significant price jumps in 1990 (the year the spotted owl was listed) and 1993. Avenge TlmWrArlcn In How counties: 19884]' V ex NO erne 5 • i zm o W9 1889 t99 1Mt 1992 pn im GUq&amsry,M Cryttl Prv. In order to obtain some kind of profile of harvesting activity specific to the Hood Canal watershed, we used Forest Practices Permit data gathered by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Forest lands within the watershed fall into two DNR administrative areas —the South Puget Sound and Olympic Regions. Since information on all approved permits for clearcutting, thinning, partial cutting, salvage, and road building is stored in DNR computer files, we were able to acquire comprehensive records concerning these activities. Each DNR - approved permit is listed by section, township, and range, so using several maps we were able to Identify all harvesting that occurred "definitely within' or "possibly within" the watershed. The one serious limitation of this data is that it lists only DNR - approved permits for proposed activities in the watershed. We have no idea that these • harvests and other activities actually took place, nor do individual • managers at DNR keep track of whether or not proposed harvests really happened. Thus, these figures represent a hypothetical profile of timber harvesting activity within the Hood Canal watershed, an upper - limit estimate of these operations on watershed forest lands. Figure 4 shows estimated acres of clearcut logging in the watershed, and figure 5 shows the combined acreages for thinning and partial cutting. Figure 6 shows the acres of salvage - logging carried out in the watershed between 1989 and 1993. The bottom portions of the stacked bars in all three figures represent harvests definitely within the Hood Canal watershed; the upper portions of these bars represent harvested acres that are possibly within the watershed. Note the steady annual increases of around 1000 acres in clearcut operations though 1993. Thinning and partial -cut operations were more sporadic in this period. (continued) i C (continued) • In order to gauge the timber volumes these figures represent, we needed to make some assumptions about the "typical" yields from each of the specific timber operations. Consequently, we contacted Chris Anderson, Timber Sale Specialist for Olympic National Forest, who suggested that we use the following conservative "ballpark" figures: For clearcutting operations, we assume an average yield of about 30,000 board -feet per acre harvested. For thinning and partial cutting (which Anderson suggested we might fold together into one set of numbers), • she indicated that 15,000 board -feet per acre would be a reasonable harvest -yield assumption. We assumed that salvage logging operations iT nH • In order to gauge the timber volumes these figures represent, we needed to make some assumptions about the "typical" yields from each of the specific timber operations. Consequently, we contacted Chris Anderson, Timber Sale Specialist for Olympic National Forest, who suggested that we use the following conservative "ballpark" figures: For clearcutting operations, we assume an average yield of about 30,000 board -feet per acre harvested. For thinning and partial cutting (which Anderson suggested we might fold together into one set of numbers), • she indicated that 15,000 board -feet per acre would be a reasonable harvest -yield assumption. We assumed that salvage logging operations iT • • would yield less per acre than clearcutting since a considerable amount of timber can be damaged in blowdowns. Thus, we used an assumption of 20,000 board feet per salvage- logging acre. The results of our calculations are shown in figure 7. Let us take 1992 as an example. If we compare our Hood Canal watershed harvest volume total of 253.2 million board -feet with the DNR estimate of roughly 401.1 million board -feet as the total harvest for the three counties combined, it seems fairly clear that our Hood Canal watershed harvest estimates exceed the real harvest. Nevertheless, such numbers are useful as "ceiling estimates." We know, then, that the actual timber harvest volumes in the Hood Canal watershed must be lower than our figure for any given year. Additionally, if we use our price data from figure 3, we can estimate the economic value of the timber harvest in the watershed. Using an average stumpage value of about $300 per thousand board -feet, then, we can estimate the economic value of the Hood Canal timber harvest for 1992 at around $76 million. This figure represents the value of the timber at harvest; wholesale and recall values are liable to be quite a bit higher. Estimated Timber Harvest in HCW: 1989113' 'Year pe,mX app xM 9351 In addition to the timber harvest, another important economic factor to consider is the amount of forest land being convened to non forestry purposes. Figures 8 and 9 show the number of conversion permits approved and the number of conversion acres permitted in the Hood Canal watershed in the period 1990 -93. The acreage figure • represents the total amount of forest land being taken out of forest production in any one year, usually for conversion to residential land. There are numerous environmental and economic consequences of such • conversions, including Increased soil erosion, riparian zone deterioration, declines in salmon spawning habitat conditions, increased potential for non -point source pollution, and so forth. Additionally, the timber production capacity in the watershed is permanently reduced by such conversions. Number or Conversion pem9b burned in HM(1980 -1893r 'Ym pm^n aVpweE 1990 1931 IM 1899 F9.9 The last graph we Include in this report shows the number of miles of forest road built in the Hood Canal watershed during the period 1989 -93. The building of roads in forest areas, especially areas with steep hillside gradients is probably the most significant source of soil erosion in such areas. 0 12 • • s.. Milos of FOnrt ROatl BUih in HCW (1989- 1993)` pemayn xcx Nmcwrseucean pe�n9 app,vee Ooarnn+Nxxav ism ism 1991 1933 - ism Special Forest Products This economic sector has often been touted as a source of productivity that may compensate local forest- dependent economies for • the loss of their timber - related jobs. As we have already noted, though, - forest - products jobs, especially those in processing and milling, are among the highest - paying jobs in the region. On the other hand, most jobs associated with the gathering and processing of special forest products tend to be both seasonal and low- paying - -not particularly encouraging to an area hit by the loss of high -wage jobs. We also note that a lack of consistent record - keeping in this area, as well as under- . reporting and below- market pricing by sellers, makes it difficult to accurately assess the economic potential of special forest produces. We have reasonable data from a modest portion of the watershed- -the Hood Canal and Quilcene Ranger Districts in Olympic National Forest. The former district is about 9096 within the Hood Canal watershed, while only about 50% of the latter is even in Jefferson County, and much of that area is outside the watershed. The Hood Canal Ranger District comprises a little under 140,000 acres in Mason County, which amounts to 22% of the land in that county. Figures from that District indicate that less than 84000 worth of mushrooms and less than 440,000 worth of salal were harvested in the two -year period 1992 -1993 (source: Olympic National Forest Specialized products Synopsis). Although we have not studied this sector in great detail, these figures certainly suggest that special forest products will not come close to compensating for the loss of timber jobs in the watershed. r 1 U 13 • I• • n2i • I0 • MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE PARCEL AREA MAPS FOR KITSAP AND MASON COUNTIES For use with residential sales and land only sales. See Housing Chapter, Pages 15 -16 and 19 -23. The following two maps were provided courtesy of the Computer Multiple Listing Service, Inc. in Silverdale, Washington. Kitsap County Multiple Listing Parcel Map, (For use with residental and land -only sales) 25 I Kdr�tgeo C 2, 4 19 \` II 40 7 -2 4 2.g w 1 -7 t -6 0 £ 6! 6.5 . •s s2 -4 ila\ 19 \` II 40 7 -2 4 2.g w 1 -7 t -6 0 Mason County nitsap Count Multiple Listing ' " -Meson County Parcel Map- ' (For use with residental �nd land onlysa(es) ,Q Iy o Dewatto' lynch �lfeir '- Beards Co a. 'SHyad�' ss .� -Canal t. ®I Tahuya. All ho•od''�� a' / Canal - Hwy 1 1 • • ® ® ®a. ®•OM o ® ®0 ®I ®® Skokomisit Aiderbrook °'Grape n I to i 1 ery esrva on s I' 1 Cranberry Hw' Lake \ry` 1 Hartste I' - \ 'Island H \ \i..t amme" i R � f I / p .1, � j y Hwy, 102.� ' NEIGHBORHOOD MAPS FOR USE WITH KITSAP COUNTY PERMITS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION See Housing Chapter, Page 11. The following two Pages of maps overlap one another. The original map was provided courtesy of the Kitsap County Assessor's office. 0 • • • Kitsap Neighborhood Maps For Use With Construction Permits (See Housing Chapter -- P. 9.) I0) Page 1 O,t T Kitsap Neighborhood Maps or Use With Construction Permits (See Housing Chapter -- P. 9.) i i / I 1 j.. i i R2W Page 2 • HOOD CANAL WATERSHED BOUNDARY OVERLAID ON COUNTY MAPS SHOWING LOCATION OF CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS The three following color maps show where the Hood Canal watershed boundary crosses block groups in Kitsap, Mason, and Jefferson Counties. Within each of the block groups there are up to 100 census blocks. We determined which block groups to include in our report only after examining where the boundary crossed each individual census block. In the section immediately following these maps are reports, by county, showing which block groups were included and which block groups were excluded from our census data. We also show actual watershed populations for each block group. 0 • REPORTS FOR BLOCK GROUPS THAT ARE EITHER TOTALLY WITHIN OR PARTIALLY WITHIN THE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED. The following reports show the percentage of the population living within the Hood Canal watershed for each block group that is either totally or Partially within the Hood Canal watershed. We also show which block groups were included and which block groups were excluded from our reports of census data. • For block group locations in relation to the Hood Canal watershed boundary please refer to the three maps immediately Preceding this page. rJ • CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS IN THE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED, JEFFERSON COUNTY The attached report is 1990 census data for block groups in Jefferson county which have at least 50% of their population in the Hood Canal watershed. Block groups are sub divisions of Block Numbering Areas (BNAS). They are the smallest units for which substantial census - data is available. A number of tools were utilized to determine which blocks are in the Hood Canal watershed and to determine a range within which the population for the blocks divided by the watershed boundary fell. In 1990 the total population of the Hood Canal Watershed in Jefferson County ranged from 3,161 to 3,214. The attached census data actually captures 100% of the population of the Hood Canal watershed in Jefferson County. Between 90.6 and 92.1 %of the 1990 population Included in the attached report resided in the Hood Canal watershed (therefore only 9.4% or less of the population included in the attached data resided outside (though close to) the watershed. • Block Groups included in report: BNA 9502 BG #1 88.5% to 92% of population of 748 people lived in HCW BG #2 the entire population of 539 people lived in HCW BG #3 the entire population of 340 people lived in HCW BG #4 the entire population of 472 people lived in HCW BG #5 the entire population of 409 people lived in HCW BNA 9503 BG #4 64.6% to 66.7% of population of 243 people lived in HCW BG #5 78.9% to 81.8% of population of 738 people lived in HCW Block groups crossed by the Hood Canal watershed boundary which are not included in the attached data are: t) BNA 9503 BG #2 has one block partially in the watershed and no likely population in the watershed. 2) BNA 9505 BG #3 three blocks are partially in the Hood Canal • watershed. The total population of all three blocks is 2 people. CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS- HOOD CANAL WATERSHED, KITSAP • COUNTY The attached report 1990 census data for block groups in Kitsap county which have at least S096 of their population in the Hood Canal watershed. Block groups are sub divisions of Block Numbering Areas (BNAS). They are the smallest units for which substantial census data is available. A number of tools, Including GIS maps, were udllzed to determine which blocks are in the Hood Canal Watershed and to determine a range within which the population for the the many blocks divided by the watershed boundary fell. (Excluding Bangor, there were 4874 people in blocks divided by the watershed boundary) Ih 1990 the total population of the Hood Canal Watershed in Kitsap County ranged from 15,318 to 16,144. This report actually captures over 86.4% to 86.8% of the population of the Hood Canal watershed in Kitsap County. Coupled with the addidonal report, which includes West Family Housing at Subase Bangor, approximately 91 %of the 1990 Kitsap County population of the Hood Canal watershed is captured. • Between 80.6% and 84.5% of the 1990 population Included in the attached report resided in the Hood Canal watershed (therefore about 15% to 19% of the populationfeflected in this report lived outside the watershed). Block Groups Include in report: BNA 901.01 BG #1 69.8% to 74.5% of population of 1243 lived in HCW BG #2 94.7% to 97.2% of population of 552 lived In HCW BG #3 75.9% to 83.6% of population of 1388 lived in HCW BNA 902 BG#1 59.6% to 65.3% of population of 1089 lived in HCW BG #2 98.8% to 99.4% of population of 1622 lived in HCW BG #3 the entire population of 709 people lived in HCW BG #4 71. to 78.4% of population of 975 lived in HCW BG #5 47.4% to 58.4% of population of 976 lived in HCW This block group is included in our data as it is likely that over 50% of its population lived in HCW - • (continued) Census block groups in the Hood Canal watershed - Kitsap County • (continued) BNA 913 BG #2 80.5% to 85.8% of population of 1367 lived in HOW BG#3 87% to 91.7% of population of 2274 lived in HCW BG #4 the entire population of 826 people lived in HCW BNA 920 BG #1 the entire population of 1440 people lived in HCW BG#2. 63.7% to 65.1% of population of 1645 lived in HCW BG #3. 92.1 %to 95.6% of population of 369 lived in HCW Block groups excluded from this report as their HCW population is less than 50% of their total population are: Both blocks groups 903 and 903.99 (Subase Bangor) are excluded from the attached report - see supplementary report. Only West Family Housing, which includes approximately 700 people is in the watershed. In BNA 904 BG#1 only 161 to 204 of a population of 1360 lived in • HCW In BNA 913 BG #1 only 694 to 773 of a population of 1874 lived In HCW In BNA 921 BG #1 only 13 to 25 of a population of 1429 lived in HCW In BNA 921 130#3 only 452 to 493 of a population of 2084 lived in HCW • CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS IN THE HOOD CANAL WATERSHED, MASON • COUNTY The attached report is 1990 census data for block groups in Mason county which have at least 5096 of their population in the Hood Canal watershed. Block groups are sub divisions of Block Numbering Areas (BNAs). They we the smallest units for which substantial census dam is available. A number of tools, including GIS maps, were utilized to determine which blocks are in the Hood Canal Watershed and to determine a range within which the population for the blocks divided by the watershed boundary fell. In 1990 the total population of the Hood Canal Watershed in Mason County ranged from 10,662 to 10,780. The attached census dam actually captures 93% of the population of the Hood Canal watershed In Mason County. Between 96.8% and 97.6% of the 1990 population included in the attached report resided In the Hood Canal watershed (therefore only 3.2% or less of the population Included in the attached data resided outside the watershed). • Block Groups included in report: BRA 9601.98 BG #1 the entire population of 181 people lived in HCW RNA 9602 BG #1 the entire population of 1312 people lived in HCW BG #2 90.6% to 91.8% of population of 831 people lived in HCW BNA 9603 BG #1 the entire population of 340 people lived in HCW BG #2. the entire population of 1981 people lived In HCW BG #3 the entire population of 719 people lived in HCW BG #4 the entire population of 449 people lived in HCW BG #5 the entire population of 205 people lived in HCW SG#6 the entire population of 100 people lived In HCW RNA 9604 BG #1 the entire population of 1349 people lived in HCW BG #2 98% to 98.7% of population of 600 people lived in HCW BG#3 76.9% to 83.3% of population of 824 People lived in HCW • (continued) Census blacks groups in the Hood Canal watershed -- Mason County • (continued) BNA 9605 BG #1 the entire population of 511 people lived in HCW BG #2 91.3% to 94% of population of 780 people lived in HCW BNA 9614 (Skokomish) BG #1 the entire population of 614 people lived in HCW Block groups exclude A from this report as their Hood Canal watershed population is less than 50% of their total population are: In BNA 9601.98 BG #2 only 79 - 88 of a population of 353 lived in HCW In BNA 9604 BG#4 only 42 - 51 of a population of 931 lived in HCW In BNA 9605 BG #3 only 93 - 106 of a population of 295 lived in HCW • L 0 m • CJ _�u�• 1994 Ceum Block Group Boundaries car For Kitsap County P-7 em nAOe. Hood Canal Watershed E� n. A E�W.mmw - `..._dam. • • 0 .1994 Ce Bloch croup Boundaries For Jeffmon Comty a� u® F-7 Hood Canal Watershed as o� B'nrh®NA • �WVImEW 4e� 1994 Censer Block Crovp Bouadam air For Mason. County �DEED -- o,'e Hood Canal Watershed B w.m.em 11 ,R, -' y 1994 Censer Block Crovp Bouadam air For Mason. County �DEED -- o,'e Hood Canal Watershed B w.m.em 11