Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03- SEPA Checklist DCD Review
Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System SEPA Checklist May 2022 PREPARED FOR: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PREPARED BY: ESA 5309 SHILSHOLE AVENUE NW, STE. 200 SEATTLE, WA 98107 SEPA Environmental Checklist TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................... i ENVIRONMENTALCHECKLIST..................................................................................................... I A. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................I B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS..........................................................................................6 l. Earth.............................................................................................................................. 6 2. Air................................................................................................................................. 9 3. Water........................................................................................................................... 10 4. Plants........................................................................................................................ 14 5. Animals........................................................................................................................16 6. Energy and Natural Resources...................................................................................... 17 7. Environmental Health................................................................................................ 18 8. Land and Shoreline Use................................................................................................ 22 9. Housing.......................................................................................................................25 10. Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................25 11. Light and Glare............................................................................................................ 26 12. Recreation.................................................................................................................... 27 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation................................................................................ 27 14. Transportation.............................................................................................................. 31 15. Public Services............................................................................................................. 33 16. Utilities........................................................................................................................ 33 C. SIGNATURE.......................................................................................................................... 35 References............................................................................................................................................ 37 Figure 1: Project Vicinity Figure 2: Urban Growth Boundary, Core Service Area and Collection System Piping Figure 3: Overall Site Plan Figure 4: Wetlands A, B and C Figure 5: Wetland D Figure 6: Mapped Floodplains, Wetlands and Streams Figure 7: Floodplain Impact Figure 8: Shoreline Environment Designations May 2022 Page i SEPA Environmental Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable: Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System 2. Name of Applicant: Jefferson County Department of Public Works 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Monte Reinders, Public Works Director Jefferson County Public Works 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 385-9160 4. Date checklist prepared: May 2022 5. Agency requesting checklist: Jefferson County Department of Public Works 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): May 2022 Treatment plant and pressure sewer construction would be phased to allow for simple modular expansion of treatment plant capacity under future construction phases and expansion of the collection system in a logical and timely manner. Project timing and phasing is summarized below. Implementation of Phases 3 and 4 noted are noted as "Future" and implementation would depend upon development patterns, need, and funding availability. Wastewater Treatment Plant • Phase 1 will be completed at plant startup (estimated 2024) and will include 0.090 million gallons per day (MGD) of capacity. The treatment process will be using a modular membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment plant (two treatment units), that contain the majority of the treatment plant processes in a single, `skid mounted' treatment plant. Approximately 12% of the treatment plant site (3 of the 25.6 acres) would be developed to accommodate vehicle access and ancillary structures) ure 2 . 3 ? Construe ' duration is anticipated to be about 24 months. • The Phase 1 MBR components are sized to accommodate the Phase 2 (estimated 2028) capacity of 0.096 MGD. Page 1 SEPA Environmental Checklist • Phase 3 (Future) would be the expansion of the treatment capacity by adding a-n-add-it-ional two modular treatment units to increase the capacity 6--.-154 MCID. No —expansion of the plant footprin# is anticipate . about l year. _C-Co-ns-t-ruct—io—niduration • Phase 4 (Future) would be the expansion of the treatment capacity by adding ate-addifional modular aeration tank unit to increase the capacity to 0.283 MGD. No expansion o the plant otprin is and eipated. construction duration a u# year. --rvl;-044 Percolation Pond Area •-Phase 1-.(estimated 2023 - 2024) would be construction of the first percolation pond. This would result in roughly 3 acres being developed at the 13.5-acre percolation pond site (Figure 2). Construction duration about �� c. �j l-y►Irt 12 months. ■ Phasg_2 (Future) would result in development of an additional 5 acres. Construction duration about 12 months. Influent Pressure Pipeline Phasing 3 • Phase 1 (estimated 2023 - 2024) would be construction of the influent ctr•kS ps re sewer pipeline within the treatment plant site (Figure 2). C ns ruction duration about 9 months. 7��r1�nY {t� y viri�j 1 Prt-etslre- CPwPr C`n 1pelinn SvctPm PhnQinv \S-Alk-k� ?—e � die.' 7 • Commercial Core and Port Hadlock waterfront areas (2024 - 2025): This would be the initial phase of the collection system and is illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. The service area encompasses approximately 298 acres. Construction duration about 18 months. Old Alcohol -Plant Sub -area (Future): This would be serving the commercial parcels at the end of Hadlock Bay Road. The service area encompasses approximately 53 acres Construction duration about 18 months. od Drive Sub -area Future): This is the third phase collection system. The service area encompasses approximately 187 acres. Construction duration about 12 months. ■ Residential Areas 1, 2, 3 (Future): This is the final phase of the collection system. The service area encompasses approximately 752 acres. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No further additions to the proposed project beyond those outlined above are anticipated at this time. May 2022 Page 2 SEPA Environmental Checklist 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Planning for wastewater service in the area began in 2008. Numerous environmental documents and approvals have been obtained to date. &4 Alf ►-4 Jefferson County Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan (Volumes 1 and A`4'ony, ' C_ �' 2) (Tetra Tech Inc., September 2008). Be-? A r F'vk'c �� Jefferson County Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan Update (Final) AceP` (Tetra Tech Inc., February gO2I ). - 1,�(S bA V11( Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System: Environmental Report (ESA, 2011 [Revised May 2). {t t� 14y } �► Y ° Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System: Critical Areas Report and Habitat Management Plan (ESA, 2013). �+ f Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System: Critical Areas Report and Habitat management Assessment (ESA, April 2022). AeerAO( Z,l�, o-e Irondale and Port Hadlock Sewer Project Cultural Resource Survey, eOA Jefferson County, Washington (Tetra Tech, Inc., November 2010). ,4e��1 Cc Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Systems: Biological Assessment and Essential (00.e -%0(52lu&,/1' Fish Habitat Assessment (ESA Adolfson, 2009). Ac e-�,V-4 cze? — Geotechnical Report: Port Hadlock Wastewater Treatment Facility, Port�}J Hadlock, Washington (HWA Geo Sciences, 2011). —tom Hydrogeoiogic Evaluation: Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System, Port Hadlock, Washington (HWA Geo Sciences, 2012). pur- ,� �+ Phase I Environmental Assessment, Lopeman Property, Port Hadlock, I ! Washington (HWA Geo Sciences, 2011). Phase I Environmental Assessment, McCartney Property, Port Hadlock, Washington (HWA Geo Sciences, 2011). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Shold Property, Port Hadlock, ��rc Washington (HWA Geo Sciences, 2011). 1�t E'er —• Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Shold Property, Port Hadlock, Washington (HWA Geo Sciences, 2011). 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. There are no other pending governmental actions affecting the property covered by this proposal. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known: May 2022 Page 3 SEPA Environmental Checklist State: ■ Wastewater Facility Plan Approval - Washington Department of Ecology (received in 2021) National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) wastewater discharge or State Waste Discharge Permit (SWDP) — Washington Department of Ecology 3 • Reclaimed Water and Wastewater Permit — Washington Department of Ecology Y ■ Water Reclamation Standards Compliance — Washington Departments of Ecology and Health S • NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit — Washington Department of Ecology • Air Quality Order of Approval to Construct— Olympic Clean Air Agency Local: 7 • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit — Jefferson County e • Critical Areas Review — Jefferson County `Y ■ Site Plan Approval (and associated approvals) - Jefferson County 1z- • Conditional Use Permit — Jefferson County ri a Floodplain Development Permit — Jefferson County IZ • Grading Permit— Jefferson County /j • International Fire Code Compliance — Jefferson County �. • Building Permit — Jefferson County • Right of Way Permit — Jefferson County 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Jefferson County (County) is proposing to construct a sewer collections stem, wastewater treatment plant, and reuse 5 Stem to serve the Irondale and Port Hadlock sewer service area to meet regulatory requirements and projected growth through 2041(Figures 1 and 2). As part of its planning activities under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the County has designated the communities of Irondale and Port Hadlock as an unincorporated Urban Growth Area (UGA), with a sewer service area encompassing the entire UGA boundary. This effort began in the early 1990s with the start of GMA Planning. A centralized sewer service facility has been considered for the Irondale and Port Hadlock area for more than 30 years, as it is the most densely populated area (number of households per square mile) of the County second to the City of Port Townsend. Jefferson County's 1998 Comprehensive Plan reflected the UGA considerations and density discussions. This was followed by several years of May 2022 Page 4 SEPA Environmental Checklist evaluation and environmental analysis culminating with completion of the Tri- Area/Glen Cove Special Study, incorporated as the Final Supplemental EIS for the Comprehensive Plan. The Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA boundary was adopted in 2002. Based on the year 2010 Census, the estimated base year resident population is 3,219. Urban capital facilities are needed to a ri ro ately plan for the development of the lrondale/Port H k-UGA_(Jefferson County, 2004). ' 36 , 7dh1 2 Owl Planning and design for wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse facilities is being conducted to protect water quality in Puget Sound as well as the health of area residents. The project will allow sewer capacity to mate po.row" in a cost-effective manner that minimize pnten6a2 harm to the environment. Planning Es comp Fete- and the Department of Ecology Approved a Wastewater Facility Plan in 2008 and an Updated Plan in 2021. Design is currently underway, and project elements are provided below. �eiementsnclude the following: Wastewater Collection System: Construction of a pressure sewer system for wastewater collection; Effluent Reuse: Land application and groundwater recharge via surface percolation of treated effluent into a rapid rate percolation basin; 3. Wastewater Treatment: Construction of a wastewater treatment facility using a membrane bioreactor (MBR) system that produces reliable Class A reclaimed water; Disinfection: Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection of treated effluent; and Solids Handling and Reuse: Solids and/or decanted solids would be stored on -site before being hauled off -site for handling. The County is proposing to construct the wastewater treatment plant to meet expected regulatory requirements and projected growth through 2041. Treatment plant construction has been phased to provide a more viable project funding package, and allow for simple modular expansion of treatment capacity under future construction base (Tetra Tech, 2021). Sewer service implementation would be phased as described in Question 6. At each connection (residential or commercial), a grinder pump would be installed underground in a roughly 2.5 foot by 6-foot deep vault to collect the wastewater from the building and send it to the collection system. At a typical residence, the grinder pump would operate 10 to 30 times per day for 1 to 2 minutes at a time, depending upon water usage. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While May 2022 Page 5 SEPA Environmental Checklist you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The Port Hadlock Sewer Planning Area (PHSPA) is generally bordered by Port Townsend Bay on the east, Elkins and Lopeman Roads on the south, Chimacum Creek on the north, and State Route (SR) 19 on the west (Figure 1). According to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the UGA sewer service area boundary encompasses approximately 1,320 acres (Figure 2). The proposed facilities are located at the following sites: ■ The proposed treatment plant site is a 25.6-acre property located approximately 650 feet north of Lopeman oad and approximately 900 feet south of Ness' Corner Road (SR 116) (Figure 3). • Approximately 1,500 linear feet of influent pipeline south of Ness' Corner Road to reach t e treatment plant. • The reuse site is a 13.5-acre_ property located immediately south of Lopeman Road (Figure 3). • The study area also includes approximately 3 miles of local collection e�werpipelines within the Core Service Area to reach the treatment ia«t (Figure 2). Local collection systems will be constructed throughout the UGA in future phases as described above in Question 6. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth A geotechnical investi at ion was performed at the project site by HWA fps Geo Sciences, In 2012 . he work included a review of existing subsurface information for the property as well as drilling 5 borings and 19 test pits on the project site. Information from this report is summarized in this section and incorporated throughout the SEPA Checklist as appropriate. a. General description of the site (underline): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Ground elevations within the PHSPA range from 0 to 130 feet above sea level. The terrain gently slopes across most of the PHSPA. The topography in the area of the proposed wastewater plant and percolation pond sites is generally flat. Elevations range from 90 feet close to Chimacum Creek to 120 feet near Chimacum Road. The topography throughout the service area is generally flat to rolling, with a steep slope down toward Port Townsend Bay. May 2022 Page 6 SEPA Environmental Checklist b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope yv'thin the PHSPA. is 5Q percent or greater near the nct`�L, c( coastline. The steepest slope on the wastewater and percolation pond sites is approximately 50 percent. 5S C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The PHSPA is underlain by relatively well -drained granular soils. Most of the area contains three major soil types: Cassolary sandy loam, Dick loamy sand, and HoMus gravelly sandy loam. The treatment plant and reuse sites are olgravel quarries with well -drained granular soils. The Cassolary series consists of well -drained soils on upland terraces, formed in reworked glacial and marine sediments. The Dick series consists of somewhat excessively drained, sandy soils, formed in glacial outwash on plaints and terraces. The Hoypus series consists of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly soils, formed in glacial outwash on terraces. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) map for Jefferson County indicates that soils in the site vicinity consist of Hoypus gravelly sandy, loam 15 to 30percent slopes, McMurray and Mukilte_a__peat_s_ and Wapato silty clay loam. t/The collection system would be constructed within previously disturbed areas within existing developed road prisms. d. Are there any surface indications or a history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Unstable slopes are identified along much of the coastal shoreline in the county, in areas with slopes greater than 15 percent. No unstable slopes +J have been identified on the treatment plant or percolation pond sites. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities of total affected area of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Filling and grading would be needed for construction of the project as a whole. Excavations for the treatment plant and percolation ponds would ✓ be required. The project would lance cut and fill volumes of approximate) 13 500 cubic and n the treatment plant and percolation l n4�� ► ��rY•77e o F pond sites. Excavation will also occur within the right of way for roughly ``�"��' ��• 3 miles of collection system piping, resulting in excavation volume of May2022�' 1p ` !�� Page 7 SEPA Environmental Checklist ,ought—�d,5QD cubic yar . The road surfaces would be restored to "5"tt existing conditions. �°�llCS>`t'rr✓� j7�> �« f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. As with any construction project there is the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur. These impacts are anticipated to be minor as the proposed construction locations are relatively flat, and construction Best Management Practices-�would be employed to minimize the amount of erosion and sediment leaving construction areas. Construction of the collection system would occur within existing developed roadways in the UGA. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The wastewater treatment plant footprint would likely be 3� acres with an additional 3 acres reserved for potential expansion and buffers. A, S;V Approximately 11 percent of the treatment plant.�i would be covered with impervious surface by construction of the treatment plant and appurtenances. Construction of the collection system will not result in any dditional impervious surface area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: During constructiwould be employed to minimize the amount of erosion and sedimen eaving construction areas. The BMPs would be consistent with Ecology's stormwater manual and Jefferson County regulations, and may me u e e use of inlet protection, silt fence, straw wattles, and sediment traps as necessary. Clearing would only occur in areas of active construction. Following construction, disturbed areas would be revegetated or repaved promptly. Temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) measures will be included as part of the project design and construction. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the project will meet the requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology and include measures deemed appropriate for the situation. The SWPPP would be monitored by a Certified Erosion and Sedimentation Control Lead. May 2022 Page 8 SEPA Environmental Checklist 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Some 4hort-term_ exhaust and particulate emissions would be generated by the construction equipment and activities. Vehicles entering and exiting the construction site would generate dust. However, these emissions would be temporary and short-term in nature. �>1 cln Foul odors can be associated with wastewatrnreata1Rqt o erations. The rY1�r treatment plant would be equippe wi the ability to install a carbon P���C scrubber at the headworks, aeration to prevent odorous septic conditions in sewage and sludge tanks, and would be largely enclosed which would reduce the potential for odor impacts after project completion. The �,,v6odors treatment plant site is well buffered from neighboring rp aperties and any would likely be diluted by the tune t ey reach the nearest property ' s line. The treatment plant would rp oduce Class A reclaimed water and should A/o Ar " have_g odors associated with the treatd-gffluent. No odors are �«•�[iI`rr :)Are anticipated at the percolation pond site or from the collection system � xP�jc 5�4.t�piping. b. there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. May 2022 There are no known off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the proposal. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. Odor -producing processes at the treatment plant would be managed to reduce or eliminate odors, aaAqLcribed in uestion 2.a. The proposed water reclamation facilities would conform to applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act CAA . In Washington State the CAA is implemented through air quality regulations for Washin t� Un State WAC 173-400 through 173-492) and regulations of specific sector agencies an re Iona air ua rt a envies charged with air quality regulation. In the project area, the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency has jurisdiction over air emissions in the Jefferson County area. The agency's primary concern with sewer and wastewater treatment facilities is from odor generation. The agency has approval authority over construction, erection, installation, alteration, reconstruction, or relocation of any Page 9 SEPA Environmental Checklist stationary or portable device capable of releasing contaminants in the atmosphere. The project would incorporate measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the extent possible. Measures would include, but not be limited to, selecting energy efficient lighting and equipment, using local materials as much as possible during construction, reducing the number of pump stations as much as possible through the design of pressure sewer collection systems, and other measures. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The east side of the PHSPA borders ruget Sound (Port Townsend Bay and Port Hadlock, see Figure I . Chimacum Creek flows northerly across the west side of the PHSPA, and drains to Port Townsend Bay at the north end. Two small, seasonal drains es are located south of 3rd Avenue, whicc also rain to -Port Bay. not er small drains e, originating near Scott Road, drains into Port Hadlock. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and Jefferson County critical area maps identify several wetlands within the PHSPA. Most of the wetlands are associate with himacum Creek or the nearshore estuarine areas. There are several large wetlands located upstream ofthe ast and West Forks of Chimacum Creek, in addition to a lar a wetland located east of the o osed was ewiter treatmen_ t plant site. During field investigations, four wetlands were de! ni eated within and adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant site, reuse site, and pipeline easement corridors (Figures 4 and 5)`. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters:T_Vy_6s, please p describe and attach available plans. 7 (av�) No construction would occur within 200 feet of Chimacum Creek, as well as the three unnamed drainages described above. The �r _influent pipeline would be constructed within the buffer of Wetland D (Figure cal collection system pipelines would be �Y",4v, et�&'_J'44 +n constructed more than 200 feet from Port Townsend Bay. No work (A D& 01 Pr 9 will occur within any of these waterbodies. May 2022 Page 10 SEPA Environmental Checklist 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. e� U-W oC Pq.-wy q No fill would be placed within the wetlands or stream. An Ae-'eA?41 unknown amount of existing concrete fill would be removed from the buffer of Wetland D during construction of the influent pipeline. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. Surface water withdrawals or diversions would not be required as a result of this project. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The location of mapped floodplains are shown on Figures 6 and 7. The treatment facility is located outside of the floodplain. As noted in F-ure 7, a portion ofthe percolation pond berm_ is located within the floodplain. As a result, the project will balance uc and Mill within the floodplain and create a similarly sized flood storage area. As a result, the project is not anticipated to cause an impact to the floodplain. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. US65- �"�„�i�,e, The project would not result in the discharge of waste materials to 2ttiay-.— surface waters. Erosion and sediment control measures were SaSF� - �CG�bH�Gr,�c� described in Question l.h. Class A reclaimed water would be e `,f,tr applied at the percolation pond site and al owed to percolate to the groundwater system. This water may raise the &,roundwater Ne, rc51e11k fAf lG elevation at the site and result in more water in the local wetlands. F1r► ��m7r►c�'d ul It is anticipated that increased hydrology in the wetlands would ���{ result in enhanced function and value of the wetlands (ESA, 2021). May 2022 Page 11 SEPA Environmental Checklist b. Ground Water: Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Dewatering would be required for construction of pipelines and structures below the ground water table; however, there are no proposed depths afexcav tions anticipated beneath the_ ground~' water table. Highly -treated (Class A) reclaimed water would be discharged to percolation ponds and allowed to infiltrate into the groundwater system in accordance with the requirements and standards outlined 'r k11_e_kA'vv�A WAWAC in Chapter 173-219 WAC. The treated water would be discharged to t e rapt rate percolation pond and percolate into the subsurface groundwater system. The approximate amount of reclaimed water discharged in the infiltration basin would change over the life of the project. The maximum monthly flows for the years 2024 and 2042 respectively, are 0.06 MGD and 0.28 MGD. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Highly treated reclaimed water, consistent with Washington State Class A Reclaimed Water Standards, would be placed in the percolation pond for infiltration into the groundwater system. A Membrane bioreactor (MBR) system was selected for the Port Hadlock treatment facility in part over conventional activated sludge treatment systems due to its ability to better remove contaminates of emerging concern(CECs). The MBR system manu acturer as mdieated that their system will remove some CFCs and song-1 pharmaceutical personal care roducts P� PCPs). The amount orremoval durmg t e treatment process will i depend on solubility of the PPCPs/CECs. Following treatment, the reclaimed water will infiltrate through the soil at the infiltration ponds reducin an remamtn contaminant evels Further. The removal rate of these contaminants will be rently / occurring from on -site septic.Myste Ecology, 2021c). 11 uses May 2022 Page 12 SEPA Environmental Checklist of reclaimed water would be consistent with the Washington State reclaimed water sta ards and will eet all approved discharge permit requirem, nts cology and DOH, 20 Operation of on -site septic systems within the UGA would decrease over time as businesses and residences connect to the sewer system as it becomes available. This would result in higher -alit treat qument of wastewater entering ground and surface waters in the area. C. Water Runoff (including stormwater) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Sty) During project construction the work sites would be managed to control runoff and prevent erosion and sedimentation. The project would result in approximately 1.2 acres of new ev, impervious surfaces at the wastewater treatment site. Stormwater at the treatment plant site would be detained on site and would infiltrate into the soils. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. pp Runoff from the construction site has the potential to contain T'iuc 41t�, sediment and small amounts of equipment -related materials (motor U oil, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid). BMPs would be implemented to minimize equipment -related materials and sediment from leaving construction areas and potentially entering surface and ground waters. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe The proposed project would not alter or affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the protect. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: The project would be constructed in accordance with applicable Co"cee-n5 r eq(. state and local permits issued through Ecology and Jefferson County, which would specify a range of measures designed to 9 �u� ►'� reduce or control potential surface, ground, or runoff water impacts. Construction BMPs to reduce water quality impacts �� would include: W clot;^ �.� L �1►'{ %!of lb'e'R'l _�)C65Y21n7r�7�E� May 2022 Page 13 SEPA Environmental Checklist • Comprehensive erosion and sediment control plans would be developed and implemented for each phase of construction in accordance with the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology, 2019) or updated versions as they become available. The plans could include elements for site stabilization, slope protection, drainage way protection, and sediment retention. The proposed action would also comply with applicable erosion control standards for Jefferson County. • Spill and erosion prevention and sediment control plans, as well as observance of all applicable safety and environmental regulations for handling chemicals, would be in place to minimize risks. • Straw bales or silt fences would be used to reduce runoff velocity in conjunction with collection, transport, and disposal of surface runoff generated in the construction zone. • A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plan will be included in project contract documents. • To the extent possible, equipment will be stored and staged a minimum of 200 feet from surface waters and wetlands when not in use. R Refueling of equipment will take place a minimum of 200 feet from surface waters and wetlands. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass X pasture _crop or gram Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. X wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _other types of vegetation May 2022 Page 14 91 a,5 1'r z'� 7 I2! n-&6 C. SEPA Environmental Checklist What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? To construct the influent wastewater pipeline from the wastewater treatment plant north to Ness' Corner Road, a roughI 25-foot-wide corridor will be cleared and tided through the northern portion of the buffer on the west side of WetlandP. This area would be maintained as a vegetated grass area for maintenance access. Based upon preliminary tree survey information, it is estimated that up to 25 trees measuring 12-inches_ diameter at breast height (dbh) would be remnvec�dditional trees and woody vegetation overQ-"feet tall are present in along the pipeline alignment that will also be removed; however, the quantity of these trees has not been characterized at this time. The corridor is designed to be as narrow as ossible to minimize buffer impacts and still allow for pipeline — construction and future maintenance access. Approximately 0.91 acre of the Wetland D buffer would be cleared for the pipeline. An additionaLA.055 acre to the west of—th�rea ffient ant would be impacted by the gravel access road to the wastewater treatment plant. Construction of the percolation pond will impact the,buffer of Wetland C south of Lopeman Road. The impact occurs in an area that consists mainly (bare soil and invasive egetation with scattered debris (old equipment and structures). The buffer will also be affected by a small amount of excavation needed to mitigate floodplain fill impacts, totally 0.21 acre of buffer impact. Most of the disturbed buffer will be restored tcxe- 604-, *� construction conditions -ter the pond is constructed, but a small sliver of t'� the bu era i s outer a ge(approximate y 4,800 SF), will be permanently displaced by the percolation pond berm. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation lists Golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), a federally threatened species as potentially occurring in the project area. However, no areas of the project area have been designated as critical habitat for the species, and the species was not observed during any of the field observations. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Following installation of the project, the construction corridor for the INN{,+r4�c influent wastewater pipeline south of Ness' Corner Road would be restored. The area over the pipeline would be seeded with a grass seed mix (ESA, 2022). Concrete fill and debris present in this area will be removed, and the area will be revegetated with native plant species. The amount of concrete fill and debris present is unknown at this time. May 2022 Page 15 SEPA Environmental Checklist In addition, 1.4 acres of buffer area between the new wastewater treatment plant and Wetland D would be planted with native vegetation and trees to create/restore some of the 150-foot buffer focusing on areas where there is currently no functioning buffer (ESA, 2022). This area is currently devoid ue-. re s- , ,y' ofv_e�etation, consisting of bare ground and grassy areas. Installing native vegetation would improve wildlife habitat and screening between the new «S wastewater facilities and the wetland. Creation of buffer in this area of the site would enhance the overall buffer function of the site. Native conifer trees will be replanted at a targeted minimum replacement ratio of 2:1. 'Trees will not be replanted over the pipeline but will be placed in buffer areas that are currently lacking trees. j� 'Ili 1� As additional mitigation for buffer impacts, a strip of native vegetation (0.21 acre) would be installed adjacent to Wetlands A, B, and C to improve buffer functions of these wetlands (ESA, 2022). As discussed earlier, this buffer area is currently devoid of native vegetation, and the enhancement would improve wildlife habitat and some screening in the buffer. A portion of the buffer area (0.46 acre) that would be impacted during construction would be seeded with native grass, improving the water quality treatment functions of the buffer. This area is currently devoid of vegetation. ___ �� e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Himalayan blackberry (rubus armeniacus), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) and scotch broom (cytisus scoparius) were observed on site during the 2021 site visits. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eap-le, songbirds, other_ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b_ List any threatened or endangered species known to be on near the site. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program has mapped wetlands in the study area and along Chimacum Creek as palustrine aquatic habitat. PHS mapping includes coast resident cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink May 2022 Page 16 SEPA Environmental Checklist salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). None of these species are currently listed by the Federal or State government; however, coho salmon are currently a candidate for state listing. Threatened species mapped by the USFWS as potentially occurring in the project area include Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), Yellow -billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), but no critical habitat is located within the project area. The Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (ESA Ado Mon, May 2009) was prepared for the project and submitted to EPA. Concurrence was received from the National Marine Fisheries Service for the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation process on November 19, 2010. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Puget Sound area, including Jefferson County, is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other avian fauna. The Pacific Flyway extends south from Alaska to Mexico and South America. No portion of the proposed project would interfere with or alter the Pacific Flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. �4y it - The project is being implemented to im rove water quality_in the UGA by treating wastewater to Class A reclaimed water standards, which is a much higher quality t an can e obtained l'rom an on -site septic system. Improved water quality will benefit aquatic habitat in Chimacum Creek, nearby wetlands, and Puget Sound. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. No animal surveys were conducted for this checklist. Invasive animal species likely to be in the area include rats and opossums, typical of an urban area. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Construction and operation of the wastewater treatment facility would require utilities including electricity, communications, and water. May 2022 Page 17 SEPA Environmental Checklist Electrical energy would be required to provide lighting and run the pumps and treatment facilities at the wastewater treatment facility. All new construction will conform to the 2018 edition of the Washington State Ener�Gode. This code regulates energy efficiency in buildings an specifically addresses requirements for building envelope construction, thermal insulation values of building elements, heating, air-conditioning and ventilation systems, and lighting systems. The new MBR wastewater treatment facility and the individual grinder pumps would require electrical energy to operate. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This project is not expected to affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The treatment plant would be a new facility with iiew equipment that would operate efficiently and reliably, in accordance with current energy standards. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. With any construction project, there is the risk of potential construction related spills or leaks. This project would face similar risks, but all risks would be well within the range of typical construction projects. No toxic chemica would be used or stored at the construction sites other than fuels and other construction -related fluids. Should suspected contaminated materials be encountered, appropriate testing would be done to determine containment and/or disposal requirements. Class A reclaimed water produced at the treatment plant would be discharged to the percolation ponds for infiltration to the groundwater. Groundwater monitoring would occur in accordance with the Departments of Ecology and Health guidelines to ensure impacts to groundwater are not occurring. May 2022 Page 18 SEPA Environmental Checklist 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the gPx,,,lss, site from present or past uses. AU, I-.-- ( The Washington State Department of Ecology's Facility/Site database and What's in My Neighborhood Tool did not identify any contaminated sites with the projects limits. However, the Facility/Site database identified that the industrial area to the east of the project site was issued a general permit for sand and gravel mining operations to regulate the discharge of pollutants to state waters. May 2022 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. Since the project is installing a new sewer collection system, wastewater treatment plant, and reuse system there is the potential for construction workers to come into contact with untreated kvaste�r,, . 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Fuels and oil would be stored on site during construction to power equipment. Diesel Ibel will be stored on -site to power the standby - power generator. Some fuel will be used to test the generator during construction. Fuel storage will remain post construction and be part of the long-term operation of the generator. The following chemicals will be stored on -site and will be part of start-up and the long-term operation of the MBR system: 1. Sodium Hypochlorite (12.5%) 2. Sodium Hydroxide (25%) 3. Citric Acid (50%) 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. The wastewater treatment facility would not require any special emergency services. Page 19 SEPA Environmental Checklist 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Although not likely, accidents such as spills of hazardous materials (typically green cement or grout, fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluid) or other unanticipated construction accidents could occur which would degrade water quality and/or be toxic to fish, marine mammals, and birds. Project construction would be performed in accordance with terms and conditions of local and state permits ae'41 As that include protection of local water quality within the construction areas, construction equipment will be in a daily for leaks and cleaned of debris (if working near surface waters), refueling of equipment will occur a minimum of204 t-from urfa� ce waters,-and_equipinent, when not in use, will be stored or staged a minimum of 200 feet from surface waters to the greatest extent possible. b. Noise Operational mitigation measures for the plant would include: • Treatment plant design will include source controls to minimize the risk of contamination from spills and leaks in accordance with Uniform Fire Code regulations. Spill containment provisions include double -walled storage facilities and emergency cleanup procedures. The site would be sloped to direct any drainage from spill -prone areas (i.e., sludge loading and chemical loading) back to the plant for processing. • All stormwater facilities will be designed in accordance with the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology, 2019). • Stormwater generated in areas of the MBR Plant site where it could pote"llybe_expased_to_ =tamin , will be collected and rocessed through the Plant. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise sources in the project area include vehicle traffic on area roads, overhead airplanes, and other typical noise sources. May 2022 Page 20 SEPA Environmental Checklist 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction of the project would require the use of heavy equipment including excavators, front-end loaders, cranes, auger drill rigs, backhoes, dozers, forklifts, concrete mixers, concrete pump trucks, man lifts, air compressors, welding machines, hand tools, high cycle generators, and dump trucks. Construction noise is exempt from noise regulations, but it is anticipated that work would occur during the weekday daytime hours of 7:00 am to 9:00 m Construction noise would be most noticeable to nearby residences. Nighttime construction would only occur on a limited or as -needed basis if at all. Should nighttime construction be necessary, nearby residents would be notified well in advance of any construction activity. The completed treatment plant would include noise control facilities. Excessive noise -producing equipment would be enclosed by noise attenuating covers or rooms to reduce the amount of noise leaving the site. o-e�,r�1t When operating, the grinder pumps would generate noise that is similar to a washing machine for 1 to 2 minutes at a t mi a These pumps would be buried outside the building, mostly a ow grade with an access cover just above the ground surface, thus mitigating noise. Depending upon the amount of water usage, the pumps would run for a total of roughly 10 to 30 minutes per day. Construction of the local collection system would only occur during daytime hours; night and weekend construction is not anticipated. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Once the facility is operating, excessive noise -producing equipment would be enclosed by noise attenuating covers or rooms. The project will adhere to the County's noise regulations. May 2022 Page 21 SEPA Environmental Checklist 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The existing land use pattern within the UGA is characterized by commercial development concentrated along the major highway corridors +1� of SR 19 (Rhody Drive), SR 116 (Ness' Corner Road), and Chimacum Road; creating a core commercial zone at Chimacum Road and SR 116 tA &^A _�, T and a secondary commercial zone along SR 19. The Port Hadlock sewer service area encompasses roughly 1,320 acres. The treatment plant site is thG4eGat-ion-a" former gravel mine, with upland forest located to the north and west, a large wetland to the east, and pastureland to the south. The percolation pond site contains an active sand and gravel processing operation on the eastern part of the property, with wetlands A, B, and C, and Chimacum Creek to the west (Figure 4). The influent pipeline area is currently undeveloped. The local collection system would be placed within existing road rights -of -way to the greatest extent possible. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The site has not been used for agriculture. The treatment plant site and the percolation pond site are the locations of a former gravel mining activities. Gravel processing (crushing) currently occurs on the property adjacent to the percolation pond site. The majority of the UGA is forested with some pasture land. No agricultural activities would be displaced as a result of this project. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding �-- working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of ''M l�fi.►� pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No working farm or forest lands are located near the proposed project would not affect or be affected b q� �trn project, so the p j Y farm or forest land operations. W lr `�`tnlu� 1 rrl te.: (�,,�•�`�'rr�+�n] �f F� u � ! ►z� y' (E Ic �� �' yv�.,...+.-- �� �►� � Y � � pis n?�,,�, � pw4( Devi P41►,Vn Wa:C t- {S Q-{e»! -to '2![�1It5c eat' ,�w�3rlq �w[dl` ilk ^'May Q22 J Page 22 SEPA Environmental Checklist C. Describe any structures on the site. The UGA is developed with commercial development along the highway corridors, and residential development and undeveloped parcels throughout the remainder of the UGA. There are currently no structures in the vicinity of the influent pipeline. The treatment plant site is a vacant, abandoned gravel mine. The percolation pond site contains some gravel mining equipment and a small shed. The collection system would be installed underground in existing developed road rights of way. Initially, an estimated 50 grinder pumps would be installed underground at existing residences and buildings throughout the Phase 1 service area, and over time this will increase to 100 or more pumps as development occurs. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The small shed would be removed from the percolation pond site to allow development of the percolation pond. No other structures would be demolished as a result of this project. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The project area is currently zoned as Rural Residential (RR-5), UGA Low Density Residential 4-6 (UGA-LDR) and UGA Light Industrial (1'e 90i1V ;tC' it), (UGA-LI, Jefferson County 2018). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The future land use maps indicate the core area will be designated Urban av'1;1,r�r Commercial, and the majority of the UGA will be Urban Residential. ��.;t.►�.. �S " c�� g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site. The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is currently under periodic review. The draft SMP designates Chimacum Creek has a priority ';�"� �"1'"'` aquatic and the area in the vicinity of the percolation pond as shoreline (tr�t'r Sy ►,} ��� 5��"�l'l�j residential (Jefferson County 2021). Shoreline designations are illustrated PA"7 in Figure 8. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the --Chlm�,04 L-cl,snc, city or county? If so, specify. Chimacum Creek and three wetlands have been identified on the percolation pond site, and-q wetland is ad'acent to the treatment plant site (Figures 4 and 5). Other wetlands exist within the UGA, but are not anticipated to be impacted by construction of the local collection system. May 2022 Page 23 SEPA Environmental Checklist 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No one would reside in the completed project. Operation of the treatment plant and percolation ponds is anticipated to employ 2 workers. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The completed project would not d_�spiace any people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Displacement is not anticipated, therefore, mitigation measures have not been developed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The Port Hadlock wastewater treatment system is being proposed to support future growth in the Port Hadlock UGA per the 2018 Jefferson Co unty_Cta.mpxebemi _. J_ Lnand the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA). With the UGA designation, County population growth must be managed to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The project complies with the Growth Management Act. by providing the infrastructure necessary to sustain the Port Hadlock UGA. Under the GMA, Jefferson County was required to (and did) develop a comprehensive land use plan to designate where flu Axgpnpulation growth County, 1998 Q4' As c7C Cv �h� and development would occur- c erson . reflected in the comprehensive p n, land within the Port Hadlock/Irondale v/i��•�+PuyS'�,� UGA will undergo a certain increment of additional and more intensive WJV.4`t"i,� ,� ,3 development even if the treatment plant is not constructed. This increment /YYr 0�") -qvep- of additional, more intensive development would occur because it could be supported, in part, by on -site sewage disposal (septic) systems. However, the GMA required Jefferson County to allow even more intensive land use within its UGA, in order to concentrate development there, to preserve rural areas and open space, and to avoid sprawl. The project has been undergoing numerous studies and environmental review as the details have been developed. A list of the documents that have been prepared associated with the project are listed inr soon S. May 2022 Page 24 SEPA Environmental Checklist M. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: The project would not have any impact on agricultural or forest lands of long-term commercial significance, so no measures to ensure compatibility are required. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be provided as a result of this project. Upon 3 4 IS completion, the advent of sewers is expected to support an increased 'I43 o ul iQg density in the Irondale/Port Hadlock UGA. As noted in Ac : 11Question I I abov he project complies with the Growth Management Act by providing the infrastructure necessary to sustain the UGA. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No housing units would be eliminated as a result of this project. C. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. Impacts to housing are not anticipated; therefore, mitigation measures have not been developed. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any of the proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The treatment plant tanks would be the tallest structure with an estimated �7CZ Ig . )® 10 y2, height of 20 feet above ground surface and a steel monorail crane 20 Feet above the tank (40 feet above [lie_ rg2und surface). The exterior material of the tanks would likely be composed of painted steel. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? ,?;I ';"ec Construction of the influent pipeline and local collection system will all be mv, *5idc r"r W,.,�,�„� underground, so no views would be altered. Up to 25 trees will be removed to construct the influent pipeline, so some views would be altered due to the tree removal. Views of the treatment plant site would be altered May 2022 Page 25 SEPA Environmental Checklist for a few neighbors who now see the abandoned gravel pit. The (;�c'f (f -4t/ percolation pond site would be altered from the gravel processing ��c'c��i�,� ►,y �� lz..i,, operations to one of large pond. Wetland buffers would be enhanced ��zvc�=t�„� f7-,�� Suona�nill with native plants in areas that are currently void of vegetation. At each grinder pump station, the grinder pump cap (or access cover) would be visible at ground level and a control panel adjacent to the building being served. C. Proposed measures to control or reduce aesthetic impacts, if any: The treatment plant and percolation ponds would be sited on currently vacant former gravel extraction sites. The treatment plant would not be visible from local roadways, and would not be visible from many nearby residences. The percolation pond site is visible from Lopeman Road, but after project completion the site would contain more native vegetation than currently exists on the site. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Construction would occur primarily during the daytime, negating the need to utilize artificial lighting. Nighttime construction may be conducted on a limited or as -needed basis that may require lighting for limited amounts of time. The treatment plant and percolation pond would be illuminated with only security lighting at night. The lighting would be aimed downward to reduce the potential for light or glare impacts on adjacent prop ie ert s b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light or glare from the project is not anticipated to be safety hazard or interfere with any views. C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? There are no existing sources of light or glare that would interfere with the project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Lighting at the treatment plant would be downward facing, with full cut- off shields to minimize light and glare impacts to adjoining properties. Surfaces at the plant would be non -glare surfaces to further reduce glare May 2022 Page 26 SEPA Environmental Checklist possibilities. Nighttime construction activities would be very limited, if needed at all. Any nighttime work would be scheduled in advance, and nearby residents would be notified of such work. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 14_7 e, /'rd+%� p /� Within the project vicinity, recreational opportunities include the Hadlock/Bob Bates Field, which is approximately 0.25-mile from the project site and is the home field for the East Jefferson County Little League. There are no other recreational opportunities within the vicinity of the _ d1- project. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Construction activities for the collection system could result in lane closures and detours on area roadways, which may disrupt informal (waking, running, bicycling) recreational activities in the vicinity of active construction. However, these impacts would be temporary and no impacts .ta_parks are anticipated. as a result of this project. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: A grass path would be provided from Ness's Corner Road to Lopeman Road for maintenance access. In the future this maintenance access path _ma be incur prated as part of the re ional trail system running from Port Hadlock south to neighboring communities. - 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. The historical context of the Port Hadlock area begins in the 19th century and was originally centered on iron and steel industries in Irondale, and timber industries in Port Hadlock. Port Hadlock was founded in 1870 by Samuel Hadlock, who owned several hundred acres of land at the head of Port Townsend Bay. In 1884, the Western Mill and Lumber Company built a large sawmill here, and in 1886 the company was purchased by the Washington Mill Company of San Francisco (Tetra Tech, 2010). The mill May 2022 Page 27 SEPA Environmental Checklist closed in 1907, and in 1913 a fire destroyed most of the mill campus (McClary 2005). In 1911, a large alcohol distillery plant was built at Port Hadlock, however the business was unsuccessful and closed shortly after in 1913 (McClary 2005). There is one known archaeological district — 45JE27 — that overlaps the PHSPA along the Port Hadlock shoreline at Lower Hadlock Road/South Water Street. 45JE27 is characterized as a multicomponent district that includes evidence of a Chimakum village, shell midden, potlatch house, a channel and canoe pond, charcoal feature, isolated Native American burial, a Chinese worker camp, and mill. Today, Chimakum descendants are enrolled members of three federally recognized Tribes: the Skokomish Indian Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. 45JE27 is listed in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) (Resource ID. 674917) and was nominated for listing in the National Ae- ster oMstoric-Places (NRHP) in 1979 (Hansen and Stump 1979; '_McC,lure and Stump 1979 45JE27 may represent the location the ethn❑graphica y-recorded village of C'ic `abus, a variation of Tsets-i-biis (Hansen and Stump 1979; Elmendorf 1990), although Eells (1986, 1996) indicated Tsets-i-biis was located at the head of Port Townsend Bay. In addition to 45JE27, there are 2 historic -period NRHP- and WHR-listed properties and two NRHP-eligible properties within the PHSPA, and one NRHP-listed property just outside of it. Apart from 45JE27, all NRHP- listed and eligible properties consist of historic built environment resources dating from the late 19th to early 20th centuries. Along Water Street there are two resources determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. They are the Washington Co -Op Eggt d Poultry Associatio"range Warehouse (Johnson and Chase, 2011 a; Chase, 20156; Property ID 159099), and the Washington Co -Op Egg�nd Poultry Assgciati❑n Port Hadlock Store (Johnson and Chase, 2011 b; Chase, 20151f, Property ID 159102). Also located along ]Water Street is the Galsterouse (AKA the Ajax Caf,6) (Stalheim, 1982, Johnson and Chase, 2010F; Vann, 2019, Property ID 159097), which was listed in the NRHP and WHR in 1983 (NRHP Reference No. 83003325; Stalheim, 1983ay One NRHP-listed property, the Methodist Episcopal Church pfPort Hadlock (NRHP Reference No. 83003329; Stalheim, 1983 is located at the intersection of Randolph and Curtiss Streets. Another NRHP-listed property, the Captai Peter Shibles House (NRHP Reference No. 83003333; Stalheim, 1983 is located at the northern end of Curtiss Street, just outside of the PHSPA. In addition to the register -listed properties, there are apnm2Li.matel 22 historic -aged bgJlt environment resources within or adjacent to the PHSPA (DAHP,-TOW. Most of these structures were documented during a 1982 survey, at which time no register nominations/recommendations were provided. May 2022 Page 28 SEPA Environmental Checklist b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. The PHSPA is in an area classified in DAHP's Statewide Predictive Model as High and Very High Risk for containing archaeological sites (DAHP, 2010YAs described above, there is one previously recorded archaeological district — 45JE27 — that overlaps the PHSPA along the Port Hadlock shoreline at Lower Hadlock Road/South Water Street. It is currently listed in the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) (Resource ID. 674917) and was nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic t Places in 1979` a�zsen and Slump, 1979• cCIure and Stump, There have been 6 prior cultural resources investigations a rried out within,�r partially within, the F.FJSPA (Gilpin et al., 201 ; Lahren Jr., 20129; 20121,Tetra Tech ,201(; Wessen, 201'8r, 2018 The prior assessments range in scope and are limited to survey and monitoring reports in advance of proposed private development, transportation, and natural resource projects. Most of these prior assessments were conducted within the mapped boundaries of 45JE27. One previous investigation, conducted for this project, encompassed a portion of the PHSPA. This investigation focused on the proposed WWTP, percolation pond, and conveyance locations (Tetra Tech, 2010). The investigation consisted of a literature review and excavation of 35 shovel probes at 15-foot intervals across the proposed conveyance alignments and percolation pond footprint. No subsurface investigation was conducted at the proposed WWTP due to its location within a former gravel pit where mining ranged between 6 and 40 feet below ground surface (Tetra Tech, 2010). No archaeological or built environment resources were identified as a result of this investigation. As described above, there are 2 historic -period NRHP- and WHR-listed properties and two NRHP-eligible properties within the PHSPA; there is one NRHP-listed property just outside of it. In addition to the register - listed properties, there are approximately 22 historic -aged built environment resources within the PHSPA (DAHP, 2022). Most of these structures were documented during a 1982 survey, at which time no register nominations/recommendations were provided. While the PHSPA has a significant cultural history much of the area where wastewater treatment facilit _r.pip o ctivn would occur as a rea y been disturbed for road construction, gravel mining, or other. May 2022 Page 29 SEPA Environmental Checklist C. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. / �c•rai� d. Photo documentation of all historic properties was completed for areas nearby where ground disturbing activities would take place, and shovel probes were dug in an area where ground surface access was possible (Tetra Tech, 2010). All portions of this portion of the project were visually inspected to determine any adverse effects on archaeological materials, features or historic structures by the proposed project activities (Tetra Tech, 2010). Impacts resulting from the project includes areas where archaeological resources may be encountered or disturbed, and areas where historic buildings, structures, landscapes, and viewsheds may be directly or indirectly affected. Potential effects to archaeological sites are anticipated primarily where ground disturbance will occur during project construction. is uric ui mgs an structures may be direct y a ecte - >he above described construction activities, and may be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, or changes to the visual environment associated with the construction and implemented use of the proposed project. Jefferson County has initiated govcrnirient-to-government consultation with area Tribes pursuant to Executive Order 21-02 to a ress cu tura an -historic resource issues. Consultation remains on - ESA has carried out a pedestrian survey -level reconnaissance of the project area and is currently in the,process of pre rutgA_Qultural _msoume,s,_aSseC==L including the develop enterarchaeological resources monitoring and inadvertent di Ian ARM-IDP). Pending consultation with Tribal entities, the ARM-IDP will identi h.i 1} ,probability areas where arehaeo logical monitoring should occur as well as areas where project -related ground disturbance may occur under the guidance of an inadvertent discovery plan. Contractors involved in project ground disturbance are recommended to receive a cultural resources traininthat identified the protocols and procedures in the event ofthe inadvertent discovery of human remains and archaeological materials in the absence of an archaeologist. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Excavation work near known cultural resources should be monitored b a archaeologist to docume rchaeol0 icaI materials that may be present an to administer a sto di order should an archaeo ogica eature foun . If an archaeological feature is identified then the Inadvertent May 2022 Page 30 SEPA Environmental Checklist Discovery Plan should be followed to ensure that proper agency protocols are followed. The construction project manager and excavation personnel will be familiarized with the types of cultural resources found in the Irondale/Port Hadlock region. This can be done by completing a short training program to inform personnel of the cultural resources found in the areas that they are working so that if personnel do uncover any archaeological remains they can issue a stop order and follow the proper protocol. Consultation with DAHP will occur in order to veri �tet ' �.requirements for wor conducted within the known bounda45JE2 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The major roads in the PHSPA are SR 19 (Rhody Drive), SR 116 (Ness's Mu)PS Co -,;t7 Corner Road and Oak Bay Road), Irondale Road and Chimacum Road. The roads surrounding the proposed wastewater treatment plant site are Chimacum Road and Lopeman Road. Roads surrounding the proposed reuse system area are Lopeman Road, Ness's Corner Road, Quimper Lane, and Chimacum Creek Drive. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Jefferson Transit serves the Port Hadlock area. The closest bus stop to the treatment facility sites is at the intersection of Chimacum Road and Elkins Road approximately 0.5-mile from the treatment plant and percolation pond sites. C. How many additional parking spaces would the completed P w-4 project or non -project proposal have? How many would the -� ��1)l'�cS project or proposal eliminate? The completed project would not add or eliminate any parking spaces. ' V44Y'-� A V.,5-.Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing O''� QA , '`Y roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe v « Ig Q f cr (indicate whether public or private). The project would not require new roads or streets. However, any streets "�- �r�r�rt �e �7CE.,�►,�e. that are impacted as a result of conveyance system construction would be Y-n".4, �'' � ib1 ly- yz j5 py�,}� returned to existing or improved conditions. ( -Wy rq KttC'P� ys� i f / i (-r -le, Lv 5Cc rr rc % �G/s C E)e,c`'�C� May 2022 Page 31 e. f. ol��9ry iy? L`orn �6� �1 n C1ti � ro_ : _"A i Y� L' ' 7"y,u4yp,K4.. SEPA Environmental Checklist Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. O'he project would not use and is not in the immediate vicinity of, water, rail, or air transportation. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? It is estimated that the completed project would require four vehicular trips per day from the site operators. Additionally, it is estimated that a truck would visit the site once every one to two weeks to haul solids to an off -site facility. Finally, it is estimated that a small chemical delivery truck would visit the site once every two to three weeks. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. The proposal would not interfere effect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the project area. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: � rrraffic safety and access would be provided to mitigate potential adverse impacts resulting from construction traffic. At least one lane of the roadways would be open to allow for emergency vehicles and local access during construction of sewer lines. Detour routes would be provided 5L'AV",,,�ry� where possible or where one lane of traffic cannot be maintained; ( however, impacts to any one location would be temporary. Coordination will occur with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) regarding any construction activities in the SR 19 and SR 116 rights -of -way. Following installation of the collection and conveyance pipelines, the roads would be restored to existing conditions. May 2022 Page 32 15. IN �6t.,/:%'�,7©may �Tfl SEPA Environmental Checklist Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA was adopted by Jefferson County in 2004; the Port Hadlock wastewater treatment plant is being developed so that it can support a larger regional population in accordance with that designation. As population increases, the need for public services will increase as well. The project is designed to address the wastewater needs of the service area, by providing central collection and treatment of wastewater. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. UCrA 'rk,�,c�6 hcr w ic,�tz-e � crm��� olLu.- G I�r�r�s vF' Pra n t`���►vaerri�.tc1� '!?lwroe.rr��-, The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and subsequent supporting documents outline measures to control population growth and public service demands in the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA. With the UGA designation, County population growth must be managed to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act. This project proposes to implement wastewater collection and treatment services in conformance with the approved Jefferson County Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan (Tetra Tech, 2008). The project complies with the Growth Management Act by providing the infrastructure necessary to sustain the Port Hadlock/Irondale UGA. The project would result in costs to the property owners in the service area associated with construction and operation of the sewage collection and treatment system. The County is looking at all options to reduce the financial burden to the service area customers. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Construction and operation of the wastewater facility would require utilities including electricity, communications, and water. These services are available in the area. Operation of the individual grinder pumps would use electricity at each connection location. Overall, the new facility would May 2022 Page 33 SEPA Environmental Checklist provide a reliable wastewater treatment system that produces a high quality of effluent. May 2022 Page 34 SEPA Environmental Checklist C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Name of signee: Position and Agency/Organization: Date Submitted: Digitally signed by Monte Reinders E=m re i nders @co.jeffe rson . wa . u s, C=Jefferson C_Qunty Public Works. nd-e�rs CU=Public Works Director, CN=Monte Reinders Reason: X7jz123! Date: 2022.05.09 13:53:09-07'00' May 2022 Page 35 B [-41 K po,/, Z-f- References /Chase, Katie. 2015a. DAHP Historic Property Inventory Report: Washington Co -Op Egg and Poultry Assoc; Grange Warehouse Company of Chimacum (Property ID. 159099). Prepared by Artifacts Consulting. Chase, Katie. 2015b. DAHP Historic Property Inventory Report: Washington Co -Op Egg and Poultry Association Port Hadlock Store (Property ID. 159102). Prepared by Artifacts Consulting. Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). 2010. Statewide Predictive Model. Last updated 2010. Available at: hnps://www.dahp.wa.gov/. Accessed February 2022. ✓Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). 2022. Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD). Available at: http://wisaard.dahp.wa.gov. Accessed February 2022. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology) and the Washington State Department of Health. 2019. Reclaimed Water Facilities Manual. The Purple Book. Publication no. 15- 10-024. Revised February 2019. ►`Ecology. 2019. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Olympia, Washington. Ecology. 2021 a. State Hazardous Materials Sites Map. Available at: htt s:lla s.ecolo .wa. ov/facilit site/Ma Data/Ma Search.as x?RecordSearchMode= New. Accessed August 4, 2021. Ecology. 2021 b. What's In My Neighborhood? Available at: https.//apes.ecology.wa.gavJiieip-hbot-liood/. Accessed August 4, 2021 o/ Ecology. 2021 c. Contaminants of Emerging Concern and Wastewater Treatment, by Frances Bothfeld for the Water Quality Program. Olympia, Washington. Publication 21-10-006. "ells, Myron. 1986. The Indians of Puget Sound: The Notebooks of Myron Eells, edited by George Pierre Castile. University of Washington Press, Seattle. L,Itells, Myron. 1996. The Twana, Chemakum, and Klallam Indians of Washington Territory. Ye Galleon Press, Fairfield, Washington. /Elmendorf, William F. 1990. Chemakum. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume Seven: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles. Pp. 60-69. Smithsonian Institute, Washington DC. V Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2022. Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System: Critical Areas Report and Habitat Management Plan. April 2022. May 2022 Page 37 Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2009. Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Systems: Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. May 2009. Hansen, David H., and Sheila A. Stump. 1974. National Register of Historic Places Inventory — Nomination Form: 45JE27: Cultural Resources of Hadlock Bay. Prepared by Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. HWA GeoSciences, Inc. October 2011. Geotechnical Report: Port Hadlock Wastewater Treatment Facility, Port Hadlock, Washington. HWA GeoSciences, Inc. June 2012. Hydrogeologic Evaluation: Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System, Port Hadlock, Washington. HWA GeoSciences, Inc. August 2011. Phase I Environmental Assessment, Lopeman Property, Port Hadlock, Washington. HWA GeoSciences, Inc. August 2011. Phase I Environmental Assessment, McCartney Property, Port Hadlock, Washington. HWA GeoSciences, Inc. August 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Shold Property, Port Hadlock, Washington. HWA GeoSciences, Inc. November 2011. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Shold Property, Port Hadlock, Washington. ]Gilpin, Jennifer, Greg Rainka, Jenny Deller, Dawn Vogel, and Historical Research Associates, Inc. 2012. A Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Northwest School of Boatbuilding Collocation Site, Located at Port Hadlock. Prepared by Tierra Right of Way. NADB No. 1681609. r/ Jefferson County. 2018. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Available at: http5-//test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/O/edoc/192455 I/Jefferson%20CP%20201 8 12.pdf V Jefferson County. 2021. Shoreline Master Program (Draft). Available here: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481 /Shoreline -Master -Program -Period ic-Review V,Tohnson, Susan and Katie Chase. 2010. DAHP Historic Property Inventory Report: Galster House (Property ID. 159097). Prepared by Artifacts Consulting. Johnson, Susan and Katie Chase. 2011 a. DAHP Historic Property Inventory Report: Washington Co -Op Egg and Poultry Assoc; Grange Warehouse Company of Chimacum (Property ID. 159099). Prepared by Artifacts Consulting. Johnson, Susan and Katie Chase. 2011b. DAHP Historic Property Inventory Report: Washington Co -Op Egg and Poultry Association Port Hadlock Store (Property ID. 159102). Prepared by Artifacts Consulting. May 2022 Page 38 Johnson, Susan and Katie Chase. 2011 c. DAHP Historic Property Inventory Report: Galster House (AKA Ajax Cafd) (Property ID. 159097). Prepared by Artifacts Consulting. Lahren Jr., Sylvester. 2012a. Phase 2: Archaeological Monitoring of the Short Lot, 92 Water Street, Port Hadlock. NADB No. 1682285. a/ Lahren Jr., Sylvester. 2012b. Phase 1: A Cultural Resources Survey and Presence/Absence Testing of the Short Lot, 92 Water Street, Port Hadlock. NADB No. 1682179. McClary, Daryl C. 2005. Jefferson County —Thumbnail History. HistoryLink.org. Available at: https://www. histoLyl in k.orf,/Filel7472#:---:text=Jeffel•son%20County%2C%201ocated°/a20 on%2 0the%20O1ymp is%20Peninsu la%20in,22%2C%201852°/a2Qtro m%2Qa%20portion %o20of0/o20L.ewis%20County. Accessed February 2022. Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2021. Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 4, 2021. V-Stalheim, David. 1982. DAHP Historic Property Report: Galster House (Property ID. 159097). p/Stalheim, David. 1983a. Survey Inventory Form - Community Cultural Resource Survey: 45JE90: Galster House (AKA. Ajax Cafd). Prepared by Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. I/-Stalheim, David. 1983b. Survey Inventory Form —Community Cultural Resource Survey: 45JE92: Methodist Episcopal Church of Port Hadlock (AKA Barrett House). Prepared by Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. L/Stalheim, David. 1983c. Survey Inventory Form —Community Cultural Resource Survey: 45JE91: Captain Peter Shibles House (AKA J.L. Baumuck House). Prepared by Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. rf Tetra Tech, Inc. September. 2008. Jefferson County Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan (Volumes 1 and 2). Tetra Tech, Inc. November 2010. Irondale and Port Hadlock Sewer Project Cultural Resource Survey, Jefferson County, Washington. i/ Tetra Tech. February 2021. Jefferson County Port Hadlock UGA Sewer Facility Plan Update (Final). Available at: https://www.co. ie fferso n. wa. u s/ 115 8/Port-Hadlock-Wastewater- S, sy tem //Vann, Nicholas. 2019. DAHP Historic Property Inventory Report: Galster House (Property ID. 159097). Prepared by Artifacts Consulting. WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2021. PHSon the Web. Available at: http.//apps.wdf'w.wa.gov_ nhsontheweb/. Accessed August 4, 2021. May 2022 Page 39 k/Wessen, Gary. 2018a. A Report of Archaeological Monitoring in the Port Hadlock QFC Drain Field Project Area, Port Hadlock. Prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation. NADB No. 1690377. L11Wessen, Gary. 2018b. An Archaeological Survey of the Ajax Cafd New Septic System Project Area, Lower Hadlock, Jefferson County Prepared by Washington State Department of Transportation. NADB No. 1690337. May 2022 Page 40 FIGURES May 2022 Page 41 Port Townsend Bay Wastewater Treatment 116 f Plant Site J t P RTt _ HAI]t.00K i� Reclaimed Water ,' Reuse Site �tu"a" ft I !_ e — — AMdersorl �1 19 f Lake _ }r i CHI ACLIM •,' 0 025 05 Miles SOURCE: ESRI, 2005; Jefferson County, 2007 �.i?=� e.r7r..' i.� � y ESA Navy Reserves I 7 ` - ,w. Legend E UGA Boundary Populated Places Rivers Streams Major Roads Streets Parcels Lakes Parks f ■.e/1 Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System Figure 1 Vicinity Map Legend �f N Urban Growth Area (UGA) 3 —•— Service Core Boundary wrr� Proposed Pressure Sewer "FIN Existing Pressure Sewer ..y R — PT HADLOCK CS PIPING PT HADLOCK WWT PLANT i ,- PT HADLOCK WWT PIPING - Transportation - Road Centerlines DNR Water Body Type 1-9 m �- Parcels troadare - Port kadla CA SOURCE: ESA, 2016 �C�t:�c yufdt �� 1- Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System Figure 2 ESA Ufban Growth Boundary, Core Service Area and Collection System Piping � ixoc.�nen �somsn nnu y ••• �a3ii 53 H3nv Niiu azo� _ ''/ram- '' NMd 311S ll`dLl3n0 � •• " y � 1' —' 3INVdId 1N3l1l 03Htl f r H331 VL13 i� 1NVld NaLLtlWtll�3tl ,y •4..r n aro r rn wrt"�n".um My i f[i $tl LL •ngw�.. ��d111. 3naoo-� �3,,33�ss3,„�o �,�ow ��d s3,,.---ld-1.111-0-11 A,�.3,���IVAIHINVAde�d3=nwda==o=I,=e — E '� U Cn m ai Q � ii w U a 0 td D ca U O 2 ca O Y a a) N U E U (li E Legend r7 Project Area ■ Surveyed Wetland Boundary Line g Wetland Flags Approximate Wetland Boundary Wetland Buffer (150) Roads Parcels SOURCE: ESA, 2011; Jefferson County, 2010; Aerial Express, 2009 ESA r i AWWetland '.� f w Extonds f ✓r Nl .elf �s. ag > g - I Alf N, r Sy • '� f R: 150 300 + Feet Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System Figure 5 Wetland D Port Townsend Bay Wastewater C6 Treatment 1 Plant Site ,. PORT HADL' CK� `4 Reclaimed Water l Lopeman Rd Reuse Site t l 0 0.25 0.5 L 1 i Miles CHIMAC M SOURCE: ESRI, 2005; Jefferson County, 2007; USFWS, 2007; FEMA, 2008 ESA Legend j UGA Boundary NWI Wetlands S Populated Places County Wetlands Streams 1% Chance Major Roads • Annual Flood Parcels Streets Lakes Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System Figure 6 Floodplains, Wetlands and Stream ►1 •L�•�rF�1 LrLf � r Legend SMP - Shoreline Environmental Designations Aquatic Priority Aquatic Conservancy High Intensity NA -< Natural Shoreline Residential r Service Core Boundary •{, �}jr.. - dmma Proposed Pressure Sewer' 0006 Existing Pressure Sewer = PT HADLOCK WWT PLANT PT HADLOCK WWT PIPING - PT HADLOCK CS PIPING < t .. 94 I�. y RR I ^• t •� Tw K r ?rryyi .,L s • iw2 f 1 � - 7 iF .'• ^� � � Iu.: '�(u L� . q; JeE:pr.gn :_�'in•.r •.1'm i ••{', 1r�` •.. �• -J =* .. iKsrc i ..uC: v.� .i •nn�,f4l!ii :. �,:+�i: r;�e'•-e��Cr�; �J': 7:••' a ass o 2s a s M'c 1:12,pQ4 SOURCE: Tetra Tech3 Port Hadlock UGA Sewer System Figure 8 ESA Shoreline Environment Designations " ,4