[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
-, UT R6 Coastal one.!.., Injor ation .Center Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land Resources SAund aid 01#wea State of Washington' A. Mk Summary Report Zll, I. "' M 2_ N . . . . . . . . . . .Puget Sound Task Force-Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission ? Al T', HD 1695 A1 9 P42 1971 Z7 PARTICIPATION STATE OF WASHINGTON Department of Agriculture Department of Natural Resources Department of Commerce & Economic Development Department of Water Resources Office of Nuclear Development Canal Commission Department of Fisheries Oceanographic Commission Department of Game Parks and Recreation Commission Department of Health Planning and Community Affairs'Agency,- Department of Highways Soil and Water Conservation Committee Water Pollution Control Commission STUDY AREA STATE OF WASHINGTON FEDERAL U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Power Commission Economic Research Service U.S. Department of the Interior Forest Service Bonneville Power Administration Soil Conservation Service Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Army Bureau of Land Management Corps of Engineers Bureau of Mines U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Outdoor Recreation U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare Bureau of Reclamation Public Health Service Federal Water Pollution Control Admin. U.S. Department of Housing Fish and Wildlife Service and Urban Development Geological Survey U.S. Department of Labor National Park Service Bureau of Employment Security U.S. Department of Transportation Comprehensive Study of Water and Related Land Resources Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters SUMMARY REPORT U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON P SC 29405-2413 property Of CSC Library Report Planning Committee PUGET SOUND TASK FORCE of the PACIFIC NORTHWEST RIVER BASINS COMMISSION 1971 PUGET, SOUND TASK FORCE Alfred T. Neale, Chairman State ofWashington Lewis F. Kohne U.S. Department of Agriculture Sydney Steinborn U.S. Department of Army Earl L. Phillips U.S. Department of Commerce 1. Paul Chavez Federal Power Commission Francis L. Nelson U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare John Merrill U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development George Van Santen U.S. Department of the Interior Horace W. Harding (Ex-Officio) U.S. Department of Labor Neal G. Nelson U.S. Department of Transportation FORMER TASK FORCE MEMBERS John A. Richardson, Co-Chairman State of Washington Robert H. Gedney, Co-Chairman U.S. Department of Army Allan J. Meadowcroft Federal Power Commission Robert L. McNeil U.S. Department of the Interior Warren Hastings U.S. Department of the Interior Mark J. Pike U.S. Department of the Interior Ernest E. Allen U.S. Department of the Interior Robert E. Emerson U.S. Department of Transportation REPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE Alfred T. Neale, Chairman State of Washington Earl T. Fulkerson U.S. Department of Agriculture Frank J. Urabeck U.S. Department of Army Francis L. Nelson U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Carl Huish U.S. Department of the Interior FORMER REPORT PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBER E. J. Gullidge, Chairman U.S. Department of Army FOREWORD This report describes the expected needs of the agency. All State and Federal agencies having some Puget Sound Area's future population for water and authority over or interest in the use of water and related land resources projected to the year 2020 and related land resources are included in the organized presents a comprehensive plan for meeting these planning effort. needs. This plan is intended as a guide to the future The published volumes include the following: use of water and related land resources. Along with a plan and alternatives, a discussion of the effects of the plan on the Area and the requirements of implementation are included together with the con- clusions and recommendations of the Puget Sound SUMMARY REPORT Task Force. The Summary Report is supplemented by APPENDICES fifteen appendices. Appendix I contains a digest of public hearings. Appendices 11 through IV contain studies on the political, natural and economic en- 1. Digest of Public Hearings vironments. Appendices V through XIV each contain Il. Political and Legislative Environment an inventory of present status, present and future 111. Hydrology and Natural Environment needs, and a means to satisfy the needs, based upon a IV. Economic Environment single use or control of water, Appendix XV contains V. Water-Related Land Resources a detailed description of the Comprehensive Plan for a. Agriculture the Puget Sound Area and its individual basins and b. Forests describes the alternatives considered in formulating c. Minerals this multiple -pu rpo se plan. d. Intensive Land Use River basin planning in the Pacific Northwest e. Future Land Use was started under the guidance of the Columbia Basin VI. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Inter-Agency Committee (CRIAC) and completed VII. Irrigation under the aegis of the Pacific Northwest River Basins VIII. Navigation Commission. A Task Force for Puget Sound and IX Power Adjacent Waters was established in 1964 by the X. Recreation CBIAC for the purpose of making a water and related XI. Fish and Wildlife land resource study of the Puget Sound based upon XII. Flood Control guidelines set forth in Senate Document 97, 87th XIII. Water Quality Control Congress, Second Session. XIV. Watershed Management The Puget Sound Task Force consists of ten XV. Plan Formulation members, each representing a major State or Federal .COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS JUNE 1971 The Summary Report has been reviewed and by the Governor of Washington, and by the Water accepted by the Puget Sound Task Force composed Resources Council prior to its transmittal to the of representatives of'the State of Washington and the President of the United States for his review and Federal Departments of Agriculture; Army; Com- ultimate transmittal to the Congress for its use in merce; Health, Education, and Welfare; the Interior, evaluating Federal participation in implementing Transportation; Labor; and Housing and Urban De- elements of the Comprehensive Plan presented herein. velopment; and the Federal Power Commission. The The Summary Report contains the recom- State of Washington acted as chair agency. mendations of the Puget Sound Task Force, Recom- This report was prepared at field level and mendations that may be included in the appendices presents a guide for the deve Ilopment and . manage- are suggestions by the authors and are not to be ment of the w ater and related land resources of the construed as Task Force recommendations unless so Puget Sound Area. The report is subject to review by indicated in this report. the interested Federal agencies at departmental level, ALFRED T. NEALE, Chairman FRANCIS L. NELSON State of Washington U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare MQ,^" LEWIS F. KEHNE JOHN MERRILL U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development @e 0 S4YNEY "ST IN'BO@RN GIE RrVANOSAkNTEN U.S. Department of Army U.S. Department of the Interior EARL L. PHILLIPS HORACE W. HARDING U.S. Department of Co merce U.S. Department of Labor - @4 _)@'A @@@ 1. PAUL CHAVEZ NEAL G. NELSON "e P m Federal Power Commission U.S. Department of Transportation iv SYLLABUS The water and related land resources of the surveillance stations on fresh and marine waters Puget Sound Area are presently serving a population would provide a means of insuring compliance with of about 2,000,000 persons. Both the population and the Federal and State water quality standards. the resulting demands for these resources have been The river and harbor channel improvements and increasing rapidly and if present ex pectations are small boat harbors in the Plan would meet projected realized, the resources will experience demands re- navigation needs of the Area. Improvement of 29 lated to a population of about 6,800,000 by 2020. river and harbor channels and retention of 41,500 Comprehensive planning was undertaken to acres of land designated as being suitable for terminal determine the potential and the limitations of the and water transport-oriented development would natural resources of the study area so that orderly use enable continued growth of.water-borne commerce, and development may occur. A legislative framework contributing to the local and national economies. The is proposed within which the public interest can be provision of 94 small boat harbor projects with over defined and adopted as a basis for action programs 100,000 wet moorages would meet most of the involving all levels of government and the private projected salt water recreational boating needs of the sector. Area. Multiple-purpose projects have been included in Power needs of the Area are projected to the Comprehensive Plan. to satisfy needs for flood increase from about 3,500,000 kilowatts in 1965 to control, fish and wildlife enhancement, irrigation, about 90,000,000 kilowatts by 2020. Satisfaction of water quality control, recreation and municipal and these needs is planned through continued use of the industrial water supply. Pacific Northwest's regional power supply with e- The urban and rural demand for municipal and lectrical power imported from outside the Area to industrial water supply, projected to increase sub- supplement power developments within the Area. stantially from the present 660 mgd to 3,160 mgd by Construction of new hydroelectric and nuclear power 2020, would be met by utilizing both ground and plants within the Area Would be accomplished as they surface supplies. Water quality, availability, and cost are found to be economically justified and in keeping were considered in determining the most logical with overall environmental quality objectives. Most of sources of supply in meeting the needs throughout the future energy requirements are expected to be the Area. supplied from thermal-nuclear generation. The There are now about 91,700 acres of land pumped-storage potential of the Area is considered an irrigated. To meet the Area's share of the projected excellent source of additional peaking power when national requirements for food and fiber would required in the future by the regional power system. require irrigation of an additional 304,000 acres. A combination of flood plain management, However, based on past increases in irrigated lands, levees, multiple -purpose storage projects, channeliza- location and extent of potentially irrigable lands, tion and watershed management practices is con- availability of adequate water supplies, urban en- tained in the Plan as the most efficient means of croachment, and climate, an increase of 131,300 achieving flood control in. the Area. In addition to, the acres or a total of 223,000 acres of land are expected multiple -purpose storage projects, nearly 150 miles of to be irrigated by 2020. A water supply for irrigation levees and approximately 50 miles of channel im- of these lands would be available. The Area has provements are included for flood control purposes. historically been required to import many of its needs Flood plain management, including zoning, flood- for food and fiber; future increasing deficiencies proofing, and flood warning systems are integral parts. would be met by additional importation. of the Plan for reducing future flood damages. The The Comprehensive Plan proposes adequate Plan provides facilities which would reduce present sewage treatment facilities and minimum streamflows and potential flood damages about 90 percent. for assimilation of residual biochemical oxygen de- Measures for watershed rehabilitation and pro-. mand where treatment plant effluent is discharged tection of all land, and water management practices into fresh waters. Secondary or tertiary treatment of for the development of land for urban, rural, non- effluent discharged into fresh water and the deep farm, and cropland uses planned are of both a marine water discharges of primary treatment efflu- structural and a management nature. Twenty-five ent are viewed as being the most economical means of small watershed projects are proposed before 1980. meeting water quality standards. Establishment of On small streams, combinations of structural and v vegetative measures would reduce damages from basis for modification of the Comprehensive Plan. erosion, flooding, and sediment pollution, and en- The Plan, as now envisioned, provides fish passage hance a wide range of other values. A five-year study facilities at various natural stream barriers, 223 miles of the marine shoreline is included to define problems of channel clearance, 12 miles of artificial spawning of loss and determine possible means of solution. channels, 855 acres of rearing ponds and facilities, Similar studies of streambank and lakeshore erosion and 37 hatcheries. Other measures include acquisition and sedimentation problems, and resource deteriora- of access to 5 10 miles of streambanks and 129 access tion associated with various forms of faulty land use areas to fresh and salt water to provide entry for are needed. fishermen. Prudent selection of land according to its I The Plan provides for continuation of many of capability for various uses, and treatment of the land the present programs in the Area, expansion of some according to the use selected, are recommended to of these programs, and implementation of new prevent deterioration of these resources. Careful programs. Some of these programs are flood plain selection of land for intensive development, and management, water quality surveillance, and water- planned development of such land to moderately high shed management programs such as cover cropping, density urban population would assist in preserving beach. erosion control, forest fire control, logging open space valuable for hydrologic, productive, practices, range management, fish and wildlife aesthetic, and many other purposes. Open space thus surveys, and rural and urban water management provided would also preserve options for future practices. Programs for fish and wildlife include range judgment and the planned development of land for and stream habitat management, rehabilitation and intensive use -would. result in large savings in the cost fertilization of lakes@ developing cooperative of furnishing public services. programs with landowners to maintain, develop and As there is a significant shortage of outdoor assure hunter access, and methods to increase fish and recreation facilities in the Area, there is an urgent shellfish production. need for new facilities and - additional access to A coordinated sea coast resource management existing natural recreational areas. Campgrounds, program is included in the Comprehensive Plan which picnic areas, beaches, swimming pools, and boating provides for an appraisal of the present and potential facilities are included in the Plan to satisfy recreation resource, a determination of opportunities for needs of the Area. Multiple-purpose storage projects multiple use and preparation of guidelines for future included in the Plan would provide opportunities for use. boating, water skiing, swimming and sightseeing. The early action portion of the plan includes Emphasis is placed on the protection and enhance- ongoing and new programs amounting to ment of recreation resources and natural beauty as $ 846,773,000 and projects costing from shown by plan elements such as green belts, open- S1,180,975,00C to $1,191,475,000. A total 50-year space areas, development of strip parks along the investment- of $6,999,898,000 to $7,120,798,000 is streams, the development of parks in the urban areas, required to implement proposed programs and retention of Federal lands for eventual use as park projects. Although the total cost to the year 2020 areas, and land acquisition to supplement-the existing appears large, it must be remembered that this public lands, particularly along the marine shoreline represents investment costs over the next half- where a need is high. -century. Additionally, as mentioned above, many of The fish and wildlife resources are recognized as these costs are for ongoing programs that would have significant contributing factors to the economy and been carried out in the absence of this study. Based environment of the Area. The Plan includes projects upon a population of 6.8 million, the fifty year and programs which would result in increased pro- investment would amount to approximately $ 1,000 duction of anadromous fish, resident trout, shellfish per capita or about $20 per year per person. and marine fish and the conservation and enhance- ment of waterfowl and other forms of wildlife. The need to maintain adequate flows for fish in the streams is recognized with further detailed studies of ADDITIONAL STUDN@ REQUIREMENTS minimum flows required to maintain current levels of fish production proposed to be undertaken before Problem areas unresolved by this study include 1980. The results of such a study would provide a the future use of the Skagit River and the Nisqually vi Delta. The Skagit River is under consideration for A questionnaire survey of Puget Sound Area designation as a National Wild, Scenic or Recreation. pleasure boaters revealed that about 50 percent of river. Additional flood control and hydroelectric those surveyed desired 'the availability of harbors of power development are possible in the Skagit River refuge which would provide temporary havens for Basin from a multiple -pu rpo se storage project on the small craft in distress or. seeking shelter from Sauk River. approaching storms. The many miles of unprotected In the Nisqually River delta, opportunities exist shoreline and uncertainty of weather conditions tend for development of a wildlife refuge and outdoor to constrain the activity of many boaters. A study is recreation area as well as for terminal and water needed to determine the exact requirements for transport-oriented industrial development. Further harbors Of refuge and to locate suitable sites for studies and public expression are required before a development. final determination can be made as to the best use or Further economic and environmental impact uses of these areas. studies are needed before thermo-nuclear electric An equitable method of sharing of water power plants can be constructed in the Area. Con- treatment facilities investment and increased operat- sideration must be given to alternative power sources, ing costs is required before municipal watersheds cluster development of plants, and ecological effects. should be opened to satisfy outdoor recreation needs. Additional studies are required in land manage- The treatment facilities are needed to insure protec- ment and its impacts on various environmental tion of public health. Public expression on this issue factors, such as the production and effects of also is considered to be desirable and necessary. sediment., Cooperative studies involving long-term Additional detailed land use planning, with due measurement and evaluation of sediment production, regard given to urban needs, is suggested as an adjunct movement, and impacts on various economic and to this study. A comprehensive detailed land use plan ecologic factors are proposed. is needed to insure that future industrial and resi- There is an identified need to complete co- dential needs of the Area would be met in a manner operative soil surveys on Area lands, update older that is harmonious. with the environment. inadequate surveys and initiate surveys of greater A 5-year study of marine beach and shore intensity in areas expected to become part of erosion is proposed to identify and evaluate areas metropolitan developments. where significant erosion is occurring. The study A study team composed of,local, State@, Fed- would determine relevant factors for evaluation, eral, and Canadian interests should explore 'all the describe justifiable remedial measures, and establish recreation resources of the San Juan Islands and priorities for treatment. associated Gulf Islands in Canada to: The minimum strearnflows necessary to main- (a) Determine those islands or island areas that tain present fish production levels are unknown with should be developed for outdoor recreation. cross-sectional stream surveys required to obtain this (b) Classify areas for management and admin- information. These stream surveys, recommended as istration to meet public recreation needs. part of the Comprehensive Plan, would- also make (c) Suggest alternative methods for acquisition possible a determination of base flow requirements or control. for fish production in Puget Sound streams. A management program should be prepared for The estuaries and related shorelands of Puget the future use of Puget Sound and adjacent marine Sound and adjacent waters constitute one of the waters on the basis of a study evaluating the needs for Area's most valuable geographic features. Competi- commercial and recreational navigation, aqua-culture tion for shoreline space and water surface use have and preservation of unique ecological areas. increased rapidly in recent years resulting in an urgent Studies by the State leading to the establish- need for a coordinated program of sea-coast use ment of a Statewide system of recreation rivers and a management. Statewide system of special interest areas should be Model studies are required to determine the undertaken. effects of thermal plant and other waste discharge on A study is required to establish a program for the Puget Sound eco-system. debris prevention, control and removal on all rec- There is a need forjoint studies by Federal and reational waters. State agencies and the marine industry which would An urgent need exists for additional hydrologic lead to a navigation control system that will minimize information to facilitate improved management of the possibilities of collisions. the Area's water resources. More temperature and vii precipitation stations are needed above elevation Expenditures at all levels of government, and by the 2,000. The existing stream-gaging network should be private sector, are necessary for Plan implementation. expanded with more stations provided in small However, many expenditures called for by the Plan watersheds including the numerous islands in the are already included in ongoing programs. . , Puget Sound Area. Analytical and interpretive studies An entity representing various,levels of govern- should be made of physiographic and geologic charac- ment, with lqadership by the State of Washington, is teristics to more accurately determine drainage basin required to coordinate future development within the yields. More information is needed on the ground- framework of the Comprehensive Plan and to provide water resources of the area with exploratory drilling a means of updating the plan. The existing Puget and aquifer testing required. Sound and Adjacent Waters Task Force or some The high country in the Cascades has a fragile similar entity could be the logical body to provide ecological balance and while the apparent need is to future leadership and guidance in performing this increase capacity through a strong development task. Citizens 'advisory groups, responsible for ar- program, care must be taken lest the resource itself be ranging continuous and broad public participation in destroyed. A study is needed to find answers to the all future studies and actions leading to implemen- question of the proper level of human use in the high tation of the Comprehensive Plan, are recommended country, prior to initiation of development programs. as important adjuncts to the follow-on coordinating Both winter and summer sport activities are involved. entity. Authorities and responsibilities of various This concept is applicable to most other areas local, State and Federal bodies are outlined in detail receiving intense recreation use and should be studied in Appendix II, Political and Legislative Environment. wherever appropriate. and summarized in this report. The public review of the Plan, undertaken prior PLAN IMPLEMENTATION to hearings conducted in May and June 1970 and during county workshops held from November 1970 The Comprehensive Plan provides a framework through early April 1971, revealed that some for the orderly development of the water and related elements of the Plan may be modified or other land resources to meet the foreseeable needs of the alternatives selected during detailed implementation Area. The Plan has been formulated on the basis of studies. However, the Plan as presented provides a providing the best uses and combination of uses of reasonable basis for future planning. (See Exhibit C the resources in meeting economic and environmental for a summary of the public workshops and how objectives. Implementation of the Plan would require issues raised at the workshops were responded to by the acceptance and support of the public. Because of the Task Force. Additions and changes were made to the varied and wide range of interests, coordination the Summary Report to reflect comments received between local, State and Federal groups and agencies from the workshop participants. A brief summary of is of extreme importance. Further detailed studies the final hearings is presented in Exhibit D. Also see also are necessary before some specific elements can Appendix 1, Digest of Public Hearings, Volumes 11 be implemented and periodic updating of the Plan and III for a more detailed presentation of the itself must be undertaken in order to remain relevant. hearings and workshops.) viii SUMMARY REPORT CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ............................................. I.................. iii SIGNATORY PAGE ........................................... I...... I ....... iv SYLLABUS ............................................................... v PART ONE-INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1-1 ARRANGEMENT ........................................................ 1-3 AUTHORITY ........................................................... 1-4 HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION ............................................. 1-5 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1-7 PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ................................... 1-9 PART TWO-PUGET SOUND AREA .............................................. 2-1 LOCATION, DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY ...................................... 2-3, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES ............................................ 2-3 Water .............................................................. 2-3 Land .............................................................. 2-8 PRESENT SITUATION .................................................... 2-8 Economy ................ ............................ I ............. 2-8 Water Use ......................................................... 2-11 Land Use ................ .2-12 PROJECTED ECONOMY ....... ...... .... 2-15 PROJECTED LAND USE ............................................ ...... 2-17 PART THREE-WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCE NEEDS ....................... 3-1 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY ............................. I ... 3-3 IRRIGATION ........................................................... 34 WATER QUALITY CONTROL ............................................... 3-6 NAVIGATION .......................................................... 3-8 POWER ................................................................ 3-10 FLOOD CONTROL ....................................................... 3-12 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ............................................... 3-14 RECREATION .......................................................... 3-18 FISH AND WILDLIFE ..................................................... 3-20 PART FOUR-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ........................................... 4-1 BASIS OF PLANNING ..................................................... 4-3 Desires of Local People ................................................... 4-3 Public Hearings ........................................................ 4-3 General Planning ............................... ........................ 4-5 Resource Opportunities ................................................ 4-5 Alternatives Considered ................................................ 4-6 SUMMARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ........................................ 4-7 Early Action, 1970-1980 .................................................. 4-8 Long Range, 1980-2020 .................................................. 4-8 ix CONTENTS CONTINUED Page FEATURES OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ....................................... 4-16 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply ......................................... 4-16 Irrigation ............................................................ 4-16 Water Quality Control .................................................... 4-18 Navigation ........................................................... 4-18 Power .............................................................. 4-20 Flood Control ......................................................... 4-23 Watershed Management ................................................... 4-24 Recreation ............................................. ........ 4-29 Fish and Wildlife ...................................... * * ...... ........ 4-30 Estuaries and Coastal Zones ................................. * '' * ... ........ 4-31 INVESTMENT COSTS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ................................ 4-32 PART FIVE-EFFECTS OF THE PLAN ............................................. 5-1 GENERAL ............................................................. 5-3 PRESERVATION OF WATER AND RELATED LAND ............................... 5-3 PRESERVATION OF FREE-FLOWING RIVERS ................................... 5-3 PRESERVATION OF ESTUARIES AND COASTAL ZONES ........................... 5-4 PRESERVATION OF UNIQUE AND HISTORICAL AREAS ............................ 5-4 WELFARE OF PEOPLE ..................................................... 5-4 ACCOMPLISHMENTS ......................... ....... 5-6 RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 ............... 5-6 PART SIX-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................... 6-1 GENERAL ............................................................. 6-3 RESPONSIBILITY ........................................................ 6-3 LEAD AGENCY AND GOVERNMENTAL CENTER ................................. 6-3 NEW LEGISLATION AND ZONING ............................................. 6-4 PLAN FEATURES ........................................................ 6-4 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply .......................................... 6-4 Irrigation ............................................................ 6-4 Water Quality Control ................................................... 6-4 Navigation ............................................................. 6-5 Power .............................................................. 6-5 Flood Control ......................................................... 6-5 Watershed Management .......................................... I ......... 6-5 Recreation ........................................................... 6-5 Fish and Wildlife ....................................................... 6-5 PART SEVEN-CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 7-1 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 7-3 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 7-3 x CONTENTS CONTINUED EXHIBITS Page EXHIBIT A-BASIN SUMMARIES Nooksack-Sumas Basins .................................................... A-1 Skagit-Samish Basins ...................................................... A-11 Stillaguarnish Basin ........................................................ A-23 Whidbey-Camano Islands ................................................... A-31 Snohomish Basin ........................................................ A-39 Cedar-Green Basins ....................................................... A-49 Puyallup Basin .......................................................... A-59 Nisqu ally -Deschutes Basins ................................................. A-67 West Sound Basins ........................................................ A-79 Elwha-Dungeness Basins ................................................... A-89 San Juan Islands ........................................................ A-97 EXHIBIT B-ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS General .............................................. ................ B-3 Comprehensive Plan Impacts from OBERS Projection ................................ B-4 EXHIBIT C-COUNTY WORKSHOPS (Public Review of Preliminary Findings of Puget Sound Study) County Summaries ....................................................... C-3 Issues Raised During Public Review of Study Findings and Responses ..................... C-17 Supplement to Issues Raised During Public Review of Study Findings and Responses ............................................. C-25 Evaluation by Workshop Coordinator .......................................... C-28, Suggested Guidelines for Public Participation ..................................... C-29 EXHIBIT D-FINAL PUBLIC HEARINGS Summary of Final Public Hearings ............................................. D-3 GLOSSARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CONTENTS CONTINUED TABLES Table Page PART TWO-PUGET SOUND AREA 2-1 Principal rivers, Puget Sound Area ........................................ 2-5 2-2 Historical population trends, United States, Washington and Puget Sound Economic Area 1910-1967 (thousands) .................................... 2-8 2-3 Employment by major industries, Puget Sound Economic Area and Divisions 1960, 1963 and 1966 (thousands) ...................................... 2-10 2-4 Employment and sales of non-commodity industries, Puget Sound Econon-fic Area 1963 (1963 dollars) ...................................... 2-11 2-5 Summary of Puget Sound Area water uses (1965) ............................. 2-12 2-6 Land use, Puget Sound Area 1967 (in acres) ................................. 2-14 2-7 Land ownership, Puget Sound Area (in percent of total area) ...................... 2-14 2-8 Population projections by basins, Puget Sound Area (in thousands) .................. 2-16 2-9 Present and projected output, value added, employment by industry and population, Puget Sound Area ....................................... 2-16 2-10 Intensive land use development in the year 2020, land use pattern C 2 2-18 2-11 Projected land use in the Puget Sound Area usage 2020 land use pattern C 2 (acres) ........ 2-18 PART THREE-WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCE NEEDS 3-1 Municipal and industrial water supply, average annual present use and projected needs, Puget Sound Area ................................... 3-4 3-2 Present and projected irrigation, Puget Sound Area ............................. 3-5 3-3 Present and projected irrigation needs, Puget Sound Area ..... .................. 3-5 3-4 Water quality classifications and criteria, Puget Sound Area ....................... 3-7 3-5 Water quality control, projected raw wastes generated, Puget Sound Area (1000 population equivalents) .......................................... 3-7 3-6 Minimum flow requirements, cfs, Puget Sound Area ............................ 3-7 3-7 Gross navigation needs, Puget Sound Area .................................. 3-10 3-8 Projected electric power requirements, Puget Sound Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-12 3-9 Average annual flood damages present and future conditions at existing levels of protection and at 1966 prices (in thousands of dollars) ........................ 3-14 3-10 Principal watershed development needs, Puget Sound Area ....................... 3-17 3-11 Erosion reduction needs, Puget Sound Area ................................. 3-18 3-12 Present and future water-related recreation needs, Puget Sound Area ................. 3-20 3-13 Summary of fish and wildlife needs, Puget Sound Area .......................... 3-22 3-14 Major limiting factors on fish production in the Puget Sound Area .................. 3-22 PART FOUR-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4-1 Costs and benefits-early action (1970-1980) portion of Comprehensive Plan, Puget Sound Area ($1000) ............................................. 4-10 4-2 Costs and benefits-early action (1970-1980),storage projects, Puget Sound Area ($ 1000) ... 4-12 4-3 Total program investment costs, Puget Sound Area ($1000) ....................... 4-13 4-4 Total project investment costs, Puget Sound Area ($1000) ........................ 4-14 xii CONTENTS CONTINUED Table Page 4-5 Projected irrigation diversions and depletions (1000 acre-feet) ..................... 4-1.7 4-6 Navigation projects, Puget Sound Area ..................................... 4-20 4-7 Flood control projects for main-stem overbank flooding, Puget S6und Area ............ 4-23 4-8 Early action watershed protection and management projects, Puget Sound Area .................................................... 4-25 4-9 Summary of principal measures for watershed protection and management on cropland, Puget Sound Area .......................................... 4-26 4-10 Summary of principal measures for watershed protection and management on National Forests, Puget Sound Area .................................... 4-27 4-11 Watershed management projects 1980-2020, Puget Sound Area .............. ...... 4-28 4-12 Summary of watershed management program and project costs, all lands (in thousands of dollars) .................................... 4-28 4-13 Distribution of program investment costs, Puget Sound Area 1970-1980 (SIOOO) ......... 4-35 4-14 Distribution of program investment costs, Puget Sound Area 1980-2000 ($1000) ......... 4-36 4-15 Distribution of program investment costs, Puget Sound Area 2000-2020 (S1000) ......... 4-37 4-16 Distribution of project investment costs, Puget Sound Area 1970-1980 (S 1000) .......... 4-38 4-17 Distribution of project investment costs, Puget Sound Area 1980-2000 ($ 1000) ......... 440 4-18 Distribution of project investment costs, Puget Sound Area 2000-2020 (S 1000) 1......... 4-42 EXHIBIT A-BASIN SUMMARIES I Comprehensive Plan, Nooksack-Sumas Basins .......................... * ..... A4 2 Future projects and programs, Nooksack-Sumas Basins ........................ A-5 3 Comprehensive Plan, Alternative A, Skagit-Sarr:tish Basins ....................... A-15 4 Future projects and programs, Skagit-Samish Basins ........................... A-16 5 Comprehensive Plan, Alternative B, Skagit-San-@ish Basins ....................... A-21 6 Comprehensive Plan, Stillaguamish Basin .................................. A-26 7 Future projects and programs, Stillaguamish Basin ............................ A-27 8 Comprehensive Plan, Whidbey-Camano Islands .............................. A-34 9 Future projects and programs, Whidbey-Camano Islands ....................... A-35 10 Comprehensive Plan, Snohomish Basin .................................... A-43 I I Future projects and programs, Snohomish Basin ............................. A-44 12 Comprehensive Plan, Cedar-Green Basins .................................. A-53 13 Future projects and programs, Cedar-Green Basins ............................ A-54 14 Comprehensive Plan, Puyallup Basin ..................................... A-62 15 Future projects and programs, Puyallup Basin ............................... A-63 16 Comprehensive Plan, Alternative A, Nisqually-Deschutes Basins .................... A-71 17 Future projects and programs, Nisqually-Deschutes Basins ......................................................... A-72 18 Comprehensive Plan, Alternative B, Nisqually-Deschutes Basins ......................................................... A-77 14 Comprehensive Plan, West Sound Basins ................................... A-82 20 Future projects and programs, West Sound Basins ............................ A-83 21 Comprehensive Plan, Elwha-Dungeness Basins ............................... A-92 22 Future projects and programs, Elwha-Dungeness Basins ......................... A-93 23 Comprehensive Plan, San Juan Islands ..................................... A-99 24 Future projects and programs, San Juan Islands .............................. A-100 xiii CONTENTS CONTINUED FIGURES Figure Page 2-1 Basins in the Puget Sound Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2-2 Generalized land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * ... 2-13 2-3 Projected population growth for the Puget Sound Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 2-4 Generalized land use Alternative C 2-2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19 4-1 Electric power-energy and peaking requirements, Puget Sound Area ................. 4-21 4-2 Distribution of program and project investment costs, Puget Sound Area, 1970-1980 ($ Million) ............................................ 4-34 4-3 Distribution of program and project investment costs, Puget Sound Area, 1980-2020 ($ Million) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34 EXHIBIT A-BASIN SUMMARIES I Comprehensive Plan elements-Nooksack-Sumas Basins ......................... A-7 2 Comprehensive Plan elements-Skagit-Sarnish Basins ........................... A-17 3 Comprehensive Plan elements-Stillaguamish Basin ............................. A-29 4 Comprehensive Plan elements-Whidbey-Camano Islands ........................ A-37 5 Comprehensive Plan elements-Snohomish Basin ............................. A-45 6 Comprehensive Plan elements-Cedar-Green Basins ............................ A-5 5 7 Comprehensive Plan elements-Puyallup Basin ............................... A-65 8 Comprehensive Plan elements-Nisqually-Deschutes Basins ....................... A-73 9 Comprehensive Plan elements-West Sound Basins ............................ A-85 10 Comprehensive Plan elements-Elwha-Dungeness Basins ........................ A-95 I I Comprehensive Plan elements-San Juan Islands .............................. A-101 xiv 19 6 F - q I 01*%< 6 - T-,-'\% % 1/ 11, I ARRANGEMENT This report first introduces the authority, histo- implementing this Plan are contained herein. The ry and organization, and purpose and scope of the effects of the Plan and its implications are identified, Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Comprehensive and the requirements of implementation are dis- Water and Related Land Resources Study. The cussed. Finally, the conclusions,, and recommen- objectives and methodology employed in the compre- dations of the Puget Sound Task Force are presented. hensive plan formulation process then follow. A Exhibits appended to this report include: Ex- description of the Study Area and its resources is hibit A-individual basin. plans; Exhibit B-com- presented, and the water and related land needs of parison of economic projections; Exhibit C-county the Puget Sound Area are defined. The opportunities workshops, including summaries, issues raised and considered and alternative means for satisfying needs Task Force responses, an evaluation by the workshop are discussed in the same order as in Senate Docu- coordinator, and suggested guidelines for future ment 97, 87th Congress, 2nd Session. The Compre- public participation; and Exhibit D-summary of final hensive Plan for the Puget Sound Area, its ac- hearings. A glossary of terms is provided following complishments, alternative elements, and the cost of the exhibits. I'NW'%'T-50 UX "% 4%, 4 4, 1 Z,"- a' @ke AIN"Sle 7, PHOTO 1-1. G lacier Peak in the Cascade Mountain range, part of the eastern boundary of the Puget Sound Area. National Park Service Photo 1-3 AUTHORITY On the basis of the recommendations of the (c) Bureau of Mines-Section 601 of the Senate Select Committee on Water Resources Plan- Economy Act of 1932 (47 Stat. 417). ning, and at the request of the President, a program (d) Geological Survey-Section 601 of for comprehensive planning to cover the United the Economy Act of'1932 (U.S.C. Title 31, Section States (except Alaska) was developed by appropriate 686). agencies. This program was presented by the Execu- (e) Bonneville Power Administration. tive Branch in its Fiscal Year 1963 budget. The (f) National Park Service-Park, Park- program, which has been approved and partially way, and Recreation Area Study Act of June 23, funded by Congress, provides for a group of frame- 1936. work studies covering major river basins and a group (g) Federal Water Pollution Control of detailed comprehensive studies to provide a basis Administration-Public Law 85-500 and Memoran- for authorization of specific projects. The Puget dum of Agreement between the Department of the Sound and Adjacent Waters Comprehensive Water Army and the Department of Health, Education, and and Related Land Resource Study is one of those Welfare Dated November 4, 1958, relative to Title III included in the program. of the Water Supply Act of 1958 as amended; and the The various Federal agencies participated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 investigation under specific Congressional authorities U.S.C. 466 et seq.). Responsibility for these activities as follows: was transferred from Department of Health, Educa- (1) Department of Agriculture. tion, and Welfare to Department of the Interior by Soil Conservation Service, Economic Re- reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966 effective May 10, search Service, and Forest Service-Section 6 of the 1966. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (h) Bureau of Indian Affairs. (Public Law 566), 83rd Congress, 68 stat. (i) Bureau of Land Management. (2) Department of the Army. 0) Bureau of Reclamation-Act of June Corps of Engineers-Flood Control Act of 17, 1902, 32 Star. 388 and Acts amendatory thereof 1962 (Public Law 87-874, Section 209). and supplementary thereto. (3) Department of Commerce. (6) Federal Power Commission. Weather Bureau-Section 601 of the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, Federal Economy Act of 1932 (47 stat. 417). Power Act of 1935. The Flood Control Acts and (4) Department of Health, Education, and other statutes. Welfare. (7) Department of Labor. Public Health Service-The Public Health (Ex-Officio.) Service Act of 1944 (Public Law 410, 42 U.S.C. 201 (8) Department of Transportation. et seq.); the Inter -departmental Agreement concern- I Federal Maritime Law. ing consultation on Health Aspects of Water Pollution (9) Department of Housing and Urban De- Control, September 1, 1967; the Clean Air Act, as velopment. amended December 13, 1963 (Public Law 88-206, 42 Department of Housing and Urban De- U.S.C. 1857 et seq.); and the, Solid Waste Disposal velopment Act of September 9, 1965 (Public Law Act of October 20, 1965 (Public Law 89-272, 42 89-174, 79 Stat. 667, 5 U.S.C. 642, 42 U.S.C. 3S31 U.S.C., 3251 et seq.). etseq.). (5) Department of the Interior. Agencies of the State of Washington provided (a) Fish and Wildlife Service-Fish and leadership on the Task Force and the technical Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; committees, assisted in the development of the plan 16 U.S.C-. 661 et- seq.). of study and report ou 'tline and participated in the (b) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation- informal and formal agency, reviews. of appendices Public Law 88-29, Stat. 20 of May 28, 1963. and the Summary Report. 1-4 The various units of State government partici- (1) Parks and Recreation Commission- pated in the study in accordance with specific RCW Chapters 43.51 and 70.88 legislative authorities as follows: (m) Planning and Community Affairs Agency-RCW Chapter 74, Laws of State of Washington Departments and Agencies 1967 (a) Department of Agriculture-RCW (n) Soil and Water Conservation Com- Chapter 43.23 mittee-RCW Chapter 89.08.030 (b) Department of Commerce and Eco- (o) Water Pollution Control Commis- nomic Development-RCW Chapter sionl-RCV Chapter 901.48 215, Laws of 195 7 (p) Counties-Chapter 35.63 RCW 1935 (c) Office of Nuclear Development-RCW as amended and 86.13 and Chapter 36.70 RCW Chapter 41.3 1, Sections .0 10-.280 (1959) (d) Department of Fisheries-RCW (q) Cities and Towns-RCW 35.31.090, Chapters 43.17, 75.04, 79.20, 90.48 310, 35.92.020 (e) Department of Game-RCW Chapters (r) Interagency Committee for Outdoor 77.04 and 77.12 - Recreation-RCW Chapters 43.98 and Department of Healthl-RCW 43.20, .99 .050 (s) Metropolitan Municipal Corpora- (g) Department of Highways-Chapter tions-RCW 35.58.030,.050.200, etc. 47.001,.120 (t) Puget Sound Governmental Con- (h) Oceanographic Commission-(8 1) ference-Chapter 44, Laws of 1935, Chapter 243, Laws of 1967 RCW 35.63.070 (i) Department of Natural Resources- (u) Special Purpose Districts-RCW RCW Chapters 43.30, 76 and 79 86.09, 154, 163, 385, RCW 89, RCW Department of Water Resourcesi- 54, 57, 87 RCW 53 RCW Chapters 43.21, .37, Chapters (v) Department of Employment Security 81, 233 and 242, Laws of 1967 -Chapter 62, Laws of 1970 (k) Canal Commission-RCW` Chapter (w) Department of Ecology 1 -Chapter 91.12 62, Laws of 1970 HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION Several Federal agencies as well as State and lic Law 566 studies on the Green River, Snohomish local agencies were involved in water and related land River, and planning studies in other basins. The resource studies in the Puget Sound Area in the early Forest Service was engaged in related land resource 1960's. The Corps of Engineers was authorized to planning for the national forests of the basins. The make a comprehensive study of Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters by the Flood Control Act of 1962, In 1970 the State Legislature merged the environmental Section 209, Public Law 87-874. This was one of a quality functions involving solid waste, air and water quality series of comprehensive river basin studies authorized control and water resource planning and management to a throughout the country. The Federal Water Pollution single agency, the Department of Ecology. This single State agency has the authority to manage and develop the air and Control Administration of the Department of the water resources of the State in an orderly, efficient and Interior (formerly the Public Health Service of the effective manner, and to carry out a coordinated program of Department of Health, Education and Welfare) had pollution control involving these and related land resources. underway a comprehensive study for water supply This merger resulted in the consolidation of the Department and water quality control throughout the Columbia of Water Resources, the State Air Pollution Control Board, the Water Pollution Control Commission and the Solid Waste River Basin, including the Puget Sound region. The Management Unit of the Department of Health into the Soil Conservation Service was preparing various Pub- Department of Ecology. 1-5 Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Sport of the Pollution Control Commission, State of Wash- Fisheries and Wildlife also had studies underway in ington, was selected as Co-Chairman to represent the the Puget Sound Area. The Bureau of Outdoor State, and later acted as single chairman to the Task Recreation was engaged in broad scale studies of the Force. recreation potential covering the State of Washington. . The Coordinated Planning Subcommittee The Geological Survey was planning general studies furnished the Task Force a set of guidelines which on quality and quantity evaluations of runoff included the following principal objectives: throughout the State. a. Coordination between Federal and State State and local efforts in comprehensive plan- agencies to avoid overlapping of work and duplication ning included undertakings by the Local Affairs of effort. Division of the Department of Commerce and Eco- b. Provision for a full consideration of State nomic Development, the Puget Sound Governmental and local viewpoints. Conference, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle C. Informing the public about the nature and and several city and county governments in the study progress of the study and holding public hearings as area. appropriate. Since the early 1960's there has been an d. Preparation of a report outline and develop- accelerating transition from single-purpose planning ment of work plans and division of labor among at all levels of government to the concept of participating groups. Following establishment, the comprehensive multi-agency resource planning and Puget Sound Task Force formed the Report Planning action programs: Committee and 12 technical committees in various To avoid duplication of effort and to achieve fields. Later an additional committee and a plan coordination in the water resource planning efforts, formulation team were added. The Report Planning the Federal Inter-Agency River Basin Committee Committee was formed to finalize the report outline, requested that the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency provide assistance to the technical committees, to Committee coordinate the comprehensive water re- control, monitor, and manage the work. Technical source studies in the Pacific Northwest. Responsi- committees or teams functioning were: bility for this action was assigned to the Subcom- Political and Legislative Environment mittee for Coordinated Planning, CBIAC. The Sub- Hydrology and Natural Environment committee established the Puget Sound Task Force Economic Environment on 12 March 1964, for coordination and general Water-Related Land Resources procedural guidance for the accomplishment of the Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Puget Sound Comprehensive Study. Irrigation Task Force membership was made up by Navigation representatives of each of the following organiza- Power tions: Recreation State of Washington Fish and Wildlife Department of Agriculture Flood Control Department of Army Water Quality Control Department of Commerce Watershed Management Department of Health, Education and Welfare Plan Formulation Department of the Interior Contacts were made in April and May of 1964 Department of Labor with county commissioners, soil conservation dis- Federal Power Commission tricts, municipal and other responsibl 'e parties inter- Other organizations which subsequently partici- ested in water and related land resource planning in pated in the study were the Department of Housing each of the 12 counties encompassed by the Puget and Urban Development and t&" Department of Sound Study. An Information Bulletin describing the Transportation. study objectives was published in July. On 15 July, a A representative for the Director, Department meeting was held by representatives of key Federal of Conservation, State of Washington, and a repre- and State agencies involved in the study, and county sentative of the Department of Army, Corps of aInd local interest representatives throughout the Engineers, were appointed as Co-Chairmen of the 12-county area. At. this meeting, the Governor of the Task Force, During the investigation, a representative State of Washington endorsed the comprehensive 1-6 study and offered the full cooperation of the State in the study. More than 50 meetings were held with the study effort. Representatives of Federal and State State, county and municipal officials and organiza- agencies commented on the broad objectives of the tions, as well as private groups and individuals having study to county and local participants. interests in or responsibilities for water and related The Task Force held public hearings at Ana- land resources. cortes, Everett, and Olympia, Washington, in October The first public review of Task Force's pre- 1964. Testimony presented at the hearings was liminary findings took place at three public hearings assembled into an appendix. The needs of the study held May and June 1970 in Mount Vernon, Everett given in the testimony were analyzed and catalogued and Olympia. During the course of these hearings it for use in the comprehensive study. became evident that a significant number of citizens The Report Planning Committee designated by desired an additional opportunity for review of the the Task Force prepared an outline for the compre- study findings. Consequently, local levels of Govern- hensive study report. Technical committees prepared ment were encouraged to organize workshops in outlines for the report appendices. A coordinated which the study could be reviewed. Each of the 12 plan of study was prepared defining the efforts of counties and 17 of the largest cities were provided each agency participating in the study. A second with copies of the report draft and appendices and Information Bulletin was published and widely dis- the State appointed a coordinator to facilitate the tributed in March 1967. The Governor sent a copy of workshop effort. Members and staff of the Task this bulletin to each of the counties in the Puget Force also made themselves available to assist as Sound Area inviting them to appoint water resource requested. Following completion of the workshop advisory committees for the purpose.of assisting in sessions, participants were requested to prepare the comprehensive study. comments on the Task Force report draft and Throughout the course of the study liaison was appendices. maintained with county commissioners, councils of Two final public hearings were held in Bremer- government such as the Puget Sound Governmental to n and Seattle in April 1971 during which the salient Conference (covering Snohomish, King, Pierce, and issues raised during the workshops were discussed and Kitsap Counties) and planners and other groups and additional public comments were received. The work- organizations interested in or having responsibilities shop issues were reviewed carefully by the Task Force for water and related land resource use and manage- and appropriate additions, deletions and changes were ment including the Washington Environmental Coun- made in the Summary .Report to reflect the Task cil, and Water Research Centers at the University of Force response to these issues. Washington and Washington State University. During The complete report of the workshop coordi- the initial stages of the study meetings were held with nator is- appended as Exhibit C. This report contains a local resource advisory and planning committees to summary of the county workshop conclusions and describe the study and to receive comments. Presenta- recommendations, an evaluation of the workshops by tions were made before the American Society of Civil the coordinator, a cornpilation of significant issues Engineers and the Society. of American Foresters. raised at the workshops and the Task Force res- Panel discussions were presented on television. De- ponses, and guidelines for future public participation. tailed presentations were made before the planners Exhibit D contains a summary of the testimony and Boards of County Commissioners for each of the received at the final hearings. The full transcript of twelve counties comprising the Area,in separate series the three 1970 hearings and the two 1971 hearings of conferences during the plan formulation phase of are contained in Volumes 11 and 111, respectively, of Appendix Digest of Public Hearings. PURPOSE AND SCOPE Future use of the resources in the eleven major comprehensive plan of projects and programs to meet river basins comprising the Area has been planned to these needs. satisfy environmental as well as economic objectives. An inventory of the water and related land This report summarizes water and related land re- resources of the Puget Sound Area was made and the source needs of the Puget Sound Area and presents a physical, economic, political, and legislative environ- 1-7 ments were examined in depth. Future water and mentation between 1980 and 2020. Investment costs related land resource needs were projected for the were also estimated for programs planned over the years 1980, 2000, and 2020 on the basis of economic 50-year study period. Although the Comprehensive and resource studies. Single-purpose means to satisfy Water and Related Land Resources Study of Puget water and related land needs, given in Appendices V Sound and Adjacent Waters did not deal directly with through XTV, provided a basis for developing a urban related social problems, most of the studies comprehensive water resource plan and alternatives dealt with needs which directly or indirectly affect that would best serve all purposes. Economic urban centers. The broad land use planning under- analyses, including benefit-cost evaluations, were taken serves as a basis for further detailed land use made for projects required by 1980 and investment studies, including future management'of Puget Sound costs were estimated for projects proposed for imple- estuaries. PHOTO 1-2. Salt-water beaches and sheltered inlets of Puget Sound Area. Washington State Department of Commerce and Economic Development Photo 1-8 PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY PLANNING OBJECTIVES Land staffilization measures where'feasible to protect land and beaches for beneficial pur- Planning for the preservation and development poses. of water and related land resources requires complete inventory of resource as well as consideration of basic Drainage measures, including salinity control national, regional, and local goals. Also involved are where best use of land would be justifiably specific water resource policies at various levels of obtained. government which reflect the overall objectives and the legislative framework of water law as it is today, Watershed protection and management meas- and as it may evolve in the future. ures where they will conserve and enhance Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, 2nd resource use opportunities. Session provides objectives and guidance for planning the use and development of water and related land Outdoor recreational and fish and wildlife resources. These broad objectives are: opportunities where these can be provided or enhanced by development works. Any other "A. Development.-National economic de- means by which development of water and velopment, and development of each region within related land resources can contribute to eco- the country, is essential to the maintenance of nornic growth and development. national strength and the achievement of satisfactory levels of living. Water and related land resources "13. Preservation.-Proper stewardship in the development and management are essential to eco- long-term interest of the Nation's natural bounty nomic development and growth, through concurrent requires in particular instances that: provision for: There be protection and rehabilitation of re- Adequate supplies of surface and ground waters sources to insure availability for their best use of suitable quality for domestic, municipal, when needed. agricultural, and industrial uses-including graz- ing, forestry, and mineral development uses. Open space, green space, and wild areas of rivers, lakes, beaches, mountains, and related Water quality facilities and controls to assure land areas be maintained and used for recre- water of suitable quality for all purposes. ational purposes; and Water navigation facilities which provide a Areas of unique natural beauty, historical and needed transportation service with advantage to scientific interest be preserved and managed the Nation's transportation system. primarily for the inspiration, enjoyment and education of the people. Hydroelectric power where its provision can contribute advantageously to a needed increase "C. Well-being of people.-Well-being of all of in power supply. the people shall be the overriding determinant in considering the best use of water and related land Flood control or prevention measures to pro- resources. Hardship and basic needs of particular tect people, property, and productive lands groups within the general public shall be of concern, from flood losses where such measures are but rare shall be taken to avoid resource use and justified and are the best means of avoiding development for the benefit of a few or the dis- flood damage. advantage of many. In particular, policy requirements 1-9 and guides established by the Congress and aimed at Environmental Quality assuring that the use of natural resources, including The environmental quality objective of frame- water resources, safeguard the interest of all of out work planning is the maintenance or improvement of people shall be observed." the quality of the area's environment. This objective Pursuant to the basic objectives cited pre- includes not only preservation, but perhaps more viously, and to State policies and guidelines, the important, positive measures to create an improved Comprehensive Water and Related Land Resource living environment. The inclusion of this objective Study of Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters con- would insure that the effects of water and related sidered the objectives of economic efficiency, en- land resource development on "human ecology," the vironmental quality and regional development. These relationship between man and his environment, are objectives are broad in scope and general in defi- carefully, defined and evaluated. The extent to which nition, yet they are specific enough to provide the the environmental quality objective is attained cannot basic principles and guidelines for the formulation of always be expressed in monetary terms. plans of water and related land resource development. Proper stewardship requires that certain areas be rehabilitated, that suitable lands be selected for Economic Efficiency the various required uses but protected and main- The economic efficiency objective of planning tained under each condition of use to avoid pre- is the maximization of econon-fic return to the Nation ventable loss or deterioration of resource values. In in water and related land resources. Alternative addition to econoritic uses, areas of unique natural project and program elements were examined that beauty, or historical and scientific value should be would achieve maximum benefits over costs in selected and preserved; other areas of open space, meeting the total needs. Only plan elements proposed wild rivers, lakes, and mountains should be selected for undertaking prior to 1980 were subject to benefit and maintained for aesthetic purposes and for enjoy- analysis. Projects and programs selected for constru- ment of the public. ction or implementation after 1980 were based upon The environmental quality objective may be least cost and/or judgment, with several alternatives met in large measure by the economic efficiency usually presented. objective. However, in some instances, available re- Projections of employment for selected indus- sources were not sufficient to meet all needs. In these tries, total earnings, personal income, population, and cases, alternatives were prepared and presented so agricultural production have been made for the that informed choices could be made. United States and the Puget Sound Area. (See Because all Federal, State or local environ- Appendix IV, Economic Environment.) inasmuch as mental quality objectives have not been specifically these projections are based primarily on past trends, defined, judgement of the planner, in consultation they reflect the pattern of national economic ef- with appropriate disciplines, served as the primary ficiency as it has developed under the systern of basis of determining when projects or programs were private enterprise and government. The economic in conflict with the environmental quality objectives. efficiency objective is broad and, in achieving it, Public expressions with regard to sites, areas and much progress will be made toward meeting the general attitudes, were given careful consideration. environmental quality objectives. To meet the objective of maximizing net Regional Development economic returns and satisfactions from the eco- The regional development objective of planning non-tic resources, each element of the plan was is the attainment of a desired pattern of regional formulated to include only segments or increments income or development induced through water and which would provide benefits at least equal to their related land resources investments. This objective is cost. Plan formulation was considered complete, attained to the extent that such investments provide when: (1) each separable segment or purpose pro- specified patterns of regional development. Examples vided benefits at least equal to its costs, (2) develop- of regional development objectives are the desire to ment was sized to provide the maximum net benefits, increase per capita income in an area, increase the and (3) there were no more economical means of total output, and to enhance and utilize the economic accomplishing the same purposes that would be potential of an area. The regional development acceptable to the public. objective is generally considered when basic economic 1-10 problems of a local nature are present that result in a sources. Projections were made for 1980, 2000, and situation of long-term high unemployment or dearth 2020, recognizing the natural resources of the Area of job opportunities. The regional development ob- and factors. influencing its competitive advantages. jective was not considered to be appropriate to the The, findings of these economic studies are presented Puget Sound Area because of the prospects for an in Appendix IV, Economic Environment. expanding economy and the excellent long-range potential for future growth. Consequently, this objec- Exalmi'naition of the Environment tive was not explicitly recognized in the formulation 'The political framework under which resources of a comprehensive plan for the Puget Sound Area. are administered was established in detail. The natural The Plan is flexible in that elements can be shifted in environment was examined with respect to water and the time scale to meet changing needs and objectives. related.land. The broad land resources of the area METHODOLOGY OF PLANNING were inventoried and the prospects for development were established. Findings of these studies are given in Appendices 11 through V. General The planning for the Puget Sound Area began Analysis of Water and Related Land with public hearings, an inventory of water and Resources related land resources and projections of future Detailed studies were made for each of the economic growth. Projections of population, employ- major water and related land resource uses of the ment and industrial output were translated into needs Puget Sound Area. Future needs for each resource use which were compared to available resource oppor- wore , deternfined by correlations with parameters tunities. From this comparison a plan was developed projected in the ocononfic base study, followed by to satisfy the needs after considering the viewpoints the development of single-purpose plans to meet expressed by the public and alternative means to these needs. The technical committees coordinated meet economic efficiency and environmental quality with local agencies during these studies. objectives. The planning procedures are covered in The functional appendices contain single- the following paragraphs. purpose plans that were formulated to satisfy a pArtic,ular need with minimal regard to the impact on Assessment of Local Viewpoints other resource users. This was done in order to insure Public hearings were held at Anacortes, Everett, equal treatment and to obtain the maximum possible and Olympia in the fall of 1964. The testimony array of single-purpose alternatives. The results of presented endorsed the goals of the study, especially these studies are given in Appendices V through XIV. the concept for coordination of effort by various Appendix- XV, Plan Formulation, discussed alter- governmental entities and development .of multiple- natives and the resolution of conflicts in arriving at a purpose use concepts for resource planning and comprehensive plan for the Area. development. Needs most frequently mentioned in- Development of the Comprehensive Plan cluded municipal and industrial water supply, flood and. Alternatives control, streambank stabilization and watershed pro- tection and rehabilitation, naviga Ition improvements The Comprehensive Plan provides for an early and recreation needs, including small boat moorages. action 'and long-range development with a program A digest of these public hearings is given in Appendix covering projects and management requirements for 1, Digest of Public Hearings, Volume 1. each. The Plan was formulated to guide the water and related land resources management and development Economic Evaluation of Present and Future through the year 2020, recognizing that revisions and Economy adjustments would be necessary in the future to allow Historical trends and economic activities were 'for, changing conditions and desires of the public. .Development of the Comprehensive Plan proceeded developed to a 1963 production base, utilizing studies along the following sequence: made by Consulting Services Corporation, the Eco- (a) The needs as contained in the functional nomic Research Service and Forest Service of the appendices were summarized. U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of (b) Alternative means of resource use were Mines of the U.S. Department of Interior and other exami pled to satisfy the needs. The opportunities ranged from resource preservation and management result of successive approximations of land use to structural facilities development, including single- patterns and uses of other resources. Various trade- purpose and multiple-purpose solutions. Combir offs of resource use to accommodate projected nations of these solutions were utilized in developing development and to conserve and develop desirable a plan to meet the economic efficiency and environ- elements of the environment were made. Many mental quality objectives of the study. multiple-judgment factors were involved, including The Comprehensive Plan which was developed expressions of public interest. A strong effort was stemmed from the interplay of several basic concepts, made to retain the excellent alluvial bottom lands in some dictated mainly by consideration of the total agriculture. These lands constitute about six percent Puget Sound Area, others derived from characteristics of the land area and are necessary in order to retain a identified with individual river basins comprising the healthy farm economy. Reserving flood plains largely Area. for agriculture and other open uses serves to minimize The expected industrial expansion and associ- the need for flood control measures. Selection of ated economic growth were utilized to estimate the adapted lands for other specific purposes minimizes future population of the Area by time periods. The the need for specialized watershed rehabilitation and population thus estimated was roughly allocated protection measures as well as for various water among the several river basins comprising the Area as management measures. Adoption of the urban a first approximation in the process of plan formula- density shown under land use pattern C2 allows tion. Factors used in this allocation were historical retention of considerable areas of desirable open growth patterns and considerations of resource poten- space and permits large economies in furnishing tials by location, including apparent opportunities for public services to communities. commerce, navigation, and existing major avenues of (c) Further development of the plan led to the transportation. formulation and costing of programs and projects The distribution of population was used in required for timely preparation for future population, estimating lands needed for urban occupancy and and, at the same time, resulted in recommendations served to establish load centers for power, recre- for zoning of land for critical uses and regulation of ational demand, water supply, urban water manage- flood plain developments, as well as early acquisition ment, navigation facilities, and the need for flood of sites for various needed public purposes. control. A plan was formulated with initial investment Reservations of unique scenic, historical, and costs and annual costs and benefits estimated for the scientific areas for public use were made on the basis early action projects needed by 1980. Only invest- of fortunate occurrence and recognized public values. ment costs in terms of 1968 prices were estimated for Sources of water for municipal and industrial the long-range portion of the plan providing for uses, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational satisfaction of needs projected to the years 2000 and purposes; sites for power generation; and sites for 2020. When conflicts arose between the environ- water storage, were located by basin mainly on the mental quality and economic efficiency objectives, basis of opportunity but strongly influenced by Area adjustments were made or alternative plan elements considerations. were prepared. (See Appendix XV, Plan Formulation, Lands for agriculture, forestry, and other open "Basis of Planning" and "Alternative Elements" for uses are largely those remaining after reasonable each basin.) The tentative projects and programs densities were established and distribution of land for developed for each of the major river basins were urban uses was made, and after reservations for presented to local planning and governmental authori- various public uses. An effort was made to retain ties, including representatives of the counties and suitable lands devoted to these open uses in order to other interested groups, to determine their keep their economic, hydrologic, and aesthetic values viewpoints. Every consideration was given to the local in the Area and to distribute these values among the viewpoints and adjustments were made where ap- several basins. propriate. The uses for the land thus established. made CRITERIA FOR PLANNING possible a determination of required flood control measures, watershed treatment measures, irrigation, Legal Criteria and measures for urban water management and for The Comprehensive Plan was developed in preservation of water quality. The plan selected is the conformance with existing Federal and State laws, 1-12 treaties, and compacts, recognizing that existing laws Average Annual Equivalent Values and compacts and departmental policy would not Program or project benefits and costs, which always allow optimum use of the resources. are estimated to accrue at different times and over varying periods of time, were converted from capital Economic Criteria values to average annual equivalent values over a I 00-year life. Price levels prevailing in 1968 were used for The avetage annual costs and benefits of evaluating all present and future benefits and costs. multiple-purpose projects were estimated for a An interest rate of 4-5/8 percent per annum 100-year life. However, in order to provide a common was used in plan formulation and evaluation for basis for comparison of nonstorage with storage discounting future benefits and computing costs, or alternatives, an adjustment was made for projects that otherwise converting benefits and costs to a common ordinarily have physical and economic lives of less time basis. This rate of interest is based upon the than 100 years. This was accomplished by providing average yield during the preceding fiscal year on for major or complete replacement of these facilities interest-bearing marketable securities of the United at the end of their normal lives with an average States with terms of 15 years or more remaining to annual equivalent replacement cost computed and maturity. included in the annual costs. Average annual equiva- lent costs for interest and amortization were com- puted with a capital recovery factor based on a 4-5/8 Period of Analysis and Life of Projects percent rate of interest. Average annual equivalent A 100-yqar economic life was used in the benefits were derived by projecting the benefits over analysis of projects proposed for development prior a 100-year period. The present worth of future to 1980. Projects having economic lives less than 100 benefits was derived with discount factors based on a years included replacements at the end of their 4-5/8 percent rate of interest. normal lives. The Comprehensive Plan was formulated to meet needs to the year 2020. Needs are expected to Benef its grow after 2020, and many of the proposed projects The ultimate airn of resource projects and and programs, by adding facilities, will have the prog .rams, in common with all other productive capacity to meet some of these needs. The potential activity, is to satisfy human needs and desires. Goods of the plan to meet needs that develop after 2020 has and services produced or provided to achieve this end not been evaluated. have values in accordance with demand and avail- ability. Benefits attributable to projects contained in Basis for Comparison of Project Effects the Comprehensive Plan are classified as primary or secondary and may be tangible or intangible. Primary Comparison and evaluation of the proposed benefits are considered the increase in value of goods projects and programs in the plan were made to or services or their protection directly as the result of determine the most effective use of water and related a project. Examples of primary benefits are flood land resources. The value of the projects or programs damage prevention, water supply for industrial, muni- included in the plan was determined on the basis of cipal or agricultural use, outdoor recreation, land future conditions with the projects or programs enhancement and hydropower. Secondary benefits as compared to future conditions without the are values that accrue indirectly from the operation projects or programs. of a project such as relocation or creation of industry, The future '.'With" conditions for individual increase in retail sales, per capita income, improve- project or program analysis include all economic ment of community cash flows or reversing the development which would be expected to occur migratory trend toward large metropolitan areas. during the period of analysis with the project in Tangible benefits which may be primary or secondary existence. are values that are readily derived by comparison with The future "without" conditions include all other marketable goods or services. An example of projects that are existing or under construction as of tangible benefits is the prevention of flood damages 1968. to land and improvements, personal property and 1-13 I interruption of business. Intangible benefits, either damage reduction, resulting from the upstream water- primary or secondary, are values that are not readily shed projects, were derived from net values for subject to monetary evaluation except by assignment expected changes in land use, the increased pro- of arbitrary values or by assuming values equivalent ductivity of land, the reduction of direct damage to to marketable goods and services. Intangible benefits agricultural crops and fixed improvements, and reduc- include the saving of human life, maintenance or tion of management costs. For upstream watershed improvement of living conditions, alleviation of and local protection projects, enhancement and human suffering, and the safeguarding, of wild and restoration benefits are also included where appli- scenic rivers and of aesthetic conditions. cable. Benefits used in the monetary evaluation of the Primary Benefits recreation program consisted of the estimated value The primary tangible benefits, which are re- of increased user-days of recreational activity. ferred to as primary benefits, represent the estimated The primary benefits from the commercial increase in the value of the actual goods, services, and fishery program were the estimated value of increased satisfactions of a project or program expected for the landings of commercial fish and shellfish. period under study and from which any induced Primary benefits from the sport fisheries and losses to other projects or programs have been wildlife program were determined as the estimated deducted. value of projected increases in user-days of fishing The benefits from domestic, municipal, and and hunting. industrial water supply projects were assumed to be equal to the costs. . I Secondary Benefits Primary benefits for irrigation projects were . Secondary benefits occur as a result of the based upon income gains to farmers from increased increased economic activity generated by a project or crop production. Benefits for privately developed program. Project related recreational sport fishing, irrigation project systems were taken as equal to the aesthetic, and wildlife development stimulate employ- costs. ment and monetary flows in the trade, service and Benefits of programs for vector (pest) control, transportation industries. These impacts particularly solid-waste collection and disposal, air pollution and affect fishing camps, marinas, commercial boat docks, radiation monitoring, and pollution abatement, motels, sporting goods stores, service stations, boat watershed rehabilitation and protection measures, dealers, restaurants, and many related businesses. The except storage for augmenting low strearnflows, are additional income generated in these activities repre- assumed equal to the cost of these programs. sents secondary benefits where it can be shown that Benefits of navigation are recognized as savings the gains are not offset by losses elsewhere. in shipping time, the reductions in operation and maintenance costs, the increased value of any filled Costs land obtained through spoil disposal, and economies Costs of proposed projects and programs in- of scale gained by use of larger and more efficient clude the initial investment which would be incurred ships. Deep draft navigation benefits computed for in one or more stages of construction and the annual this study were based on operational savings to expenditures required for operation, maintenance, project users as a result of reductions in delays due. to and replacements. Investment costs include the capi- tides, and land value enhancement gained from tal expenditures associated with constructing a project dredged fill. Pleasure boating benefits from project and carrying out a program. Where the period small boat harbor projects were included with general of construction was estimated to be more than 2 recreation benefits for purposes of plan formulation. years, the investment included simple interest on The primary benefits from hydroelectric power one-half of the construction costs for the period of were based on the alternative cost of equivalent construction. Capital investment and operation and power. from thermal generating plants. maintenance costs of multiple -purpose projects were Primary benefits from control of overbank given a preliminary allocation to the several purposes flood flows were derived from the differences in served. flood losses "with" and "without" protection. In addition to costs directly related to the The primary benefits from drainage and flood construction and operation of a project, economic 1-14 costs consisting of lost opportunities were considerect. exampie of an intangible cost frequently associated An example of an economic cost would be the loss of with resource development. Treatment of these in- agricultural production from a valley that was tangible effect's has been subjected to many of the flooded and used for reservoir purposes. requirements applicable to tangible effects. These included: (1) considering effects in terms of dif- Intangible Costs ference "with the project" and "without the In evaluating resource projects and programs, project," and (2) considering intangible costs to the many important effects cannot be adequately meas- same degree or extent as intangible benefits. ured in monetary terms. Loss of aesthetic values is an 1-15 4F a ak M, @A M ULJ YU im PHOTO 2-1. Snoqualmie River cascading 268 feet, then continuing its journey to join with the Skykomish to form the Snohomish River. Washington State Department of Game Photo 2-2 LOCATION, DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The Puget Sound Area lies in northwestern and ridges that characterize this mountain range reach Washington, bounded on the north by Canada, on the elevations in excess of 6,000 feet. A "rain shadow" east by the Cascade Range, on the west by the created by the Olympics, extends eastward from Port Olympic Mountains, and on the south by low hills as Angeles, nearly to Everett, and northward into the shown in Figure 2-1. In the center of the Area is San Juan Islands. This area receives an average of 15 Puget Sound, an inland sea of 2,500 square miles with to 30 inches of precipitation annually as compared to saltwater beaches and sheltered inlets along interior 35 to 50 inches in other lowland areas and over 200 waterways. The Sound is nationally recognized for its inches on the wettest slopes of the Cascade and scenic and recreational values, water transportation Olympic Mountains. Most of the winter precipitation and for the production of fish, shellfish, and other in the Puget Sound Area falls as rain at altitudes marine resources. Land areas in their natural state are below 1,500 feet, and as rain or snow above the. located in the Cascade Range and on the Olympic 1,500-foot elevation. Most rainfall is usually of light Peninsula. The Area provides productive agricultural to moderate intensity over a long period of time land, industrial sites, generally adequate water sup- rather than heavy for brief intervals. plies, and extensive forests. Alluviated river valleys, In slightly more than 100 years the Area has bordered by bluffs and steep hills, constitute im- emerged from a status of discovery and exploration portant physiographic features, of the Puget Sound with complete dependence on natural resources, to a lowlands. The lowland valleys, with their mountain modern complex, technological society of the jet and valley extensions, contain most of the population, nuclear age. Economic activity, including commercial industry, and agriculture in the Area. In the Cascade fishing, transportation, agriculture, forestry, muni- Range the principal rivers head at elevations where cipal and industrial development and outdoor recre- precipitation is abundant and large amounts of snow ation has evolved from modest beginnings. This accumulate each winter. The higher ridges generally transition from resource dependence to systematic reach an elevation of about 8,000 feet in the north resourc 'e management and development is recognized and 5,000 feet in the south. in the comprehensive planning for the Puget Sound The Olympic Mountains are generally lower in Area. elevation than the Cascade Range. The sharp peaks WATER AND LAND RESOURCES WATER summer months in all basins. The effect of low Streams summer flows is most significant in the eastern basins The rivers of the Puget Sound Area vary from a where the demands for water are the highest. The few miles to 135 miles in length. Glaciers, located at total runoff for the Puget Sound Area during the the higher elevations, are the source for rnany of period 1931-1960 averaged about 38,865,000 acre- these streams, imparting stabilizing influences to feet per year. Average annual runoff ranges from less summertime low flows. The upper portions of most than 15 inches in some of the northern lowlands to as basins are characterized by narrow mountain valleys much as 140 inches in a few mountain areas. with steep gradients which drain forested areas. In the The major rivers, in terms of largest average lowlands, rivers exhibit meandering courses across the annual runoff, are the Skagit, Snohomish, Nooksack, flood plains. Puyallup, Elwha, Nisqually, Green, Skokomish, Stilla- Major floods in the Area occur during the guan-fish and Cedar Rivers. Discharge and runoff months of October through March as a result of warm figures for various stations on these rivers are shown rain storms. Low streamflows occur during the in Table 2-1. 2-3 CANADA UNITED STATES NO SAC U AS BAS145,- BELLINGHAM "'X Bk [email protected] m SKAGIT C L.k. Sh 10-00-Y Skagit SKAGIT-SA ISH BASINS 00- N 5 A M JV STILL UAMISH BASIN r 1011T AN 1311EI IN ELWHA-DUNGENES I BASINS e. 1. -s. CLALLAM CO JiFFERSON Co. so. 2 6 Ri- cc NNWOOD 0 UNTLAKE TeRRN SNOH MIS. C 0. 0 kru --KING CO. UT bm N'h k ILFIERSON CO. SN HOMISH BASIN ..ssf MASO BREMERTON 0 WE" SOUND X @%ENTO. I_AP O_ E PIERCE 0. KENT :N BASIN CEDAR-GREEN S A s-- TAP"' su -z-- Ic I "M ir- --'I N MASON co.L PUYA I UCsLE, THT STO @,OLYMPIA 1; @ - " _/- -I e. PUYALLUP BAS(W' v IIAIE. NISQUAL -DESCHUTES B INS Scale in Miles THURST C 10 0 10 PIERCE Co. 2.0 -%,@NVI C PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATE Is% STUDY AREA FIGURE 2.1. 2-4 TABLE 2-1. Principal rivers, Puget Sound Area Discharge (cfs) Average Drainage Minimum Annual Area Daily Momentary Average Runoff Basin River and Location (sq. mi.) Mean Maximum Annual (ac. ft.) Nooksack-Sumas Nooksack River nr. Lyndon 636 595 46,200 3,728 2,699,000 Skagit-Samish S kag it R iver nr. Mt. Vernon 3,0601 2,740 144,000 16,340 11,830,000 Stillaguamish South Fork, Stillaguamish River nr. Granite Falls 119 55 38,800 1,062 768,900 Snohomish Snohomish River 2 nr. Snohomish 1,720 - 136,000 9,500 6,885,000 Cedar-Green Cedar River nr. Renton 197 39 6,640 722 522,700 Cedar-Green Green River nr. Auburn 382 81 28,100 1,334 965,800 Puyallup Puyallup River at Puyallup 948 306 57,000 3,350 2,425,000 Nisqually-Deschutes Nisqually River at McKenna 517 37 20,500 1,415 1,022,000 Nisqually-Deschutes Deschutes River nr. Rainier 90 21 5,620 275 199,100 West Sound Skokomish River nr. Potlatch 230 125 27,000 1,188 860,000 Elwha-Dungeness E lwha River nr. Port A nge les 269 10 41,600 1,487 1,077,000 Elwha-Dungeness Dungeness River nr. Sequirn 156 77 6,820 371 268,600 1 Includes drainage area in Canada. 2 Flows less than 10,000 cfs not computed. Source: Water Supply Bulletin No. 15, 1962 Washington Department of Conservation (Water Resources) and U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 2-5 A PHOTO 2-2. Howard A. Hanson.Reservoir, a Corps of Engineers' multiple-purpose project located 32 miles upstream from Auburn in the Green River valley, provides storage for flood control and low f low augmentation to enhance downstream M., anadromous fish production. Corps of Engineers @41 Photo M PHOTO 2-3. Seward Park, located in Seattle on the western shore of Lake Washington, provides excellent opportunities for urban enjoyment of outdoor recreation activity. Corps of Engineers Photo PHOTO 2-4. Port of Anacortes, located at the north end of Fidalgo Island, 93 nautical miles from the Pacific Ocean, services deep draft vessels carrying bulk petroleum, forest products and general cargo. Port of Anacortes Photo 2-6 . Strearnflow characteristics and other data re- results in a unique, variable and delicate environ- lated to hydrology of the Area are discussed in mental system. Salt marshes, bays, channels and Appendix 111, Hydrology and Natural Environment. inshore waters are part of the estuarine zone which is of importance to fish, shellfish and wildlife. It is Ground Water through this zone that young anadromous migrants High yields of ground water can frequently be adjust to the new marine environment. The adjust- obtained in the lower valley floor and adjacent to the ment is a critical period, and good quality water is a., delta of the rivers and tributaries in the Area. Ground requirement to accomplish a successful transition. water yields are relatively small in the mountainous A rich and varied ecosystem of aquatic, mud areas. Aquifers occur in gravel and sand deposits of flat and marsh habitats is supported by the estuaries recessional (Fraser) glacial outwash and alluvium' with adjacent lowlands often providing habitat for These aquifers usually contain fresh water at depths wildlife. Some estuarial areas in Puget Sound of as much as a few hundred feet below sea level approach a natural state and are unique outdoor except in near-shore areas where aquifers less than laboratories for study and research of the complex 200 feet deep may contain sea water. The aquifers interactions of living organisms. A few, like the that contain fresh water receive recharge through Duwamish, Snohomish and Puyallup have been en- infiltration of precipitation principally during winter croached upon by the expansion of cities and the months. The magnitude of recharge as well as the growth of industries. capacity of aquifers is not presently known. Scattered ground water quality problem areas Marine Waters exist as a result of excessive concentrations of several The waters confined within the boundaries of constituents-notably iron, nitrate, and hardness ele- Puget Sound are actually a small portion of a larger ments and localized bacterial contamination and marine complex that includes the Strait of Georgia salt-water intrusion. Other than these scattered prob- and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The entire complex is lems quality of the ground water is generally high. composed of many interconnected inlets, bays, and channels with sea water entering from the west and Lakes and Reservoirs fresh water entering at many points throughout the The total amount of storage in the 2,808 lakes system. This large complex may be divided into nine and reservoirs in the Puget Sound'Area is not known. major oceanographic areas which are interrelated: However, the surface area of these water bodies is at Strait of Juan de Fuca, Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound least 175 square miles. This area includes 24 major Basin, Southern Puget Sound, Hood Canal, Possession reservoirs having a surface area of about 70 square Sound, Bellingham. Bay, San Juan Archipelago, and miles. Ross Reservoir on the Skagit River is the Georgia Strait. largest, having a total surface area of 11,820 acres. Basically, the Puget Sound-Georgia Strait-Juan The largest lakes are Lake Washington (22,138 de Fuca Strait complex is a two-layer system with surface acres), which forms the eastern city limits of fresher water moving seaward in a surface layer that Seattle, and Lake Sammarnish (4,897 surface acres), overrides a more saline layer of inflowing oceanic approximately five miles directly east of Lake Wash- water. The surface layer contains fresh water added ington. Many of the other lakes are small and located locally from direct precipitation, river runoff, and in mountainous country above 2,500 feet in eleva- other land drainage. The deeper, more saline layer tion. Most of these are high alpine lakes of excep- moves landward in response to the forces associated tional beauty, lying in a wilderness of scenic gran- with the difference in density between fresh Water deur. Lowland lakes are rapidly being developed for and sea water. residential and recreational use and water quality The Puget Sound Basin extends from the south problems associated with these uses are demanding end of the Admiralty Inlet to the north end of the increasing attention. Tacoma Narrows and is 50 miles long, averaging 5 miles in width. There are several sub oceanographic areas which include Elliott Bay, Commencement Bay, Estuaries Colvos Passage, and the waters west of Bainbridge Estuaries are the transitional zones where rivers Island. Each of these sub-area's is closely related to meet the sea. The mixing of fresh and salt waters the main basin but with somewhat different surface 2-7 characteristics. The major differences are due to the The marine waters and estuaries of the Puget source and amount of fresh water entering the Sound Area are discussed in detail in Appendix XIII, sub-area. Water Quality Control. Southern Puget Sound consists of all the waters south of the Tacoma Narrows. Currents are very LAND strong in the Narrows, with speeds up to 7 miles (6.08 knots) an hour being common. The Narrows is There are 19,200 square.miles of land within a mixing zone similar to Admiralty Inlet on a smaller the 15,800 square-mile Puget Sound Area with scale. In this case, waters from either side to depths striking contrasts in types of terrain. The- lowlands of about 160 feet are mixed, depending upon the tide contrast markedly with the mountains of the direction. Complete top to bottom mixing occurs Olympic and Cascade Ranges, which form the Area's during most of the tide cycle. western and eastern borders. The southern border is a Hood Canal is a long, narrow inlet extending low divide that separates the Puget Sound Area from some 70 miles from Admiralty Inlet on its northern the Chehalis River Basin. end to Lynch Cove to the south. The major fresh The lowland valleys, with their mountain valley water sources for Hood Canal are the Skokomish, extensions, contain most of the population, industry Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and the Dosewallips and agriculture. The valleys are separated by uplands Rivers. They exhibit a peak discharge in winter in whose gently rolling surfaces are altered segments of a response to local rainfall, but the largest runoff formerly continuous plain. Terraces, lakes, and usually occurs in June because of snow melting in the marshy depressions diversify the terrain on the mountains. A rather thick (15 feet) fresh surface uplands. In much of the Area there is an abrupt layer is produced that overlies the main body of transition from these broad, hilly uplands to moun- water. tains, PRESENT SITUATION ECONOMY Puyallup Basins. The northern basins, including the Nooksack-Sumas, Skagit-Samish, San Juan and As of 1967, the 2.0 million people in the Puget Whidbey-Camano, and the western basins, including Sound Study Area comprised nearly two-thirds of the the Nisqually-Deschutes, West Sound. and Elwha- total population of the State of Washington. Of this, Dungeness, are generally rural in nature and accom- about 86 percent lived in and around the rapidly modate the remaining 14 percent of the population. growing Everett-Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan com- Table 2-2 compares the growth of population in plex located in the Snohomish, Cedar-Green and various areas for the period of 1910 through 1967. TABLE 2-2. Historical population trends, United States, Washington and Puget Sound Economic Area 1910-1967 (thousands) 1910 1940 1960 1967 United States 92,228 132,164 179,323 200,100 Washington 1,142 1,736 2,853 3,203 Puget Sound Economic Area @@07, 1,007 1,768 2,033 North Division (87) (107) (144@ (156) Central Division (482) (8201 (1,513) (1,751) West Division (38) (80) (111) (126) Source: Appendix IV, Economic Environment. 2-8 PHOTO 2-5. Production of Boeing 747 super transport jet airplane at Paine Field, near Everett. The p industry has been a major contribution to aerospace the Area's economy with 95,000 persons employed by Boeing in the State of Washington in 1968. The Boeing Company Photo A@! _%; -tz- A i PHOTO 2-6. Sockeye salmon being bailed from net of purse seiner after successful set in Puget Sound. Approximately 250,000 sockeye salmon in 1969 returned to Cedar River via Lake Washington Ship PHOTO 2-7. Beef cattle grazing on improved Canal. Washington State Department of Fisheries clover-grass pasture in Sauk River Basin. The 1963 Photo cattle and calf production in the Puget Sound Area was valued at in excess of $16,000,000. Soil Conservation Service Photo 2-9 The Puget Sound Economic Area, comprising are major sources of economic income to the Puget all of the following counties, was divided into three Sound Area. divisions: In the West Division the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca support an abundance of marine- North Division Central Division West Division oriented recreation and fish and wildlife. Water- Whatcom Snohomish Clallam oriented commercial and recreational activities are Skagit King Jefferson important elements in the economy. Mountains, Island Kitsap Mason forests, lakes, and rivers are within a short distance San Juan Pierce Thurston for recreationists and tourists. As a result, trade and service industries are expanding in terms of employ- This division was necessary to conform with ment, facilities and programs to meet the present and availability of essential economic data. The difference anticipated needs of outdoor recreation. in economic activity between the hydrologic area and The North Division accounts for 30 percent of the economic area is nominal due to the sparse the Area's commercial forestland, most of which is in population and large Federal land holdings in that Skagit and Whatcom Counties, Agriculture, timber portion of the economic area lying outside the production, and fishing and related activities have hydrologic area. long been important to the economy. Important The most intensive land use is concentrated in factors in recent population growth may be at- the Central Division, which includes the Seattle- tributed to the manufacture of food and kindred Tacoma-Everett metropolitan and industrial areas, as products, lumber, wood and chemical products, oil well as numerous small cities and suburban residential refining, and iron and steel manufacturing. Recre- developments that comprise approximately two- ation, including boating, stream and lake fishing, and thirds of the total urban land. The Seattle-Tacoma- other water, forest and mountain activities are im- Everett metropolitan area functions as the major portant activities. shipping, trading and manufacturing center in the In the six-year period (1960-1966) the average Puget Sound Area and includes major seaports with annual growth of. employment of 3.7 percent made some of the finest natural deep-water facilities in the the Puget Sound Area one of the fastest growing areas world for ocean-going Vessels. The Central Division in the United States. The national rate of growth supports a heavy industrial complex oriented toward during this period was 1.5 percent. The most signifi- aerospace, shipbuilding, trade, transportation, and cant upward trend was in the category of other diversified manufacturing. Defense facilities, such as durable manufacturing, which includes aerospace and shipbuilding. Table 2-3 shows employment in the Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, and the Puget Sound Economic Area for 1960, 1963 and military complex of the Bremerton Naval Shipyard 1966 in 14 industrial sectors and by divisions. TABLE 2-3. Employment by major industries, Puget Sound Economic Area and Divisions 1960, 1963 and 1966 (thousands) Central 1960 1963 1966 Average Division Annual Percent of North Central West Total North Central West Total North Central West Total Increase Total Ag., For,,Fish., & Mining 7.3 15.3 2.4 25.0 7.1 14.0 2.6 23.7 7.0 12.3 2.7 22.0 -2.1 56 Construction 4.0 32.2 1.6 37.8 2.8 36.3 2r 1 41.2 4.3 43.7 2.0 50.0 4.8 87 Food & Kindred 2.2 13.3 0.9 16.5 2.4 12.6 0.9 15.9 2.1 13.1 0.9 16.1 -0.4 81 Forest Products Ind. 3.3 20.3 7.3 30.9 3.2 19.9 5.9 29.0 3.4 21.1 7.6 32.2 0.7 66 Chemicals 0.0 2.2 0.1 2.3 0.0 22.2 0.1 2.3 0.2 2.2 0.1 2.4 0.7 92 Petroleum 1.2 0.2 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.2 -2.5 17 Stone, Clay & Glass 0.4 2.9 01 3.4 0.4 3.3 0.1 3.8 0.4 3.4 0.1 3.9 2.3 87 Primary Metals 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 4.1 0.0 4.1 0.4 4.8 0.0 5.2 5.4 92 Other Non-Durable 0.7 13.5 0.5 14.7 0.7 13.8 0.5 15.0 0.7 16.0 0.6 17.3 2.8 93 Other Durable 0.7 77.7 0.3 78.7 0.8 85@2 0.2 86.2 1.2 116.0 0.3 117.5 6.9 99 Trans. Comm. & Pub. Ut. 2.1 36.3 1.4 39.8 2.1 36.7 1.5 40.3 2.3 41.5 1.7 45.5 2.3 91 Trade 8.3 119.3 5.9 133.5 8.3 125.3 6.3 140.0 9.6 142.9 7.8 160.3 3.1 89 Service 8.6 115.9 6.1 130.6 8.4 128.3 7.3 144.0 9.3 149.9 8.0 167.2 4.2 90 Government 7.5 88.5 9.7 105.8 8.3 97.2 10.2 115.8 9.1 113.1 11.2 133.3 4.0 85 Total 46.5 541.0 36.3 623.9 45.6 578.5 38.8 663.1 51.1 680.3 43.2 774.5 3.7 88 Source: Appendix IV, Economic Environment. 2-10 Table 2-4 shows employment and sales of both the time periods. However, the North Division non-commodity industries in 1963. and the West Division had less per capita income when compared with the same major areas in the TABLE 2-4. Employment and sales of non-com- same time periods. Per capita income for the period modity industries, Puget Sound- Economic Area 1960-61 was $2,526 for the Area compared to 1963 (1963 dollars) $2,227 for the Pacific Northwest and $2,249 for the United States. The per capita income for this same I nclustry Employment Output period was $1,941 for the North Division, $2,622 for (1000's) Imillionsof the Central Division and $1,962 for the West Divi- dollars) sion. Servicell 144.0 $1,149.5 The present economy has emerged from the age Wholesale & of discovery and settlement with abundant resources Retail Trade 140.0 1,250.3 to a period requiring planned development along with Government 115.8 management in order to properly use and conserve Construction 41.2 673.8 the resources of the Area. Foreseeable demands on all Transportation, Communication, & resources in the Area indicate a need for accelerated. Public Utilities 40.2 615.6 planning to properly coordinate land and water Total 481.2 $3,689.2 development. 1 Includes finance, insurance, real estate, hotels, motels, etc. Source: Exhibit D, Appendix IV, Economic Environment. WATER USE The largest consumptive uses of water in the Following the national trend, growth in whole- Puget Sound Area are for municipal and industrial sale and retail trade was rapid with the utiliza- purposes. Other water uses include diversion for tion of consumer self-service and other labor saving irrigation, electric 'power generation, operation of fish devices. As a result, the volume of sales per employee hatcheries, recreation areas and forest produc It mills. increased greatly due to more efficient operating The instream uses of water are important for fish, p.rocedures. The service sector which includes restau- recreation, water quality and navigation. rants, motels , finance, insurance and real estate, and The present municipal and industrial water use other personal services has had a rapid growth due to is approximately 660 million gallons of water per increased personal incomes, growing population, and day. Nearly two-thirds of this consumption occurs in a rising demand for personal services. the Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett metropolitan areas. Although recreation and tourism affect all Although surface sources supply 85 percent of the types of industries, the service sector is the prime municipal and industrial use, ground water is an beneficiary. More people, higher incomes, an increase important source in many basins. in leisure time, and greater mobility are among the The municipal use averages 220 million gallons pertinent reasons for growth. Outdoor recreation and daily or approximately 135 gallons per capita per tourism are particularly important to the Area. In day. Industrial water use averages about 430 mgd 1959 almost six million out-of-state travelers had which represents about 65 percent of the total used expenditures of almost one quarter billion dollars in by municipal and industrial consumers. Of this the State of Washington. The 1962 Seattle World's amount, about 95 percent is supplied from surface Fair tourist expenditures were over $3 million. The water sources. unique combination of sea and mountains attracts Table 2-5 summarizes the present municipal many tourists and recreationists and provides for and industrial water use. additional employment and sales. A relatively small portion of the Area (about Per capita income in the Puget Sound Eco- 91,700 acres) is presently irrigated. Due to the moist nomic Area was greater than the Pacific Northwest climate, irrigation is primarily used to prevent crop and the Nation in both the 1950-51 and 1960-61 failure and to maintain plant growth rather than to periods. The Central Division held the lead over the produce optimum yields. The amount of water Study Area, the Pacific Northwes It, and the Nation in diverted for irrigating the 91,700 acres is estimated to 2-11 TABLE 2-5. Summary of Puget Sound Area Water uses (1965) Surface Water Ground Water Total Esti- Esti- Esti mated Usage Jm9d) mated Usage (mgd) mated Usage (mgd) popu- popu- popu- lation Average Maximum lation Average Maximum lation Average Maximum Basin and use served daily monthly served daily monthly served daily monthly Municipal 1,356,550 165 231 467,000 53 151 1,823,550 219 382 Rural Individual 14,450 1 1 134,700 8 12 149,150 9 13 Industrial --- 408 455 --- 24 31 ---- 432 486 Tota 1. 1,371,000 575 687 601,700 85 194 1,972,700 660 881 Source: Appendix V1, Municipal and Industrial Water Supply. be about 228,000 acre-feet annually of which 83,000 streams and marine waterways make it an important acre-feet or 33 percent is obtained froin ground water water related recreation area. Pleasure boating oppor- sources. tunities in the San Juan Islands and the numerous The natural- deep water channels of Puget marine waters of Puget Sound are outstanding. Sound permit any size vessel to enter from the Pacific Swimming and water skiing are popular activities Ocean to the many ports located in the Area. This, often associated with camping or picnicking. plus the strategic location of the Sound with respect The waters of Puget Sound are rich in nutrients to Alaska and the- Orient, has made waterborne and support a wide variety of marine fish and commerce of major importance. Puget Sound is one shellfish species. Many of the fish that reside or of the few natural areas in the Nation which has the migrate through Puget Sound waters are of significant channel and port depths to handle the super-ships value to sport and commercial fishermen. An esti- beginning to ply the waterways of the world. Nearly mated 2,820 miles of stream throughout the Area are every river in the Area is by definition, navigable. utilized by anadromous fish for spawning and rearing. However, only the lower sections, generally within The anadromous fish of the Area include the tidal range, are actually used for navigation. Total chinook, coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon, and foreign and domestic coastwise and domestic internal steelhead, searun cutthroat trout, and searun Dolly waterborne commerce was about 40 million tons in Varden. All of these fish spend a portion of their lives 1966 with the annual growth from 1952 and 1966 in the marine waters of Puget Sound and the Pacific averaging about 2.5 percent. Ocean before returning to streams of origin to spawn. The rivers in the Puget Sound Area have been a The juveniles of these fish spend varying amounts of source for obtaining electric energy since a small time in the estuarine waters of the Sound before water power plant was placed in operation on a small moving to sea to grow to maturity. unnamed stream at Tacoma in 1886. A total of 1.25 In spite of the fact the Green and Puyallup rnillion kilowatts of capacity are presently installed in Rivers are in the most heavily populated areas these the -Puget Sound Area in 22 hydroelectric power streams and the Skagit and Stillaguarnish are the most developments. The water diversions for the hydro- heavily fished for salmon and steelhead. Many of the electric power plants range from 5 cfs for the smallest lakes, ponds and reservoirs support resident fish as plant to 9,500 efs for the largest. well as wildlife, including waterfowl. There are several thermal-electric steam plants An urgent need exists for additional hydrologic in the Puget Sound Area. These are located on Lake information to facilitate management of the Area's Union and Lake Washington, the Duwamish River, water resources. Appendix 111, Hydrology and and directly on Puget Sound. Natural Environment outbpes the specific re- Local sources of power are inadequate to quirements for additional data gathering. supply the present power demand and two-thirds of the peak demand is supplied from outside sources, LAND USE primarily the Columbia River. The physical features of the Puget Sound Area General land use is shown in Table 2-6 and with its high mountain lakes, numerous rivers and Figure 2-2. Ownerships are shown in Table 2-7. 2-12 .......... CANADA -sg "15, L "MM "jj 'y 'T NT AE gg- -- 'op Pallcofi,'-' Vg-7il g g -71 -E A im -'lj "U's; r VXT LEGEND @)@AMLIP AREAS FORtST RURAL t40N-FARM IROPLAND "k, kAt4aE GRA5$,8RU$H,AND DARREN$ 20 :R PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WA s STUDY AREA FIGURE 2-2. Generalized Land Use 2-13 TABLE 2-6. Land use, Puciet Sound Area 1967 (in acres) Rural Total Area Non- Built-Up Land and Bashi Cropland Rangeland Forest Land.1 Agricultural Areas Fresh Water Fresh Water Nooksack-Sumas 137,492 11,600 609,581 12,669 20,896 12,129 804,367 Skagit-Samish 100,465 19,748 1,753,445 @0,092 18,804 35,409 1,947,963 Stillaguamish 34,531 1,016 385,450 5,932 6,698 4,721 438,348 Snohomish 7,1,752 21424 '1,054,699 29,360 36,355 23,861 1,218,451 Cedar 20,279 1'120 210,641 25,379 166,516 32,888 396,823 Green 33,103 2,232 236,047 8,966 59,885 5,950 346,183 Puyallup 36,853 5,683 593,339 25,729 97,446 11,297 770,347 Nisqually 29,254 34,008 379,675 6,@368 5,481 7,468 462,254 Deschutes 16,248 9,480 127,123 13,541 14,416 2,597 183,405 San Juan 118, 594 9,129 71,958 9,118 2,774 955 112,528 Whidbey-Camano 23,006 2,454 84,069 12,419 10,987 719 133,654 West Sound 46,215 5,137 1,123,666 64,M 42,161 12,606 1,293,993 E lwha- Dungeness 23,721 2,417 409,491 5,073 5,911 1,844 448,457 Puget Sound Area 591,513 106,448 7,039,184 2381,854 428,330 152,444 8,556,773 11 ncl udes open and barren land normally associated with forest areas. Source: Appendix V, Water-Related Land Resources. TABLE 2-7. Land ownership, Pug et Sound Area (in percent of total area) Public All Basin Federal Statell County Municipal -Public Private Nooksack-Sumas 34.3 10.7 0.3 0.6 45.9 54.1 Skagit-Samish 71.2 5.5 0.1 0.3 77.1 22.9 Stillaguarnish 40.2 16.4 0.2 0.3 57.1 43.0 Whidbey-Caman.o 6.1 4.3 0.5 0.1 11.0 89.0 Snohomish 35.4 11,7 0.1 4.5 51.7 48.3 Cedar-Green 10.3 3.3 0.2 15.6 29.4 70.6 Puyallup 39.4 2.5 0.1 1.6 43.6 56.4 Nisqually-Deschutes 20.7 9.8 0.2 0.6 31.3 68.7 West Sound 28.5 9.4 0.1 1.4 39.4 60.6 Elwha-Dungeness 75.3 6.1 0.1 0.4 81.9 18.1 San Juan 1.1 8.3 0.8 0.0 10.2 89.8 Puget Sound Area 40.8 7.9 0.2 2.6 51.5 48.5 1 Figures include country trust land administered by the State of Washington. Source: Appendix V,Water-Related Land Resources. Forests currently cover some 7.0 million acres, Cropland makes up 591,500 acres, or about 7 or about 80 percent of the total area. The Skagit- percent of the total area. Agriculture is largely Samish, Snohomish and West Sound Basins contain confined to the fertile lowland and inland valley areas the largest acreage of forest with about 55 percent of which are utilized for fruit, berry and vegetable the Area's total. Forest land classification shows 13 growing, and for dairying and poultry raising oper- percent of the acreage in noncommercial forest, 9 ations. The basins containing the most intensive percent held in reserved status in parks, wilderness, or agricultural development include the Nooksack- like units, and 78 percent in commercial forest land Sumas, Skagit-Samish, and Snohomish, Cedar-Green, capable of and available for the production of forest Puyallup and Elwha-Dungeness Basins. products. 2-14 Urban, industrial and other intensively de- The remaining acreage is made up of fresh veloped land approximate eight percent of the Area, water surface, rangeland, open and barren lands, and covering about 667,000 acres. This includes 239,000 land not other-wise classified. acres of rural nonagricultural lands and 428,000 in The overall ownership of land in the Puget built-up areas. Intensive development has occurred in Sound Area is almost evenly divided between public the lowlands adjacent to Puget Sound and along the and private owners, ranging from extremes of 82 established transportation routes within the Area. percent public in the Elwha-Dungeness Basins to 90 Heavy industry is concentrated along the shorelines percent private in the San Juan Islands. Most public of bays and estuaries, particularly Commencement land is located in the mountainous areas under and Elliott Bays, Possession Sound, and the lower Federal jurisdiction, composed mainly of the national reaches of the Duwarnish River. Other intensive forests and national parks. Other significant blocks of development is occurring around the periphery of the public land include State ownerships in the established metropolitan areas, particularly in the Nooksack-Sumas, Stillaguamish and Snohomish lower reaches of the Snohomish, Cedar, Green and Basins, and the city of Seattle ownership in the Pu yallup River valleys. In many instances, such Cedar-Green Basins. development has occurred on high value agricultural land in these basins. PROJECTED ECONOMY Projections of the economy for the Puget The large water-using industries (Food and Sound Area for the years 1980, 2000 and 2020 are kindred products, paper and allied products, chemical detailed in Appendix IV, Economic Environment. and petroleum, primary metals, stone, clay and glass, The findings of this appendix form the basis for and lumber and wood products) are expected to projecting the -needs for water and related land experience substantial growth. Production for the resources. The major elements of these projections major water-using industries is expected to realize an are summarized in the following paragraphs. 82 percent increase from 1965 to 1980 in terms of Population in the Puget Sound Area is pro- value added. Food and kindred products, paper, and jected to be 2.7 million persons by 1980 and 6.8 million by the year 2020 (See Figure 2-3). Population growth is expected to be greatest in the Seattle- Tacoma-Everett metropolitan complex. Table 2-8 6000 - shows the population projection for each of the eleven major basins of the Puget Sound Area. The greatest population growth is projected to occur in the Cedar-Green, Puyallup, Snohomish and 4000 Z West Sound Basins. By 1980, these four basins are 0 expected to have some 2.4 million people and account for 88 percent of the total population. D 2000 Present trends point to a continued concentration of CL 0 population in these basins, with over five million CL people expected by 2020. Table 2-9 shows the Gross Regional Product 0 and Employment projections by industry. Employ- 1965 1980 2000 2020 ment by 1980 is projected to approach one million YEAR jobs, with the Gross Regional Product almost doub- ling to 11.4 billion dollars (1963 dollars). Gross FIGURE 2-3. Projected population growth for the Puget Regional Product per person is expected to increase Sound Area. some 34 percent over the 17-year period. Source: Appendix IV, Economic Environment. 2-15 TABLE 2-8. Population projections by basins, Puget Sound Area (in thousands) Basin 1963 1980 2000 2020 Nooksack-Sumas 74.6 91.6 123.5 168.7 Skagit-Samish 53.8 64.2 86.5 118.2' Stillaguarnish 17.6 30.2 48.5 77.8 Whidbey-Camano Islands 19.9 56.0 80,9 115.0 Snohomish 178.2 297.8 467.8 761.4 Cedar-Green 976.9 1,454.8 2,270.0 3,619.9 Puyallup 324.5 449.8 700.0 1,107.5 Nisqually-Deschutes 69.6 74.9 104.5 146.5 West Sound 124.2 175.0 374.1 632.7 Elwha-Dungeness 28.3 29.8 41.0 56.& San Juan Islands 2.6 2.8 3.7 5.1 Puget Sound Area 1,870,0 2,726.9 4,300.5 6,809.4 Source: Appendix IV, Economic Environment and Appendix V, Water-Related Land Resources. allied and primary metals are projected to lead this expected to account for over 45 percent or this total growth. Relatively large increases also are projected outdoor recreation demand in 1980. The most for the chemicals and petroleum industries. On the intensive demand for recreation is expected to occur declining growth side is the lumber and wood in the Cedar-Green, Snohomish, West Sound, and products industry. Puyallup Basins. These four basins are projected to . Recreation and tourism are major industries. By account f6r about 63 percent of the total outdoor 1980, over 109 million recreation days are forecast recreation demand estimated for 1980. for the Puget Sound Area. Water-related activities are TABLE 2-9. Present and projected output, value added, employment by industry and population, Puget Sound Area 1963 1980 2000 2020 Value Employ- Value Employ- Value Ernplay: Value Employ- Industry Output' Added12 ment Output, Addd2 ment output, Added2 me., Output' Added2 ment Millions of 1963 Million, of 1963$ Millions of 1963S Millions of 1963 $ Agri., Fish., For., Mining 196.7 99.5 23,700 261.1 139.0 18,200 360.0 190.0 13,500 516.0 268.0 11,000 Food& Kindred Prods. 698.5 223.3 15,900 1,240.9 405.3 19,SDO 2,333.4 9DO.2 22,900 4,088.7 1,906.6 25.600 Lumber & Wood Prods. 413.7 174.6 19,700 371.3 154.6 8,300 305.5 146.0 2,800 234.2 136.0 900 (21,500) (17,D00) (14,700) (12,600) Paper& Allied Prods. 349.2 16B. 1 9,400 683.1 334.9 14,700 1,009.4 561.0 15,900 1,101.5 705.1 12,400 (9,800) (10,300) (10,900) (9,300) Chemicals 70,41 33.9 2,300 138.6 68.4 1,900 287.0 170.4 1.400 553.7 420.2 1,000 Petroleum Refining 255.9 1,200 511.8 123.0 1,300 1,080.2 301.4 1,400 2,124.7 729.1 1,300 Ston:, Clay,Glass 92.4 37.9 3,800 172.5 71.1 5,000 337.1 161.2 6,500 1314.1) 361.1 8,000 Prim ry Metals 118.8 53.6 4,100 518.6 216.7 7,300 885.3 392.1 8,700 1,408.5 699.8 9,900 Other Non-Durable Mfgirs. 168.7 92.0 15,100 344.3 187.6 79,700 740.8 468.6 25,200 1,485.6 1,555.8 30,900 Other Durable Mfgrs, 1,816.9 959.6 86,200 5,460.7 2,408.6 175,700 18,707.1 7,707.4 380,700 58.086.5 24,349.1 787;400 Transportation 615.6 461.1 40,200 1,192.8 894.6 36,200 2,422@7 1,990.8 29,700 4,585.6 4,373.5 23,300 Wholesale & Retail Trade 1,250.3 1,011.3 140,000 2,269.4 1,M.4 202,600 4,267.4 4,006.3 292,300 7,477.7 8,634.1 402,400 Services 1,149.5 842.2 144,000 2,185.9 1,604.5 230,100 4,356.0 3,711.8 388.800 8,088.8 8,477.0 627,300 Construction 673.8 277.0 41.200 1,359-7 558.8 54,500 2,869.9 1,395.9 70,500 5,644.7 3,442.6 87,200 Government --- 734.0 115,800 - - - 1,565.1 178,100 - - - 4,140.9 275,100 --- 10,816.5 405,8DO Consumption - - - 600. 790.8 1,191.6 - - - - - - 1,773. Total $7,869.4 $5,830.4 662.600 16,710.7 $11,358.4 973,100 $39,961.8 $27,435.6 1,535,400 $96,010.2 $68.247.5 2,434,500 Output is equivalent to sales. except for those industries where -margin" entries are used. "Margin" represents "mark-up" costs as in caw wholesale retail trade. 2 Value added: A firm's sales ten the purchase of goods and services from other firms. It is equivalent to the firm's contribution to gross regional product. 3 Data in pasrenthesis is new data made available after the input-output study was completed. Note; Figures sy not add to totals due to rounding. Source: Appen7dix IV, Economic Environment. 2-16 Future declines in the amount of farmland will facilities is expected. Recreation and tourism are be associated with urban-population growth and expected to provide economic stimuli to the San Juan industrial expansion. Farming is expected to have its and Whidbey-Camano Islands. greatest decline in the Central Division as land is The present economic pattern in the Central converted to more intensive use. The Northern Division is expected to continue, with the growth Division is expected to contain the major share of industries in the Cedar-Green, Snohomish, and farmland. Puyallup Basins, being transportation equipment, real The total value of crop and livestock pro- estate, and services. However, noticeable declines in duction is projected to increase due to improved lumber and wood products economic activity is agricultural technology from $128 million in 1963 to expected. $165 million in 1980 and to $274 million by 2020. In the Western Division the forest products In terms of percentages, the Northern Division industries, particularly pulp and paper are expected is projected to show the largest increase in economic to be high growth industries. In both areas, West activity through 1980. Aluminum, petroleum refin- Sound Basins and the Elwha-Dungeness Basins, ing, and education industries are expected to lead the tourism and recreation will continue to expand. way, especially in the Nooksack-Sumas Basins ' and Future population and economic growth is Skagit-Samish Basins. The pulp and paper industry expected to be the greatest in and adjacent to the and the wood products industry also are expected to existing urban centers with the basins. The greatest expand. As most of these industries require water population changes are projected to occur in the access, development of additional deep-water port Snohomish, Cedar-Green, and Puyallup Basins. PROJECTED LAND USE Future land use in the Puget Sound Area has will continue to expand outward from the various been projected on the basis of five major land use urban and community centers and will continue to categories. Alternative projections for cropland, infringe upon existing agriculture and forest lands. rangeland, forest land, rural nonagricultural land and Lands suitable for cropland are in short supply and intensive or built-up lands were made, utilizing must be protected from unplanned urban scatter if different population densities and other spatial distri- agriculture is to remain an important element in the bution factors. The following alternatives were con- economy. Selective processes for the development of sidered: intensive uses must be more critical than they have in the past if urban development is to be properly Pattern A.-Increase of population density to located, and not to the detriment of the other major an average of 7.0 persons per acre in urban areas in uses. Recreational and industrial uses must be dealt 2020. with on an equal planning basis, especially those Pattern B.-Increase of population density to an requiring waterfront locations with joint land use average of 10.4 persons per acre in urban areas in considered where possible. 2020. Pattern A would result in intensive land use Pattern Ci-Increase of population density to displacing 527,100 acres of forest (231,000), rural an average of 6.7 persons per acre in urban areas in non-farm (142,600), crop (142,900) and range 2020 with cross sound bridges. (10,600) lands as compared to only 225,400 acres of Pattern C2_Increase of population density to displacement by Pattern B. Patterns C, (588,400 an average of 9.9 persons per acre in urban areas in acres displacement) and C2 (264,100 acres dis- 2020 with cross sound bridges. Dlacement) are adaptations of Patterns A and B, Each of the above alternatives imposes a dif- respectiv*ely, with the advent of a cross-sound bridge ferent intensive land use requirement, particularly for and a bridge between the mainland and Whidbey the basins within the Central Division. Generally, Island. Only land use Patterns B and C2 would satisfy there are adequate lands for all uses, yet the the-land needs for all uses to the year 2020 and result compatibility of uses requires good planning and in about fifty percent less displacement of open space adequate developmental control. Intensive land uses and green belt areas than Patterns A and C, . Patterns 2-17 B and C2 would also result in lower costs for the pattern into the Kitsap Peninsula and island areas, development of land to intensive uses, which then and conforms with current State transportation con- would result in a direct savings to the residents of the cepts. An expanded ferry system, as an alternative, Area, or provide the possibilities of freeing more could perhaps accomplish the same result at some monies for amenities to improve the Area's living crossings. Additional details concerning this and the envirom-nent. other land use patterns are in Appendix V, Water- . . Land use Pattern C2 was adopted for this study Related Land Resources. A summary of intensive as the most reasonable means of satisfying the Area's land use is given in Table 2-10 and a summary Of land use requirements. The development of cross- projected land use is given in Table 2-11. The C2 sound bridges expands the current development generalized land use pattern is shown in Figure 2-4. TABLE 2-10. Intensive land use development in the year 2020, land use pattern C2 Acres of Land Displaced by Intensive use by Type Present 2020 Rural Population Non- Crop 20201 Basins Acresi Density Acresi Density 2 Forest Farm land Rangeland Totals (in 000's) Nooksack-Sumas 20,900 3-6 29,800 5.7 5,000 600 3,300 0 8,900 168.7 Skagit-Samish 18,800 2.8 23,600 5.0 1,600 300 2,800 100 4,600 118.2 Stillaguamish 6,700 2.4 12,700 6.1 4,200 600 900 300 6,000 77.8 Snohomish 36,300 4.9 84,000 9.1 20,800 18,900 8,000 0 47,700 761.43 Cedar-Green 166,400 5.85 222,900 16.2 25,300 13,100 17,600 500 56,500 3,619.93 Puyallup 97,400 3.33 138,200 8.0 17,300 19,800 3,200 500 40,800 11107.53 Nisqually-Deschutes 19,900 3.0 23,500 6.2 1,000 2,200 200 200 3,600 146.5 West Sound 42,200 2.90 100,300 6.3 25,900 27,900 4,000 300 58,100 632.73 E lvvha-Dungeness 5,900 3.3 10,800 5.2 2,800 900 900 300 4,900 56.6 Whidbey-Camano 11,000 1.8 43,000 2.7 20,000 9,500 2,000 500 32,000 115.03 San Juan 2,800 0.94 3,600 1.4 100 700 0 0 800 5.1 TOTAL 428,300 4.35 692,400 9.9 124,000 94,500 42,900 2,700 264,100 6,M9.4 Figures rounded to the nearest hundred. 2Persons per intensive land use acre. 3 Population projections adjusted to meet a population shift with the advent of bridges being contructed between the mainland and the peninsula and between Whidbey Island and the mainland. Source: Appendix V, Water-Related Land Resources. TABLE 2-11. Projected land use in the Puget Sound Area usage 2020 land use pattern C2 (acres) 2 Forest Rural non- Intensive or Fresh Basin Cropland Rangeland Landi Agricultural Land Built-up Land Water Totals Nooksack-Sumas 134,200 11,600 604,600 12,100 29,800 12,100 904,400 Skagit-Samish 97,700" 19,700 1,751,800 19,800 23,600 35,400 1,948,000 Stillaguarnish 33,600 700 381,300 5,300 12,700 4,700 438,300 Whidbey-Camano 21,000 2,000 64,100 2,900 43,000 700 133,700 Snohomish 63,800 2,400 1,033,900 10,400 84,000, 23,900 1,218,400 Cedar-Green 35,800 2,900 421,400 21,200 222,900 38,800 743,000 Puyallup 33,700 5,200 576,000 5,900 138,200 11,300 770,300 Nisqually-Deschutes 45,300 43,300 505,800 17,700 23,500 10,100 645,700 WestSound 42,iOO 4,800 1,097,800 36,300 100,300 12,600 1,294,000 Elwha-Dungeness 22,800 2,100 406,700 41200 10,800 1,800 448,500 San Juan 18,600 9,100 71,800 8,400 3,600 11000 112,500 Total 548,600 103,800 6,915.200 144,400 692,400 152,400 8,556,800 1Figures include open and barren lands normally associated with forest areas. 2Figures rounded to the nearest hundred. Source: Appendix V, Water-Related Land Resources. 2-18 4Z qWFAIVIA!" CANADA A-1 T M g 5% UP UA@ ,HOXV-111 , I A.," w ffpgt IVY- SH 14 mt. 0 1 L LEGEND E= PRESENT BUILT.UP AREAS BUILT-UP AREAS, YEAR 2020 FOREST RURAL NON-FARM CROPLAND RANGE GRASS,BRUSH,AND BARRENS 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN S-1. 10 0 10 20 PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS STUDY AREA FIGURE 2-4. Generalized Land Use Alternative C2 -2020 2-19 The single-purpose needs were developed in or through the development of ground water by Appendices V through XIV. This section summarizes numerous separate entities. Many of the industrial the results of the studies for the Area showing needs water supplies are provided by adjacent municipal projected for each feature at the various time levels. systems. Some industries obtain water from inde- The present status of each feature is also summarized pendent surface or ground water sources as do many to provide a brief introduction to the functional smaller communities and districts. concept and describe current resource use. Surface waters are the sources of supply for major urban centers. Ground water sources, in addi- tion to generally supplying outlying areas, also MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL provide needed quantities during periods of turbidity WATER SUPPLY in surface water sources. General Present and Future Needs . Municipal and industrial water is supplied The future water needs are based on projected through diversion and distribution of surface waters urban and industrial growth demands within each i@-p g a =-%n - !@-@n;-- U, m M Z @3 a MWXHAMM VIM- ILA! .%V W, 0 C18 AEIM. "EL- - - _ - 11 .., .. @_T I V-M 'XI W V u Wo ItM -A" I- UP i@ VI V, A A4 "M PHOTO 3-1. City of Seattle municipal and industrial water supply reservoir, South Fork of Tolt River. The Tolt is one of two surface water sources that the Seattle Water Department uses to supply approximately 120 million gallons per day to its service area. The other source is the Cedar River which the city has used since before 1900. Seattle Water Department Photo 3-3 basin. Certain areas have insufficient ground water 2020 are estimated to be 1,278, 2,0@3, and 3,159 supplies, and other areas have inadequate distribution mgd, respectively. The projected needs are tabulated, and transmission facilities to meet private, municipal by individual basins, in Table 3-1. and industrial growth demands. Consolidation of The design of new, or expansion of existing servicing groups, updating systems, development of distribution facilities to meet the projected average new storage and regional distribution systems, and annual needs should incorporate the increased de- use of water treatment plants is desirable. livery capacities necessary to meet desired state The total Puget Sound Area municipal, indus- ratings for health, fire protection and other peak trial, and rural-individual water use for 1965 was demands. estimated to average about 660 million gallons per A detailed discussion of municipal and indus- day (mgd), or some 738,000 acre-feet per year. trial water supply is contained in Appendix VI, Projected annual water needs for 1980, 2000, and Municipal and Industrial Water Supply. TABLE 3-1. Municipal and industrial water supply, average annual present use and projected needs, o-uget Sound Area 1965 Use 1980 2000 2020 160-0 1000 1000 1000 Basin MGD Ac.Ft. MGD Ac.Ft. MGD Ac.Ft. MGD Ac.Ft. Nooksack-Sumas 73 82 156 175 212 237 293 328 Skagit-Samish 28 31 49 55 77 87 116 130 Stillaguarnish 2 2 5 5 9 10 17 19 Snohomish 165 185 266 298 419 470 540 605 Cedar-Green 165 185 354 396 584 654 1,122 1,257 Puyallup 100 112 186 208 329 368 547 613 Nisqually-Deschutes 8 9 16 18 25 27 41 46 West Sound 49 55 93 104 139 155 182 204 Elvvha-Dungeness 64 72 140 156 209 235 271 303 San Juan Islands 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 Whidbey-Camano Is. 4 4 12 13 19 22 29 33 Totals-Area 658.6 737.7 1,277.6 1,438.7 2,022.8 2,265.9 3,159.2 3,539.3 Source: Appendix VI, Municipal and Industrial Water Supply. IRRIGATION soil characteristics, drainage, availability of water, and the type of system desired by the farm operator. General There are abundant ground water and surface water Since 1945, irrigation in the Puget Sound Area sources in the Puget Sound Area, but in combining all has shown marked growth. Land classification surveys of the factors involved there has not been widespread from 1963 to 1966 indicated that there were about development of large tracts for irrigation. Most of the 91,700 acres irrigated in the Area, as compared to lands presently irrigated have been developed through 6,100 ;n 1919 and 10,300 in 1945. private means. The relatively uniform marine climate of the Puget Sound Area is suitable for growth of a variety Present and Future Needs of crops. Due to the moist climate, irrigation is Arable lands in the Puget Sound Area total primarily used to prevent crop failure and to maintain 516,000 acres, of which 91,700 are presently irri- plant growth rather than to produce optimum yields. gated and 424,300 are potentially irrigable. Most of Irrigated lands are generally in scattered small the potentially irrigable lands are located on the flood areas interspersed with larger areas of non-irrigated plains of the rivers which flow into Puget Sound and land. The suitability for irrigation is determined by on the intermediate terraces and upland glacial hills 3-4 along the river valleys. Irrigated cropland needed by 2020, on the basis of development of land in the.Area to retain the projected share'of national production is 396,000 acres. However, the encroachment of the urban and suburban population and industrial sector onto the irrigable lands, limits the number of acres which actually would be capable of sustaining eco- nomical irrigation in the year 2020. Projections based upon estimated needs for food and fiber, location and extent of potentially irrigable lands, and availability of adequate water supplies indicate that irrigated lands in the Puget Sound Area will amount to M 138,100 acres in 1980, 185,600 acres in 2000 and 223,100 in 2020. The projected acreages to be irrigated are summarized for the Area in Table 3-2 and the corresponding irrigation water needs (from both surface and ground water sources) are shown in Table 3-3. PHOTO 3-2. Irrigation through use of sprinkler A complete discussion of irrigation including systems enhances crop growth in the Puyallup River potentials and projections is contained in Appendix Basin. Bureau of Reclamation Photo VII, Irrigation. TABLE 3-2. Present and projected irrigation, Puget Sound Area Basin Present 1980 2000 2020 (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Nooksack-Sumas 38,400 58,400 78,400 78,400 Skagit-Samish 6,200 16,200 26,200 511,200 Stillaguamish 2,500 6,500 10,500 10,500 Whidbey-damano Islands 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 Snohomish 12,800 14,800 18,700 20,000 Cedar-Green 2,600 1'B00 900 1,100 Puyallup 3,700 6,200 11,200 13,700 Nisqually-Deschutes 5,600 7,800 12,800 20,800 West Sound 1,200 1,600 2,100 2,600 Elwha-Dungeness 15,900 22,000 22,000 22,0.00 San Juan Islands 100 100 100 100 Puget Sound Area 91,700 138,100 185,600 223,100 Source: Appendix VII, Irrigation. TABLE 3-3. Present and projected irrigation needs, Puget Sound Area Basin Present 1980 2000 2020 (11000 A. F.) (1000 A.FJ (1000 A. F.) (11000 A. F.) Nooksack-Sumas 73.0 111.0 149.0 149.0 Skagit-Samish 12.0 31.1 50.3 98.3 Stillaguarnish 4.8 12.5 20.2 20.2 Whidbey-Camano Islands 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 Snohomish 24.5 28.2 35.7 38.2 Cedar-Green 5.6 3.9 1.9 2.4 Puyallup 8.8 14.7 26.5 32.5 Nisqually-Deschutes 13.3 18.5 30.4 49.3 West Sound 3.1 4.1 5.4 6.6 Elvvha-Dungeness 75.0 104.0 104.0 104.0 San Juan Islands Puget Sound Area Total 227.5 335.4 430.8 507.9 Source: Appendix VII, Irrigation. 3-5 WATER QUALITY CONTROL General Water quality decline has occurred in a number of lower valley surface waters due to changes in land use and development and inadequately treated muni- M cipal and industrial waste discharges, especially in developed estuarial areas. Wastes causing the degradation of water quality are contributed by municipalities, industries, agri- culture, navigation, and outdoor recreation. An esti- mated 90 percent of wastes generated near marine waters in 1968 were untreated industrial wastes discharged from industrial sources. Municipal wastes are treated before discharge. Implementation of the present marine waters (interstate) quality standards PHOTO 3-3. West Point treatment plant, Seattle. will provide for the improvement of water quality. This plant, which discharges its effluent into Puget Wastes discharged to fresh waters are receiving Sound, is the largest sewage treatment facility in the varying degrees of treatment. An estimated 34 per- Northwest. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle cent of these are industrial wastes, discharged un- Photo treated to streams. More than three-fourths of the wastes generated in the Puget Sound Area are discharged into the Puyallup, Stillaguarnish, Cedar- Green, and Skagit-San-iish Basins and to related depends upon (1) adequate collection, treatment and marine waters. Implementation of the adopted fresh dispersal facilities for wastes discharged into marine water (intrastate) quality standards will provide for waters and, (2) secondary treatment, where effluents the improvement of water quality. are discharged into streams, and (3) advanced (or tertiary) treatment where necessary to preserve water quality in lakes and impoundments or headwater Present and Future Needs areas. All activities which discharge wastes into the State and Federal water quality standards pro- waters or affect water quality must provide all known vide the baseline from which present and future needs available and reasonable methods of treatment and for water quality control are determined. Table 3-4 control. Likewise, land use activities should be summarizes water quality standards for marine and controlled to minimize the introduction of sediment fresh waters adopted by the State of Washington or other pollutants into stream sources. The separa- under the Water Quality Act of 1965. tion of storm and sanitary sewers and adequate The population equivalent of waste generated treatment plant operation becomes increasingly im- before treatment in the Puget Sound Area is pro- portant in reaching water quality goals. Sanitation jected to amount to 18,531,000 in 1980, 23,588,000 requirements for commercial vessels, live aboard in 2000, and 28,944,000 in 2020. Projected waste- vessels, pleasure boats and moorages are also im- loadings by time and basin are shown in Table 3-5. portant in achieving compliance with standards. Areas These potential loadings provide our basis for detailed having a high priority for waste collection and planning and cost estimation for waste treatment. treatment facilities are located in the major urban- Minimum strearnflows required to assimilate industrial complexes of Bellingham, Everett, Seattle treated wastes are given in Table 3-6. and Tacoma. The success of water quality control measures A complete discussion of water quality is zontained in Appendix XIII, Water Quality Control. 3-6 TABLE 3-4. Water quality classifications and criteria, Puget Sound Area Water Quality Class AA Class A Class B Class C Standards Extraordinary Excellent Good Fair Fresh Marine Fresh Marine Fresh Marine Fresh Marine Coliform 50 70 240 70 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 MPN MPN MPN MPN MPN MPN MPN MPN Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 7.0 8.0 6.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1' mg/1 mg/1 Temperature 600 F 550F 65'F 61'F 70'F 660F 750F 720F pH 6.5-8.5 7.8-8.5 6.5-8.5 7.8-8.5 6.5-8.5 7.8-8.5 6.0-9.0 7.0-9.0 Turbidity 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 JTU JTU JTU JTU JTU JTU JTU JTU Toxicity Shall be below those of public health significance, or which may cause acute or chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic biota, or which may adversely affect any water use. Aesthetic Values Shall not be impaired by the presence of materials or their effects, excluding those of natural origin, which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch, or taste. Source: Appendix X1 H, Watpr Quality Control. TABLE 3-5. Water quality control, projected before TABLE 3-6. Minimum flow requirements, cfs, Puget treatment raw wastes generated, Puget Sound Area Sound Area I (1000 population equivalents) - River and Location2 1980 2000 2020 Basin 1965 1980 2000 2020 Nooksack, Lynden 180 350 725 Nooksack-Sumas 2,031 3,102 3,624 4,087 Skagit, Mount Vernon 240 435 650 Skagit-Samish 1,048 1,881 2,352 2,063 Stillaguarnish, Stanwood 140 270 415 Stillaguarnish 349 530 1,057 1,937 Snoqualmie, North Whidbey-Camano Bend-Snoqualmie 10 20 25 Islands 24 89 141 186 Skykomish, Monroe 150 285 335 Snohomish 7,169 5,886 6,079 6,057 Snohomish, Snohomish 400 750 890 Cedar-Green 1,348 2,359 3,986 6,658 Puyallup, Puyallup 105 245 270 Puyallup 839 1,226 2,173 3,182 White, Puyallup 45 120 135 Nisqually-Deschutes 139 189 338 584 Puyallup, Tacoma 140 210 240 West Sound 236 570 957 1,334 Elwha-Dungenesss 3,264 2,682 2,857 2,813 1Minimum flow estimates based on wastes receiving secon- San Juan Islands 11 17 24 43 dary treatment. - 2Minimum flow estimates for West Sound, Elwha-Dungeness, Puget Sound Area Whidbey-Camano, San Juan, Cedar-Green and Nisqually- Total 16,458 18,531 23,588 28,944 Deschutes Basins have not been developed. Source: Appendix X1 11, Water Quality Control. Source: Appendix X1 11, Water Quality Control. 3-7 NAVIGATION The waterfront terminal facilities in the Puget Sound Area serve an industrial complex which de- General pends on waterborne commerce to enhance its The navigation resources of the Puget Sound, competitive market position. Water transport- Area, combining deep water easily accessible from the oriented industries had in use approximately 5,200 Pacific Ocean with sheltered waterways is a signifi- acres of land in 1963, while approximately 2,300 cant heritage. The maintenance of this resource acres of land were used for terminal facilities. requires cooperative planning on a continuous basis Many of the ports provide small boat moorage to ensure that the needs for commercial develop- facilities for recreation boating and accommodations ments are met in a manner which protects the unique for commercial fishing fleets. The registered pleasure environment. The navigation use of the Puget Sound boat ownership was about 62,000 in 1966, creating Area has bee 'n one of the several reasons for its rapid heavy demands on small boat facilities. A survey in economic growth. Seven major ports and a number of 1966 of a representative sample of registered pleasure minor ports now serve the Area. The controlling boat owners revealed a significant need for additional depth at most harbor entrances is practically un- moorages above the 16,000 public rental moorages limited while at waterways and at berths alongside provided in that year. The Area has one of the highest docks, the controlling depth varies from 25 to 70 per capita participation rates in pleasure boating of feet. The Puget Sound Area ports are among the few any major population center of the Nation. natural harbors of the world which can handle "super bulk carriers," such as the "Manhattan" which has a Present and Future Needs draft of 51 feet fully loaded. Significant growth in foreign and domestic Most commercial navigation occurs on Puget coastwise and domestic internal commerce is pro- Sound and adjacent marine waters with port facilities jected over the 50-year study period with the total located along the shoreline of natural harbors. How- tonnage forecasted to rise from 42 million tons in ever, extensive use has been made of portions of river 1966 to nearly 25.2 million tons by 2020. Additional estuaries in the Snohomish and Cedar-Green Basins lands will be required for terminal facilities to service where channels have been dredged 7 and 5 miles, these projected tonnages, as well as meeting the needs respectively, above the mouth of the Snohomish and of water transport-oriented industry. The future land Duwamish Rivers. needs have been projected at 17,130 acres by 1980, - There are 32 active port districts in the Puget 29,010 acres by 2000, and about 41,500 acres by the Sound Area, with the major ports located at Seattle, year 2020. Harbor and channel deepening projects Tacoma, Olympia, Bellingham, Port Ang 'eles, Port would be required to insure that with a growing trend Townsend, Everett, and Anacortes. A full range of to deeper drafts all ships can be served in the facilities required to handle both bulk and general waterways and berths of the Area. Channel depths of cargo efficiently, including containerization facilities over 100 feet would be needed in some locations. and back-up' areas are available. Total foreign and Pleasure boating wet moorage demand is forecast at domestic coastwise and domestic internal waterborne 43,790 moorages in 1980, 79,870 moorages in 2000, commerce of the Puget Sound Area increased from and 143,440 moorages by 2020. A large number of 31 million tons in 1952 to almost 42 million tons in breakwater-protected marinas would be required to 1966. The average annual rate of growth during this accommodate these demands. Table 3-7 summarizes period was about 2.5 percent. In 1964, 48,000 the navigation needs for the Area. persons were employed in work related to waterborne Increased efficiency in cargo handling and land commerce, and the direct value of related goods and use would be necessary in order for the Area ports to services was estimated to be 1.1 billion dollars. remain competitive . Greater cooperation among ports and centralized planning are indicated as means of There are 22 Federally authorized river and achieving these efficiencies. harbor projects in the Puget Sound Area, providing Planning of the land transportation network, for construction of channels and breakwaters, annual including warehousing, consolidation, and distri- maintenance dredging, and snagging and clearing of bution facilities for integration with waterborne debris. transportation is needed to take advantage of such 3-8 V7771% IF- PHOTO 3-4. Manhattan, 51 -foot draft bulk. cargo vessel receiving grain from the Hanford Street terminal in Seattle. Port of Seattle Photo '@X -q, "z D'@ Z UA, kg gs"RN'!"'tN" gh' HOOK v @ig t U U vfid 5 RE 12 iviU "A PHOTO 3-5. Tugboat towing barge through Lake Washington Ship Canal. Corps of Engineers Photo 3-9 TABLE 3-7. Gross navigation needs, Puget Sound Area 1980 2000 2020 Industrial I nclustrial I nclustrial & Terminal Sm. Boat Waterborne &Terminal Sm. Boat Waterborne & Terminals Sm. Boat Waterborne Lands Harbors Commerce Lands Harbors Commerce Lands Harbors Commerce Basins (Acres) (Moorages (1,000 tons) (acres) IMoorages) (1,000 Tons) (Acres) IMoorages) 11,000 tons) NooksackSumas 2,G40 990 4,700 3,480 1,620 12,700 5,870 2,700 30,100 Skagit-Samish 2,920 2,400 8,700 4,050 3,930 12,700 5,910 6,540 30,100 Stillaguamish - - - 400 - - - - - - 1 770 - - - 2 - - - 1 1,500 - - - 2 Whidbey-Camano - - - 3,770 - - - 2 - - - 6,300 - - - - - - 10,690 - - - Snohomish 1,610 4,920 3,800 5,640 9,530 10,900 12,330 18,520 60,000 Cedar-Green 6,550 10,920 22,000 7,300 21,200 32,600 7,300 41,200 50,000 Puyallup 3,010 4,350 8,700 4,950 8,450 19,000 4,950 16,400 22,200 Nisqually-Deschutes 310 1,170 1,100 2,550 1,950 6,400 3,760 2,700 22,200 WestSound --- 1 10,920 ___.2 --- 1 1 19,600 --- 2 -1 32,900 - - - 2 Elwha-Dungeness 480 1,140 1 700 830 1,920 2,700 1,170 2,640 4,200 San Juan - - - 1 2,810 - 2 - - - 1 4,600 - - - 1 ___1 7,650 - - - 2 Minor Ports 210 - - - 16,100 210 - - - 26,500 210 - - - 43,000 Puget Sound Total Area 17,130 43,790 66,800 29,010 79,870 123,500 41,500 143,440 251,900 1 Industrial and terminal land needs in this basin are not forecasted as only minor development is anticipated 2Waterborne commerce projections for minor ports in this basin are included with t@tal forecast for all minor ports in the Area. Source: Appendix V111, Navigation. innovations as containerization and unit transport. plans and programs for the conservation and bene- Environmental, social, and aesthetic considerations ficial use of the Area's water, land and mineral should be incorporated into navigation developments resources are all affected by power development. to avoid degradation of the valued marine environ- Low-cost power, abundant and widely available is an ment. The requirement exists for theproper disposal important factor in expanding industry and the of dredged materials in order to minimize or elim- getieral economy of the Area. in.ate possible adverse effects on the environment. Importation of power began in the early 1940's Public demand for recreation boating facilities has and now accounts for, more than triple the energy reached significant proportions in the Area. Accel- produced in the Area. There are two diesel-electric erated development of small boat facilities would be generating plants on the San Juan Islands and five required to meet this need and permit full utilization steam-electric plants in the Cedar-Green and Puyallup of the recreation L)oating advantages of Puget Sound Basins. Installed capacity of these diesel and steam and adjacent waters. Means for proper waste col- plants total about 200,000 kilowatts. In eight of the lection from commercial vessels, live aboard vessels basins there are 22 hydroelectric plants with approxi- and pleasure craft should be provided. A complete mately 1,200,000 kilowatts of installed hydroelectric discussion of navigation is contained in Appendix capacity. The San Juan Islands, Whidbey-Camano VIII, Navigation. Islands and Stillaguarnish Basin have no hydropower POWER developments. The Puget Sound Area as a producer and General consumer of electric power. is expected to continue to be an integral part of the Pacific Northwest power Development of power resources in.the Puget economy. The Area is served on a coordinated basis Sound Area is an important factor in the physical and economic growth of the Pacific Northwest. Policies, 3-10 TW Uy A, I T i,@"* q<* ..... I, ?5V X J .5K V@ PHOTO 3-6. Seattle City Light's 540-foot Ross Dam during one of the few instances that water is going over the spil Ross Powerhouse generates up to 450,000 kw when the lake is full. Ross Lake has a total storage of 1,405,000 acre-feet usable storage of 1,023,000 acre-feet. The lake is kept at a reduced level from October 1 to March 15 each year to p 120,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control. Seattle City Light Photo through a number of interconnected generating and FLOOD CONTROL transmission systems which the Bonneville Power General Administration system provides the backbone. At A total of 747,000 acres of land in the Puget present the Northwest is almost entirely hydro Sound Area are subject to floodwater damage at least supplied, but a shift to a n-dxed thermal-hydro system once in every 100 years. About 276,800 acres are is expected to be well underway by 1980, when the subject to overbank flooding along the mainstern of bulk of the economical hydro energy will have been major streams. Flooding, other than mainstern developed. Economic hydro peaking capacity may be overbank flooding, is -discussed under Watershed under development for a considerable period after Management. that time. The Puget Sound Area is deficient in Flooding by overbank flow of main-stem electric power resources and is expected to continue streams occurs on bottom-lands in nine of the eleven to be a large importer of electrical energy from the Puget Sound Area Basins. The San Juan and rest of the Pacific Northwest, principally the Colum- Whidbey-Camano Islands have relatively small water- bia Basin. sheds, and because of light rainfall, overbank flow The seasonal pattem of peak and energy loads flooding is a minor problem. Average annual flood within the Area is characterized by low summer loads damages are estimated at $7,122,000 for the Puget and a winter peak. The winter peak is created mostly Sound Area. About $6,200,000, or 87 percent of the by electric heating. The Area is'generally character- flood damages occurs in the Skagit-Sarnish, Sno- ized by cool summers and as a result there is very homish and Nooksack Basins. little summer air conditioning load. Three muni- Only portions of the Green and Puyallup River cipafly-owned, one Federally-owned, one private Basins have a level of flood prote .ction to the standard utility and two industrial firms produce electrical required for urban areas. The lower Puyallup River energy within the Area. Basin is protected against floods with recurrence intervals in excess of 100 years by Mud Mountain Dam and Reservoir and channel improvements. The Present and Future Needs Howard A. Hanson Dam and Reservoir has sufficient With the projected population expan 'sion and storage to provide in 'excess of I 00-year control of industrial development, the Area's electric power Green River strearriflow to a maximum of 12,000 cfs requirements are projected to increase from the at Auburn. 17,407 million kwh in 1965 to 400,000 niillion kwh Some agricultural lands are protected by levee in year 2020. This represents an overall annual rate of systems. These levees are for the most part the result growth of 5.9 percent for the 55-year period to 2020. of efforts by local diking and drainage districts, The projected electrical energy needs of the Puget constructed to prevent spring flooding. As a result, Sound Area are shown in Table 3-8. levee protected agricultural lands are still subject to A complete discussion of power is contained in winter flooding which occur on a frequency that Appendix IX, Power. varies from about once every two to eight years. TABLE 3-8. Projected electric power requirements, Puget Sound Area Per Capita Loadsi Population Requirement Energy Average Peak Year 11000 People) (kwh) (Million kwh@ (1000 kw) (1000 kw) 1965 1,877 9,274 17,407 1,987 3,453 1980 2,727 17,700 48,300 5,530 9,730 2000 4,300 33,100 142,500 16,800 30,270 2020 6,809 58,700 400,000 47,700 89,400 1 Includes reserve requirements. Source: Appendix I X, Power. 3-12 .99@1. 3@ OWRI WI W, PHOTO 3-7. Flooding of homes along Snohomish PHOTO 3-8. Flooded crop of broccoli which was River during November 1959 flood which was result not harvested because of flooding condition. Soil of intense winter storms. Damages occurred to Conservation Service Photo cropland, buildings, equipment and transportation facilities. Corps of Engineers Photo 97 Z!, r_14 M j"L U Air L2 PHOTO 3-9. Flood plain of Snoqualmie Valley during 1965 winter flood of 2to 5 year recurrence interval. Corps of E ng ineers Photo 3-13 Optimum development of agricultural lands is thus TABLE 3-9. Average annual flood damages present restricted. and future conditions at existing levels of protection The heavy sediment load of many rivers in the and at 1966 prices (in thousands of dollars) Puget Sound Area adds to flooding problems. Rivers deposit sediment where the stream gradient flattens from the steep mountainous area to the flat flood 1966 19801, 2000 2WO plain. The continued deposition of sediment adds to overbank flooding conditions by reducing channel Nooksack-Sumas 853 1,210 1,970 3,350 carrying capacity. As a result the upper reaches of the Skagit-Samish 3,020 4,340 7,060 12,030 flood plains are subject to frequent changes in river Stillaguamish 256 380 690 1,310 channel location and direction. Bank erosion and loss Snohomish 2,310 3,520 6,370 13,100 Cedar-Green 447 780 1,700 3,740 of valuable farmlands are typical occurrences. Puyallup 100 151 301 602 Nisqually-Deschutes 57 69 110 160 Present and Future Needs West Sound 51 68 100 158 Elwha-Dungeness 28 38 54 80 The degree of flood protection should be - - - compatible with the present and projected future use Total $7,122 $10,556 $18,355 $34,530 of the flood plain lands. The objectives of flood --- - protection established for this study vary according Source: Appendix X 11, Flood Control. to the type and intensity of existing and anticipated developments. The objective for urban and industrial lands is at least a 100-year level of protection, for prime agricultural lands with a high density of farm buildings and residences, a 50-year level of protection receives the precipitation, and with the management is recommended, and for other agricultural lands, a of the water that runs off the surface or percolates 25-year level of protection. For recreation and related through the surface into the ground water resource. use lands, a 10-15 year protection is suggested. When watershed areas are in good condition the Most of the flood plain lands along the princi- runoff is generally equitable and the water of good pal rivers are in need of measures to prevent flood quality. Most of the watersheds in the Puget Sound damages. These measures include a flood plain man- Area are in relatively good condition at present. The agement program for each basin, as well as necessary activities of man or natural disasters often cause and justifiable structures. Without additional protec- disruption of the natural hydrologic cycle and lead to tion, damages would increase with more intensive changes in many aspects of the natural environment. agricultural, urban and suburban development, expan- Urban expansion, logging, roadbuilding, and sion of transportation facilities and utilities, and agriculture have increased the volume and intensity of construction of other facilities such as fish hatcheries. surface runoff. The result has, in some areas, been a The projected damages are summarized by basin in loss of soil stability, accelerated erosion, sedimenta- Table 3-9. tion, stream and lake pollution, swamping, and A complete discussion of flood control is associated damages to property and to natural re- contained in Appendix XII, Flood Control. sources. These damages are widespread and cause injury and expense to the general public. In addition WATERSHED MANAGEMENT to a need for more care in the use of watersheds and corrective measures, many opportunities exist to General enhance various elements of the environment through Watershed management is concerned with the management of the water and related land resource use and care of the land and vegetative cover that for specific objectives. 3-14 PHOTO 3-10. Flooding small creek during excess winter rains due to inadequate culvert and drainage channel capacity. Soil Conservation Service Photo V "ZI PHOTO 3-11. Example of erosion and sediment @g transport resulting from development where forest cover and topsoil have been removed. Soil Conservation Service Photo PHOTO 3-12. Interstate Highway 5, north of Seattle where established planting of a variety of ground cover beautify and help stabilize steep raw cut slopes and fills. Soil Conservation Service Photo 3-15 Present and Future Needs needed. For this category of practices, the needs There are 747,000 acres in the Puget Sound would grow as population of the Area increased. Area subject to floodwater damage at least once in The upstream and tributary area subject to every 100 years. About 276,800 acres are subject to floodwater damage is approximately 25 percent overbank flooding from the mainstern of major forest and rangeland, 61 percent cropland, and 14 streams and require mainstern control, Previously percent more intensively developed land. Damages are described under Flood Control. However, these same estimated at $8,822,000 annually. This is in addition areas are also subject to flooding from excess precipi- to the overbank flood damage estimates presented in tation or other causes in the absence of mainstern the section on Flood Control. overflow. Consequently these 276,800 acres, as well The area of forested land is not considered to as 470,200 acres of upstream and tributary area, require flood prevention or flood control measures require flood prevention, drainage, and other water under conditions of use in 1967, but would require management measures within the scope of watershed such protection as use changes. Cropland should have management activities. Care has been taken to pre- protection from floodwater damage to enable higher vent double counting of development needs. Irri- yields. Intensively used land requires a 100-year level gation development requirements, while a facet of of protection. Some croplands and other lands are watershed management, are presented under Irri- mingled with transportation and other improvements gation. and require intermediate levels - of protection that Projections of population and economic growth should be determined by individual, detailed analysis. indicate accelerating demands on the Area's land and Soil erosion reduces the value of the land and water, resources. Urban and industrial use would contributes to streambed sediment loads, channel require, intensive development of additional land by deterioration, -and sedimentation of reservoirs and the year 2020.1 Production of food and fiber from estuaries. Likewise, the deposition of stream sediment the Area's forest and agricultural lands would be in lower channel areas reduces the flood-carrying increased through improved management, utilization capacity of streams and. increases overland flooding, of waste products and improved technology, at the stream channel braiding and bank erosion. Sediment same time these lands are receiving mounting pressure also has adverse 'affects upon quality of water for for other uses, particularly outdoor recreation human consumption and industrial use, and for fish These and other land use developments in the and wildlife. Nearly all of the land in the Puget Sound Puget Sound Area would require a greatly accelerated Area is periodically subject to erosion. The combined program of watershed management for the protection areas of agricultural, forest, and urban land requiring of land and water values. Currently the program is continued protection and rehabilitation measures, more than 50 percent deficient in meeting the amounts to a total of 8,404,200 acres. optimum needs of the Area. In addition to making -up Streambank erosion and braiding conditions are the current deficit, future watershed management heavy producers of channel sediment. Precise needs in planning should be made an integral part of such this area are not known. However, about 1,000 miles development. Research and data collection are of mainstern and tributary channel banks are esti- needed in the fields of hydraulic characteristics, mated to need measures for rehabilitation and pro- sedimentation, beach erosion, channel erosion, and tection. soil surveys. Forty-three percent of the lands covered by the Where watershed land is designated for a soil survey in the Puget Sound Area is found to have specific use; e.g., recreation, municipal and industrial drainage problems which affect their use for food and water, or water quality control, management prac- fiber production, urban development, and other tices peculiar to that use would be needed. On lands purposes, including construction. Acreages requiring which serve multiple uses, such as farming and flood prevention, watershed protection and rehabili- recreation, forestry and recreation, forestry and water tation measures and other water management for quality, and so on, management practices to prevent agricultural and urban uses are shown by time periods deterioration of the natural environment would be in Table 3-10. Beaches are the relatively unstable transition zone where the land mass and the tidal waters meet. IlSee Table 2-1 and 2-23, Appendix XIV, watershed Manage- Beaches in the Puget Sound Area are relatively ment. 3-16 TABLE 3-10. Principal watershed development needs, Puget Sound Area 1970 to 1980 1980 to 2000 2000 to 2020 C c C .2 -C -@ -C a .2 - - 0 .2 C Z C C _@ -C C C - W @ -0 Oc 'm q M 0 E E 2 E z E 2 0 :t E E C r U M M U C CO 0 0 4) _CDM > = Z C 0 0 > C 0 > W M = C 0 M 2 M m22 M (D CM M M 2 Q M M 3: (L LL cL (L 3: CL cc LL (t 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Basin acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres Nooksack-Sumas 135.1 792.2 55.4 33.6 135.1 792.2 92.3 33.6 135.1 792.2 123.1 33.6 Skagit-Samish 155.4 1912.6 49.0 38.9 155.4 1912.6 81.7 38.9 155.4 1912.6 108.9 38.9 Stil)aguarnish 34.8 433.6 13.5 12.6 34.8 433.6 22.6 12.6 34.8 433.6 30.1 13.0 __j Whidbey-Camano 25.6 132.9 8.6 23.4 25.6 132.9 14.4 23.4 25.6 132.9 19.2 23.4 Snohomish 93.4 1194.6 25.7 65.7 93.4 1194.6 42.9 81.0 93.4 1194.6 57.2 130.1 Cedar-Green 63.9 704.1 10.6 264.9 63.9 704.1 17.8 317.3 63.9 704.1 23.7 433,7 Puyallup 66.2 759.0 12.0 123.2 66.2 759.0 19.9 123.6 66.2 759.0 26.6 la8.5 Nisqually-Deschutes 68.4 635.6 5.3 39.8 68.4 635.6 9.0 39.8 68.4 635.6 11.9 39.8 West Sound 71.0 1281.4 17.1 106.4 71.0 1281.4 28.6 106.4 71.0 1281.4 38.1 106.4 Elwha-Dungeness 15.9 446.6 9.6 11.0 15.9 446.6 16.1 11.0 15.9 446.6 21.4 11.0 San Juan 17.3 111.6 9.9 11.9 17.3 111.6 16.4 11.9 17.3 111.6 21.9 11.9 Totals 747.0 8,404.2 216.7 731.4 747.0 8,404.2 361.7 799.5 747.0 8,404.2 482.1 1,040.3 1 Needs include 276,800 acres discussed under "Flood Control," but do not include the main stem control measures discussed in that section. See text for further details. Source: Appendix XIV, Watershed Management. narrow except in the vicinity of major rivers and considered to be in need of stabilization and/or along certain coves and bays. In the Skagit and rehabilitation. In some places the erosion is advancing Nooksack Basins, among others, some tidal areas have at an average rate in excess of one foot per year. A been reclaimed by seawall dikes and used for farming. study is required to fully evaluate needs for beach These dikes are subject to damage by wave action. A protective measures and for determining applicable considerable portion of the wave-cut terrace along the means of beach erosion control. The estimated eastern shore of the Puget Sound is occupied by distribution of beach erosion is shown in Table 3-11. railroad rights-of-way. The reader is referred to Appendix XIV, Water- The Area has over 2,000 miles of marine shed Management for further details. shoreline, of which approximately 187 miles are TABLE 3-11. Erosion reduction needs, Puget Sound Area Streambank Erosion Basins Braiding Severe Moderate Beach Erosion (feet) (f eet) (feet) (miles) Nooksack-Sumas 191,000 89,800 93,600 5- Skagit-Samish 24,400 89,200 61,800 20 Stillaguarnish 8,000 245,500 77,000 5 Snohomish 44,000 98,000 92,000 12 Cedar-Green --- 143,750 124,950 35 Puyallup 77,000 54,750 72,700 5 Nisqually-Deschutes 14,350 60,650 66,750 West Sound 5,150 10,650 11,250 39 Whidbey-Camano Islands --- --- --- 31 San Juan Islands --- --- --- 20 Elwha-Dungeness --- 2,700 12,550 15 Total measures 363,900 795,000 612,600 187 Source: Appendix XIV, Watershed Management. RECREATION restrict the public use of these resources for recre- ation. For example, residential developments, shore- General line roads and railroads, and private ownership of The water and related lands of the Puget Sound waterfront and tidal areas restrict the use of marine Area are nationally and internationally recognized for resources for public enjoyment. Increasing stretches their recreational use and potential. The outstanding of tideland and beach are being filled or dredged to physical features of the Area include extensive accommodate residential and commercial uses. In mountain ranges and forests, streams, lakes, and several localized situations, pollution has reduced the marine waterways which provide opportunities for value of water for recreational use. many diverse forms of outdoor recreation activities. The Area contains a wealth of outdoor re- The total use of recreation resources in the sources and many of these resources are presently Area was estimated to be 58 nufflion recreation days unusable or unavailable to the public and, therefore, in 1960, of which about 25 million recreation days do not contribute to the supply of outdoor recreation were for water-related activities. Demands for water- opportunities. The current demand for water related related activities are. expected to reach, 178,700,000 opportunities exceeds the existing supply of outdoor recreation days by the@ year 2020, representing a recreation facilities. Over 60 percent of outdoor six-fold increase over 1960. recreation use occurs during the summer, and more than one-half of this use takes place on weekends. Present and Future Needs During heavy use periods recreation areas are over- Competing land and water uses impair and crowded, especially those within or near urban areas. 3-18 PHOTO 3-13. Typical camping experience in --A National Forest Parks. U.S. Forest Service Photo Z11 "n 5,kf@ ,4j i2WO -"IN 3-14. Outdoor recreational opportunities of the Puget Sound Area are many and varied. Horseback riding at base of Mount k: R ainier, 14,410 f eet. Washington State Department of Commerce and Economic Development Photo A @X% 0, 'rTk, L5,L h IM-0 NX q_a % j!C-%r, Ix XT k 77- IIN PHOTO 3-15. Pleasure boating is possible from the door steps of all major population centers in the Puget Sound Area. Elliott Bay with Seattle skyline as backdrop. Washington State Department of Commerce and Economic Development Photo 3-19 With the increasing concentration of population wide and abundant variety of fish,. shellfish and in metropolitan and suburban areas, the need to wildlife. Many of these resources are 'close to the escape from man-made confines to outdoor recre- metropolitan centers. of the Area a:nd offer a wide ation areas is expected to increase. About one-half of range of commercial and recreational opportunities the future outdoor recreation demands and needs are that are unique. anticipated to occur in and near the major metro- In 1965, sport angler-use witz, estimated at politan centers. 5,720,800 angler-days, of which approximately 35 The project water-related recreational needs are Percent involved anadromous fish, 61. percent resi- summarized in Table 3-12. dent fish, I percent marine fish and 2 percent TABLE 3-12. Present and future water-related recrea- shellfish. This amount of angler use was valued at tion needs, Puget Sound Area $19,346,200. The, commercial catch for 1065 1000 Recreation-Days amounted to 44,252,000 pounds, with a total value Basin 1960 1980 .2000 2020 - to the fishermen of $6,345,400. An estimated 847,000 hunter-days were spent in wildlife use Nooksack-Sumas 2,100 4,100 7,800 14,400 pursuits. Such use is conservatively valued at Skagit-Samish 2,200 4,300 8,300 15,200 $4 325,700. The fish production capabilities of Stillaguarnish 830 1,600 3,000 5,500 var'ious Area waters are considered good to excellent. Whidbey-Camano Island 1,500 3,000 5,800 10,800 Wildlife is a product of the land and vegetative Snohomish 3,600 7,200 15,000 26,000 cover. The type or species, and number of animals or Cedar-Green 4,700 9,400 18,100 33,600 birds found in an area, is dependent upon the Puyallup 2,500 5.000 9,700 18,000 quantity and quality of the habitat. The basic Nisqually-Deschutes 2,100 4,200 8,000 14,900 elements of habitat, food, cover and water vary in West Sound 4,000 8,100 15,700 29,200 Elwha-Dungeness 650 1,300 2.500 4,600 type, quantity and quality as a result of existing San Juan Islands 1,000 1,900 3,500 6,500 climatic conditions, soil and topography. Each unit or - - - - area of habitat has a specific capacity to support Total'f or Area 25,180 50,100 96,400 178,700 wildlife. Wildlife cannot migrate to another area if a Source: Appendix X, Recreation. home territory is denuded of vegetation for some other use. The "other areas" are already supporting Only the water-oriented recreation needs were wildlife at the habitat carrying capacity. Human considered in this study. Such needs consist of population demands for agricultural, urban and swimming, boating, sailing, water-skiing, camping, industrial uses occur almost exclusively at low ele- picnicking, and hiking. Swimming is projected to be vations, the area of highest productivity for wildlife. the most popular recreational activity followed Consequently, human competition is direct and criti- closely by boating, camping, picnicking, and hiking. cal to wildlife survival. Satisfaction of these demands would require land acquisition and facility developments inter- Present and Future Needs spersed throughout the Area, with emphasis on urban Future demand for hunting and fishing is recreational development and salt water shoreline expected to increase substantially due to population acquisition and development. growth, rising personal income, increased leisure time, A complete discussion of recreation is con- ease of transportation and mobility, improved and tained in Appendix X, Recreation, including several reasonably priced equipment, and the continued studies and programs designed to protect significant assurance of access to the fish and wildlife resource. salt and fresh water shorelines and recreation re- The fish and wildlife needs projected in terms sources. of user-days are shown in Table 3-13. In deriving the needs the assumption was made that present fishing FISH AND WILDLIFE and hunting success levels would be retained. Numerous problems and conflicts resulting General from population increases associated with industrial, The varied marine, forest, stream, and moun- urban, and suburban expansion would need to be tain environments in the Puget Sound Area support a resolved because they affect the overall demands for 3-20 -471 U 77 -11V ET p-w- -n- Ne i4g - UIU- F d@ 10 r, HE e. i,7 @R JAJW@;I' 4 Y NiV& Vom WY, 5-i i zz V, PHOTO 3-16. Mountain goat, in Cascade Mountains which form Puget Sound Area's eastern border, provides object for energetic hunters. Washington State Department of Game Photo PHOTO 3-17. Pheasant released from State game farms are hunted throughout the Puget Sound Area. Washington State Department of Game Photo v,:- PHOTO 3-18. Geoducks, huge clams that are V@ harvested from the shoreline of Puget Sound, weigh as much as 6 pounds. Washington State Department of Fisheries Photo PHOTO 3-19. Excellent catch of rainbow trout from Bay Lake, located in West Sound Basin. Washington State Department of Game Photo F -X, A @Y IN *--A 3-21 fish, shellfish, and wildlife. These developments tend Supplemental legislation is needed to conserve to reduce the natural production capacities of essen- and enhance fish and wildlife resources and habitats. tial environments. The major problems which affect Public. awareness, improved technology, and manage- fish production are listed in Table 3-14. Sorne of ment programs are essential to maintaining adequate these limitations occur naturally, while others result levels of fish and wildlife under conditions of from man-made activities. The most significant prob- increased population. More detailed information is lems affecting wildlife are the direct and immediate presented in Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife. conflicts with carrying capacity. TABLE 3-13. Summary of fish and wildlife needs, Puget Sound Area Units 1965 1980 2000 2020 Sport Fishing 1,000 User-Days 5,721 9,489 15,245 24,546 Hunting 1,000 User-Days 847 1,635 2,651 3,271 Commercial Fishing 1,000 Pounds 44,252 52,565 72,178 93,977 Source: Appendix X1, Fish and Wildlife. TABLE 3-14. Major limiting factors on fish production in the Puget Sound Areal Limiting Factorsi Fish Life Affected 0 > _J M LL E E LL E m M CC) < 0 n -C co C 0 E 0 tM E M E LL C :3 0 3: 2 16 E -M 0 0 2 o 1 0 C M Basin LL _J z w CL 0. (n Nooksack-Sumas X X X X X X X X X X X SkagitSamish X X X X X X X x X X Stillaguamish X X X X X X X Whidbey-Camano X X x Snohomish X X X X X X X X X X X Cedar-Green X2 X X X X x X X X Puyallup X X X X X x X X X X x Nisqually-Deschutes X3 X X3 X3 X3 x X X West Sound X X X x X X X X X X Elwha-Dungeness X X X X X X X X X San Juan X X X 1 Further defined in each basin discussion. 2 Cedar Basin only. 3 N isqually Basin only. Source: Appendix X1, Fish and Wildlife. 3-22 a 0 N @@ 11 --- I li ii j I III BASIS OF PLANNING agencies participating in the study was prepared to supplement the information bulletin, and was dis- tributed to the public at the hearings. Desires of Local People General. The views of local interests were gathered at three public hearings conducted at the Public Hearings beginning of the study in 1964. These views were an Initial Public Hearings. Three public hearings expression of problems and needs in each of the were held (Anacortes, Everett, and Olympia, Wash- eleven major drainages comprising the Study Area. ington) on the Comprehensive Water Resource Study This public expression, together with the findings by of Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters. The hearings the technical committees, provided the primary were conducted by the Task Force for the Puget source of input for plan formulation. During the Sound and Adjacent Waters Study for the purpose of technical studies, as well as the formulation of the soliciting the views of interested persons concerning Comprehensive Plan, continuing liaison with local the need for programs and projects required within residents, organizations, and agencies was maintained. the next ten to fifteen years, and also as a basis for Formal and informal discussions were held with long-range framework plans. Information was sought individuals and groups of residents in the various on: (1) water needs and future requirements for parts of the Area. Preliminary plans were presented to domestic, municipal, irrigation, recreation, hydro- the county representatives for information and power and industrial uses, (2) requirements for water comment, as were the findings by the technical quality and pollution control, (3) water and land committees on the needs of the Puget Sound Area treatment measures necessary to reduce erosion, projected through the year 2020. The alternatives siltation, and sedimentation, (4) specific requirements under consideration during the planning process also for flood control protection or planning, (5) infor- viere discussed with planning organizations of the mation on immediate and long-range requirements for counties. Every consideration was given to the port facilities, (6) channel or other navigation needs viewpoints expressed by individuals representing both for water movement and boating, both commercial public and private sectors. and pleasure types, and (7) on development for fish Prior to the public hearings held in October and wildlife. The first hearing was held on the twelfth 1964, extensive efforts were made to inform the of October, the second on the twenty-second of public about the study. A conference to furnish October, and the third on the twenty-eighth of information about State and Federal objectives was October 1964. A broad representation was present at held 15 July 1964, with the governor of the State of all of the hearings with local, State, and Federal Washington. The conference was attended by repre- agencies present, as well as local citizens. There were sentatives of the participating Federal and State 106 registered attendees at the Anacortes hearing, agencies and responsible bodies engaged in water 146 attendees at the Everett meeting, and 97 at the resource planning and development from the twelve Olympia meeting. counties within the Study Area. Preceding the public Summary of Views. Various Federal agencies hearings, separate meetings were held with the county participating in the study made presentations regard- commissioners of each of the twelve counties, other ing their particular responsibilities as agencies, as well public officials, and the principal users and developers as those required in participation in the Compre- of water in the Puget Sound Area. The notice of hensive Study. The agencies emphasized that full public hearings and the information bulletin were consideration would be given to State and local mailed 25 September 1964, to Federal, State, county policies on water resource development, social and and local officials, to newspapers, radio and television economic factors, and local needs and desires. Some stations, and to individuals representing a large mention was made by the agencies, both State and cross-section of the general public. A pamphlet Federal, of preliminary views as to existing needs in containing the statements of Federal and State the Puget Sound Area. 4-3 Anacortes Hearing. The problems stemming homish Rivers were suggested as possibilities for from increased seasonal influx of recreationists in the additional sources of water. The quality and quantity San Juan Islands during the summer were indicated, of ground water resources on the Islands was indi- with particular regard to the impacts on trans- cated as being very limited. There was strong support portation, domestic water supply, pollution control, at the public hearings for comprehensive water and harbor development, fish, and recreation needs. Muni- resource development. The need was indicated for cipal and industrial water supply and an inadequate small boat harbors and related facilities. tax base to build facilities to accommodate the Comments as related to King County were, recreationists were indicated as primary problems in primarily, oriented toward the need for cooperation the San Juan Islands. and coordination among the various agencies engaged Control of the Skagit River floods in Skagit in the Puget Sound Study. The Snoquahnie, Green, County was,stated as being an urgent need. Multiple- Cedar, Sammamish, Raging, Tolt, and Skykomish purpose use of the Skagit River to satisfy power, Rivers were indicated as presenting problems for recreation, and fish needs was indicated as being flood control. Emphasis was indicated for the estab- desirable. The flood threat was considered to be the lishment of flood control zones and the need to number one hazard in the Skagit Valley. A strong provide for the removal of excess rainwater that falls support was indicated for development of water, on the Green River Valley floor. Concern was land, and artificial spawning grounds to provide expressed for the economic and physical require- increased production of salmon. ments for navigation and water-oriented industrial Some opposition was expressed regarding the sites.in King County. The lack of drainage and weed dredging.of the Skagit River and construction of the control were cited as problems. Opposition was Avon Bypass. A request was made that some rivers be expressed to the damming of remaining sport- preserved in their natural, free-flowing states. The navigable, free-flowing streams for the purpose of dredging of Fidalgo Bay, which would facilitate a hydropower developments. planned industrial park development by the city of In Snohomish County the need was expressed Anacortes, was mentioned. Opposition was expressed for a balanced development of water resources to to the construction of additional dams on the Skagit accommodate an expanding economy, with compre- River or its tributaries. hensive planning including residential and industrial Residents of Whatcom County expressed the development, transportation, agriculture, recreation desire for multiple -wate r-use development, including and flood control. Concern was indicated for the the impounding of waters of the Nooksack River conservation and enhancement of fish resources. system and an examination of the impact of any Flood control was requested with specific areas impoundments on water quality, water supply and identified that needed protection. Control of waters fish resources. Increased flood control was indicated and rivers in the watershed was recommended to be an important need along the Nooksack River. through the construction of flood control dams. Contamination of Lake Whatcom, through recreation Olympia Hearing. Clallarn County repre- activity, was reported. Lake Whatcom is a source of sentatives expressed concern for the depletion of municipal and industrial water for the city of salmon spawning areas on the Elwha River due to the Bellingham. The desire for more water-oriented recre- construction of dams. Support was given for fish ation sites was also expressed, as well as the retention ponds or farms at the mouth of the Elwha River and of streams, or segments thereof, in their natural state. development of the Dungeness area to include a fish The strong needs for adequate sewerage systems was farm program. Physical improvements to the harbor indicated. Representatives of the city of Bellingham at Port Angeles for small boat moorage needs was defined their water supply system and stated that a desired. The need for fish ladders for two dams on supplemental source under consideration was the the Elwha River was stated. South Fork of the Nooksack River, where the city In Jefferson County the needs were expressed owned water rights. for adequate water supply to satisfy the industrial needs of the Port Townsend area. The need for Everett Hearing. The principal need expressed pipelines from major streams to provide additional for Island County was for increased water supply to water supply was indicated, as well as an integrated meet the domestic requirements of Whidbey and development of a boat haven for the Port Townsend Camano Islands. The Skagit, Stillaguarnish, and Sno- area. 44 In Kitsap County a need was also expressed for to 5,705,200 acre-feet of average annual municipal additional municipal and industrial water supply to and industrial water supply withdrawal and 272,200 meet the need requirements of the city of Bremerton acre4eet of irrigation diversion proposed from surface and other communities. waters by the year 2020. However, a large amount of In Mason County, the need was indicated for the water diverted for irrigation would be returned to watershed plans for a number of streams in that the streams. The total withdrawal of 5,977,400 county. Concern for destruction of salmon and acre-feet represents about 15 percent of the average shellfish as a result of polluted waters was given. The annual surface rundff. The remaining 85 percent need to remove the sources of pollution from represents water that would be available for instrearn industrial wastes, strong detergents, pesticides, and uses, e.g., fish production, recreation, water quality insecticides was indicated. Also, an additional hydro- control, aesthetics, etc. electric plant on 'the South Fork of the Skokomish The above of course is a simplification of the River was stated as being under study. The water complex analysis required when a supply-demand pollution problems that could arise from recreation study is made for consumptive water use. Minimum use in watersheds were suggested for further investi- flows rather than averages, peak weekly and peak gation. Data were submitted on drainage and flood monthly demand, instream storage capability and control problems and land use for various small local distribution system storage are all considered for watersheds in the area. specific system needs. However, the above compari- son gives some illustration of the resource availability. There are adequate flows within the river basins In Thurston County support was given for to satisfy the water supply requirements of major further consideration of all future water needs in the purveyors and other uses, provided these flows can be Deschutes River Basin. Irrigation needs, as well as controlled and managed. Numerous sites are available flood control and water storage for domestic water for multiple-purpose storage in major river basins. supplies, were stated. A recommendation was made Existing and potential storage sites are shown in for a study of navigation needs in connection with Appendices 111, Hydrology and Natural Environment, development of the Nisqually River delta and for the XII, Flood Control and XIV, Watershed Management. Deschutes River as a potential source of industrial Ground water supplies appear to be adequate to water supply. Flood control needs were also de- meet much of the present and future needs of small scribed. and rural communities and provide supplemental supplies for the larger cities, although further investi- General Planning gations are required in order to accurately determine the amount of usable ground water resources. This The Puget Sound Area has an abundant supply requirement, as well as the need for additional of water and related land resources to meet most hydrologic information is discussed in detail in present and future needs projected for the Area over Appendix III, Hydrology and Natural Environment. the next 50 years. However, considerable care in the The land resource comprises about 8,404,000 use of these resources is necessary to insure that acres with forests occupying 84 percent of the total needs can be met in the most efficient manner area, cropland and ranges 8 percent, and rural possible, recognizing environmental and ecological nonagricuitural use and built-up or intensively de- concerns.. A broad range of alternative measures for veloped areas the remaining 8 percent. About meeting the water and related land resource needs of 264,000 acres of land currently in non-intensive use the Area was viewed in the planning process, with a are projected to be displaced by the year 2020 to combination of measures found to be necessary to meet the needs for residential, commercial and fully meet the needs. The following discussion sum- industrial development. Under pattern C2 (see Pro- marizes the opportunities and various alternatives jected Land Use), about 36 percent of displacement considered in formulation of the Comprehensive Plan. would be at the expense of rural nonfarmland, 47 by loss of forest land and only 17 percent from crop and Resource Opportunities. Ten major and twelve range lands. Future residential and industrial growth minor rivers flow into Puget Sound, providing the projected in Appendix IV, Economic Environment, major source of 38,865,000 acre-feet of average can be accommodated by the Area's land resource annual fresh water runoff. This resource is compared without significant displacement of the fertile river 4-5 valleys now in agricultural use nor complete utiliza- basins, provide opportunities for other competing tion of the fresh water and marine shorelines. Land uses as well as being the best alternative means for use pattern C2 allows for this accommodation by meeting the requirements for irrigation. more than doubling current population densities by Water quality problems associated with organic the year 2020. Detailed land use planning and wasteloadings exist in many of the rivers and lakes management criteria are required, however, to insure and localized marine waters in the Area. However, that changing land use is consistent with environ- with construction of collection and treatment facili- mental and ecological needs. ties, the water quality standards set forth in the The land resources within. the Area, 10 percent Implementation and Enforcement Plan for Interstate of which are under State ownership, are sufficient to Waters, 1967, and Intrastate Waters, 1969, of the meet the future needs of outdoor recreation, includ- State of Washington, can be met. Alternatives ing fishing and hunting. Municipal watersheds, cur- considered for satisfaction of water quality needs rently closed to public use or allowing only restricted were sewage collection and treatment facilities, mini- public access, are viewed as being potentially available mum strearnflows for the assimilation of residual for this purpose at such time as the need is wastes after treatment, sewer outfall and dispersal commensurate with: the associated costs of water facilities, sludge removal, and waste collection facili- treatment. These watersheds contain approximately ties on small boats used for pleasure purposes. 320,000 acres of land as compared to the total land Navigation channel deepening in most basins area of 8,404,000 acres (approximately 4 percent of appeared to be the only alternative for accommo- the total land is in municipal watershed). Many dating the growing vessel drafts. Land requirements municipal water suppliers own all or a portion of for terminal and water transport-oriented industrial their watersheds. Consequently, these property rights, development can be met with retention and develop- as well as public health impacts of recreation activity ment of sites found in this study to be favorable for on water quality, must be considered before the development. Alternatives to sites shown in Appendix watersheds are made available for recreation use. In VIII, Navigation, include Indian Reservations and addition, the question of payment for expensive other Federal lands. Lands suitable for terminal treatment facilities (required if the watersheds were and/or water transport-oriented industry are located opened) must be studied. primarily along the eastern shoreline of Puget Sound Alternatives Considered. Potential output from in developed and undeveloped areas. existing and under-construction projects were ex- Ninety-seven sites along the Puget Sound shore- amined to determine net needs for present and future line are suitable for development as small boat development. However, consideration was given to harbors with the capability of accommodating over cha nging the operation of existing projects to gain 115,000 wet moorages. Small boat harbor sites, greater net benefits when this appeared to be in the inventoried in this study, are sufficient to meet public overall best interest of the Area. wet moorage development needs to the year 2020 in Direct river pumping and treatment, desaliniza- most basins, with some use of moorage opportunities tio n, diversion, storage, increased ground water utiliz- in adjacent basins possible. In the more populated atioh, and improved water yield through various basins greater use of dry moorage may be required in watershed management practices were considered as the long-range period to satisfy total moorage needs means for satisfying water supply needs of munici- than has been the case in the past or that has been palities and industry. Desalinization of water is not indicated desirable by boaters. Selection of specific considered to be economically competitive with other sites for early action development is facilitated by the alternatives at this time. Consequently, diversion, number of alternatives available. storage, direct pumping and treatment of water from The Area has numerous sites that have a the larger streams and ground water use were viewed potential for hydroelectric power development as as the most feasible alternatives for satisfying future part of multiple-purpose storage projects, although municipal and industrial requirements. only a few sites were included in the Comprehensive Surface and ground water supplies are adequate Plan for development. A number of pumped storage in most basins to @atisfy irrigation and water supply sites exist that could be used to satisfy peaking power needs through direct diversion. However, more requirements in a long-range period. Nuclear power efficient use of the water resources can, in some production within the Area would require further 4-6 studies before final decisions as to plant locations restoration of stream habitat, improvement of passage could be made. The planning for the Puget Sound at man-made and natural barriers and construction of Area recognized the potential in those basins where artificial propagation facilities. Wildlife propagation active consideration had been given to development alternatives viewed included bird farms and habitat of the nuclear power plants. However, the Plan improvement. Access through easement or acquisition neither sets forth the specific sites for nuclear power was emphasized as the basic means for increasing plants nor schedules their development. sport fishing and.hunting opportunities. Considerable opportunity exists in the Area for A detailed discussion of specific alternatives accomplishing a reduction in the growth of flood considered in plan formulation for each river basin or damages through flood plain zoning and land use island grouping is contained in Appendix XV, Plan management. Other management alternatives includ- Formulation. ing floodproofing, and warning and evacuation sys- tems can provide some relief to existing as well as future developments located in the flood plain. Flood SUMMARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN insurance, while reducing the financial burden to the property owners merely results in a transfer of costs The Comprehensive Plan for the Puget Sound from the individual to society. However, as provision Area includes both programs and projects, cate- of flood insurance requires flood plain zoning by gorized as early action or long-range depending upon local government, it serves as an inducement to the urgency of the needs to which they are re- regulate future development in the flood plain, sponsive. The early action portion of the Plan thereby helping to stem the growth in flood damages. provides for management and development of water The construction of levees, channel improvements, and related land resources required to meet the Area's stabilization and drainage facilities, small watershed needs projected for the year 1980. The long-range projects and accompanying management practices are portion of the Comprehensive Plan deals with pro- measures which provide opportunities to accomplish grams and projects to be implemented after the year desired flood control objectives. In only a few basins 1980 to meet foreseeable needs projected to the year is there adequate storage capability to satisfy flood 2020. The Plan is first discussed in general terms and control objectives by this means alone. Other struc- summarized in tables, followed by a detailed descrip- tural measures, including levees and diversion chan- tion by features. Exhibit A contains individual basin nels, are required in addition to management of land discussions, including a listing of plan elements and use to provide adequate flood protection and damage figures showing project locations. reduction. Planning was done -with an overview of the Watershed management alternatives considered Area's total needs and resources with each river basin for reducing erosion and sedimentation and providing provided for as part of the total Comprehensive Plan. water management included directing future intensive In most basins a plan has been prepared that is development to land areas suitable for such uses with responsive to the planning objectives and expressed minimal disruption of the natural environment, land desires of local residents. However, in two of the treatment to stabilize soils and vegetative cover and major basins the competing demands could not be construction of multiple-purpose small watershed resolved and alternative plans are presented. projects. Two alternative plans have been developed for The numerous sites found in the study to the Skagit-Samish Basins and for the Nisqually- represent a potential for outdoor recreation activity Deschutes Basins to aid in the determination of are generally identified. Specific locations were future development. In the Skagit-Samish Basins, avoided to reduce possible land speculation and Alternative A allows full use of storage opportunities provide greater flexibility for local and state recre- to obtain maximum flood control in the Skagit River ation planners in programming future development of Basin. The assumption is made under this Alternative picnicking and camping facilities. The sites generally that no part of the Skagit River or its tributaries identified can be viewed as alternatives in a temporal would be included in the National Wild and Scenic sense. Rivers system. However, portions of the Skagit River Sport and commercial fish production enhance- system would be included for study under a State ment alternatives considered included increasing the recreational river system. Alternative B is based on natural productivity of the existing resource through the assumption that the entire 165-mile river complex 4-7 cited in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542) programs required prior to 1980. Also shown are the would be designated in the National Wild and Scenic capital investment costs for this period. Multiple- Rivers system. The assumption is also made that the purpose storage projects scheduled for early action entire complex would be given a "Recreational are shown in Table 4-2. Four alternative combina- River" classification and that nonstorage develop- tions of basin plans are presented. ments would be compatible with this classification. Other projects planned for early action include Considerable portions of each, alternative are the development of multiple-purpose storage on the same and would . not be affected by the river South Fork of the Nooksack River at a site near classifications. Edfro Creek, on the North and Middle Forks of the In the Nisqually-Deschutes Basins, Alternative Snoqualmie Rivers, on the Sultan River through A would allow for a projected outdoor recreation- second stage construction of Cuhnback Dam, and on wildlife and biotic research use of the delta. Alterna- the Cedar River near the outlet of Chester Morse tive B provides for the utilization of a portion of the Lake. These are multiple-purpose projects providing delta as a navigation port and for related industrial flood control storage and satisfying the needs of development. other purposes including municipal and industrial As planning is a dynarnic process, the additional water supply, recreation, low flow augmentation for data that would be obtained from the studies fish resource enhancement, and electric power pro- recommended , in the' report and the various ap- duction. Adjustments in power operation at several pendices, together with future technological inno- existing reservoirs are indicated in Table 4-11. These vations would provide a basis for updating the plan include the Upper Baker Dam in the Skagit-San-iish through periodic reviews. Future reviews would allow Basins, with power production reduced in urder to for changes in the Area's economy and include new provide for flood control storage, and in the Nis- econon-tic forecasts to be used in updating projections qually-Deschutes Basins where the Alder Dam reser- of water and related land resource needs. voir project would be operated to provide flood control on a firm basis with little or no -reduction of Early Action,, 1970-1980 power generation. . The early action portion of the Comprehensive A coordinated sea coast resource management Plan for the Puget Sound Area includes management program is included in the Comprehensive Plan, programs for water quality control of rivers and which provides for an appraisal of the present and marine watem, development and dissemination of potential resource, a determination of opportunities flood plain information, watershed practices of land for multiple use and preparation of guidelines for treatment, flood prevention, agricultural and urban future use. Much of the data acquired as part of this water management, and fish and wildlife programs. study would be useful in implementing the seacoast Projects include such measures as diversion structures resource management, program. for municipal and industrial water supply, irrigation Long-Range, 1980-2020 facilities, channel deepening and construction for navigation, levees and channel improvements for The long-range features of the Comprehensive flood control, @ drainage control structures in small Plan, including management prograrns and projects watersheds, recreation facilities, fish ladders, hatch- requiring implementation after 1980 and before the eries, and game farms. Other projects include both year 2020, are reflected in the cumulative program small. stream impoundments and large reservoirs to costs contained in Table 4-3 and capital investment capture excess, runoff for flood control and to costs shown in Table 4-4. The features are similar to provide storage for low flow augmentation for fish those proposed for implementation during the early use, municipal and industrial water - supply, water action period and represent additional measures quality. improvement and irrigation.. Hydroelectric designed to accommodate the subsequent growth in power is included where justified as a feature of a water and related land resource needs. multiple-purpose storage project. Table 4-1 sum- I . Additional multiple-purpose storage develop- marizes the: early action portion of the Compre- ment proposed includes projects on the North Fork hensive Plan by management programs and non- Nooksack, Sauk (Alternative A), South Fork Tolt, storage projects, showing the cumulative program North Fork Snoqualmie, Cedar, Puyallup and costs. for. the period 1.970-1980 and the average Deschutes Rivers. In the Elwha-Dungeness Basins the annual benefits and costs of projects, and costs of existing dam below Lake Aldwell would be modified to increase utilization of existing storage. 4-8 A W .,@- @-t--Zav 7 - .Al, FIT* -i, PHOTO 4-1. Cucumber harvesting in Skagit R iver PHOTO 4-2. GorgeDarn on the Skagit River, part of Basin. Soil Conservation Service Photo Seattle City Light's hydroelectric development. Seattle City Light Photo IL V oo 14- 4: iiE V @;U PHOTO 4-3. Chester Morse Lake, lying in Cedar River watershed, is proposed for increase in storage to provide It4 @711F flood control and additional conservation storage for municipal and industrial water supply and low stream flow augmentation. Seattle Water Department Photo 4-9 TABLE 4-1. Costs and benefits-early action (1970-1980) portion of Comprehensive Plan, Puget Sound Area ($1000) Basins Puget Sound Area Whidbey- Nooksack- Camano Cedar- Nisqually- West Elwha@ San Juan Alt. A-S.S. Alt. A-S.S. Alt. B-S.S. Alt. B-S.S. Features Sumas Skagit-Sarnish Stillaguarnish Islands Snohomish Green Puyallup' Deschutes Sound Dungeness Islands Alt. A-N.D. Alt. B-N.D. Alt. A-N.D. Alt. B-N.D. Alt. A Alt. B Alt. A Alt. B Management Programs' Water Quality Monitoring, Evaluation and Control Invest. Cost 840 490 490 160 250 2,400 3,400 2,600 350 350, 750 350, 340 11,930 11,930 11,930 11,930 F:ood Plain Mgmt. nvest. Cost 46 115 115 25 0 55 147 185 82 82 1-25 31 0 811 811 811 811 Watershed Mgmt. Programs 4 Invest. Cost 60,532 87,556 87,556 28,693 16,266 108,504 225,954 135,672 40,710 40,710 97,404 17,852 11,897 831,040 831,040 831,040 831,040 F ish & Wildlife Programs I nvest. Cost 488 253 253 160 15 450 440 403 127 127 465 176 15 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 Total Management I nvest. Cost $ 1000 61,906 88,414 88,414 29,038 16,531 111,409 229,941 138,860 41,269 41,269 98,744 18,409 112,252 846.7 173 846,773 846,773 846,773 Nonstorage Pro ects M&I Water Supply Ground Water Invest. Cost 1,663 0 0 564 216 180 2,400 13,154 1,290 1,290 2,470 24 670 22,631 22,631 22,631 22,631 Av. Ann. Cost 192 0 0 75 25 20 362 1,239 168 168 279 6 21 Av. Ann. Benefits 192 0 0 75 25 20 362 1,239 168 168 279 6 21 Net Ann. Benefits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface Water Invest. Cost 7,112 5,440 5,440 0 10,100 28,743 19,304 28,909 0 0 5,850 1,440 0 106,898 106,898 106,898 106,898 Ann. Cost 1,073 503 503 0 634 2,512 2,973 2,818 0 0 688 1,673 0 Ann. Benefits 1,073 503 503 0 634 2,512 2,973 2,818 0 0 688 1,673 0 Net Ann. Benefits 0 0 6 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation Ground Water Invest. Cost 2,230 1,072 1,072 270 0 135 0 136 273 273 0 0 0 4,116 4,116 4,116 4,116 Ann. Cost 311 179 179 45 0 22 0 17 32 32 0 0 0 Ann. Benefits 311 179 179 45 0 22 0 17 32 32 0 0 0 Net Ann. Benefits 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Surface Water I nvest. Cost 470 278 278 270 0 690 0 204 27 27 50 15,380 0 17,369 17,369 17,369 17,369 Ann. Cost 35 .46. 46 45 0 114 0 26 3 3 7 897 0 Ann. Benefits 35 46 46 45 0 114 0 26 3 3 7 1,467 0 Net Ann. Benefits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 570 0 Water Quality Control Treatment I nvest. Cost 15,800 4,880 4,880 1,860 3,187 97,390 113,850 34,000 5,375 5,375 10,900 13,595 1,824 302,661 302,661 302,661 302,661 Av. Ann. Costs 998 320 320 127 208 5,662 6,770 1,964 289 289 676 713 44 Ann. Benefits 998 320 320 127 208 5,662 6,770 1,964 289 289 676 713 44 Net Ann. Benefits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Navigation invest. Cost 667 1,465 1,465 0 0 2,200 3,779 5,430 1,853 1,853 0 0 0 15,394 15,394 15,394 15,394 Av. Ann. Cost 36 81 81 0 0 120 191 318 92 92 0 0 0 Av. Ann. Behefits 42 105 105 0 0 172 339 389 138 138 0 0 0 Net Ann. Benefits 6 24 24 0 0 52 148 71 46 46 0 0 0 Srnall Boat Harbors2 Invest. Cost (1,766) (1,714) (1,714) 0 (4,648) (6,306) (4,139) (3,120) (459) (4591 (8,6851 (1,4341 (2,951) (35,2221 (35,222) (35,222) (35,222) Av. Ann. Cost (105) (109) (109) a (298) (404) (280) (200) (29) (29) (556) (92) (189) Av. Ann. Benefits (164) (159) (159) 0 (431) (585) J391) (290) (43) (43) (806) (133) (274) Net Ann. Benefits (59) (50) (50) 0 (133) (181) (111) (90) (14) 114) (250) (411 (95) Po.er - - - - Flood Control Invest. Cost 2,500 37,800 45,800 7,700 0 31,950 12,000 11,6130 0 0 150 0 0 93,700 93,700 101,700 101,700 Ann. Costs 125 2,116 2,536 454 0 1,545 601 86 0 0 11 0 0 Ann. Be-fits 141 3,450 3,778 Soo 0 4,130 723 103 0 0 12 0 0 Net Ann. Benefits 16 1,334 1,242 46 0 2,585 122 17 0 0 1 0 0 Watershed Management I nvest. Cost 10,973 10,637 10,637 1,645 0 2,503 2,180 4,972 0 0 1,079 0 0 33,989 33,989 33,989 33,989 Ann. Costs 614 594 594 92 0 142 119 271 0 0 59 0 0 Ann. Benefits 2,269 2,242 2,242 288 0 397 242 382 0 0 156 0 0 Net Ann. Benefits 1,655 1,648 1,648 196 0 255 123 ill 0 0 91 0 0 Recreation Invest. Cost 25,680 35,814 35,814 20,420 28,450 60,900 54,425 35,389 21,951 21,951 62,212 8,259 15,224 368,724 368,724 368,724 368,724 Ann. Costs 1,743 2,555 2,555 1,256 2,257 4,039 3,792 2,339 1,697 1,697 5,405 698 1,112 Ann. Benefits 3,156 3,600 3,600 1,484 2,715 5,720 4,560 3,255 2.590 2,590 6,000 1,125 2,700 Net Ann. Benefits 1,413 1,045 1,045 228 458 1,681 768 916 893 893 595 427 1,588 Fish & Wildlife Invest. Cost 3,455 11,799 11,799 5,220 577 8,797 5,067 3,306 5,051 2,551 6,284 2,749 585 52,990 50,390 52,890 50,390 Av. An, Costs 271 1,420 1,420 521 42 987 438 366 494 347 583 282 47 Av. Ann. Benefits 534 1,910 1,910 1,5213 484 2,728 1,026 949 1,456 1,313 1,571 1,758 103 Net Ann. Benefits 263 490 490 1,007 442 1,741 588 483 962 966 988 1,476 56 Total Nonstorage I nvest. Cost 70,550 109,185 117,185 37,949 42,530 233,488 213,005 127,100 35,820 33,320 88,995 41,447 18,303 1.018,372 1,01S,872 1,026,372 1,023,872 Av. Ann. Costs 5,398 7,911 8,331 2,615 3,166 11,017 15,246 9,444 2,775 2,628 7,708 4,269 1,224 Av. Ann. Benefits 8,751 12,355 12,683 4,092 4,066 17,331 16,995 11,042 4,676 4,533 9,383 6,742 2,868 Net Ann. Benefitr 3,353 4,444 4,352 1,477 900 6,314 1,749 1,598 1.901 1,905 1,675 2,473 1,644 Total Storage3 I nvest. Cost 27,200 0 0 0 0 132,293 5,610 0 0 0 0 0 165,103 165,103 165,103 165,103 Av. Ann. Costs 1,540 133 133 0 0 7,008 312 0 0 0 0 0 Av. Ann. Benefits 1,690 300 300 0 0 8,177 353 82 82 0 0 0 Net Ann. Benefits 150 167 167 0 0 1,169 41 82 82 0 0 0 Total Plan I nvest. Cost $159,656 $197.599 $205,599 $66,987 $59,061 $404,690 $477,190 $265,960 $77,089 $74,589 $187,739 $59,856 $30,555 $2,030,248 $2,027,748 $2,038,248 $2,035,748 1 Shown are cumulative annual program costs from 1970 to 1980. 2 Included with Recreation@ 3 For feature data see Table 4-2, Storage Projects, Puget Sound Area. 4Does not include operation and maintenance costs or other program costs not distributed by basin, I TABLE 4-2. Costs and benefits-early action (1970-1980) storage projects, Puget Sound Area ($1000) Basins Cedar- Nisqually- Nooksack- Skagit- Snohomish Green Deschutes Features Sumas Samish Chester Alder Dam Puget Upper Culmback North Fork Middle Fork Total Morse and Sound (E df ro) Baker (Sultan1l Snoqualmie Snoqualmie Snohomish Lake Reservoir A rea M&I Water Supply I nvestment Cost 2,414 6,798 6,798 9,212 Av. Ann. Cost 137 318 318 455 Av. Ann. Benefits 150 350 350 500 Net Ann. Benefits 13 32 32 45 Flood Control I nvestment Cost 22,935 8,642 12,138 25,088 45,868 4,740 0 73,543 Av. Ann. Cost 1,298 133 443 665 1,169 2,277 263 0 3,971 Av. Ann. Benefits 1,425 300 707 690 1,657 3,054 298 39 5,116 Net Ann. Benefits 127 167 264 25 488 777 35 39 1,145 Power I nvestment Cost 32,845 32,845 32,845 Av. Ann. Cost 1,798 1,798 1,798 Av. Ann. Benefits 1,867 1,867 1,867 Net Ann. Benefits 69 69 69 Recreation Investment Cost 1,609 16,959 19,683 36,642 38,251 Av. Ann. Co'st 92 929 1,184 2,113 2,205 Av. Ann. Benefits 100 964 1,296 2,260 2,360 Net Ann. Benefits 8 35 112 147 155 Fish and Wildlife Investment Cost 242 7,604 1,618 918 10,140 870 0 11,252 Av. Ann. Cost 13 369 89 44 502 49 0 564 Av. Ann. Benefits 15 500 92 54 646 55 43 759 Net Ann. Benefits 2 131 3 10 144 6 43 195 Total Storage Investment Cost 27,200 23,044 63,560 45,689 132,293 5,610 0 165,103 Av. Ann. Cost 1,540 133 1,136 3,481 2,397 7,008 312 0 8,993 Av. Ann. Benefits 1,690 300 1,557 3,613 3,007 8,177 353 82 10,602 Net Ann. Benefits 150 167 427 132 610 1,169 41 82 1,609 4-12 TABLE 4-3. Total program investment costs, Puget Sound Area ($1000) Whidbey- Puget Nooksack- Skagit- Camano Cedar- Nisqually- West E lvvha San Juan Sound Feature and Period Sumas Samish Stillaguarnish Islands Snohomish Green Puyallup Deschutes Sound Dungeness Islands Area Water Quality Control 1970-1980 840 490 160 250 2,400 3,400 2,600 350 750 350 340 11,930 1980-2000 710 360 300 200 2,512 4,840 4,200 240 360 440 160 14,322 2000-2020 790 420 340 240 1,400 5,320 5,100 286 480 520 200 15,096 Total 2,340 1,270 800 690 6,312 13,560 11,900 876 1,690 1,310 700 41,348 Flood Control 1970-1980 46 115 25 0 55 147 185 82 125 31 0 811 1980-2000 92 168 46 0 100 240 100 114 100 20 0 980 2000-2020 92 168 46 0 100 240 100 114 100 20 0 980 Total 230 451 117 0 255 627 385 310 325 71 0 2,771 Watershed Management 1970-1980 60,532 87,556 28,693 16,266 108,504 225,954 135,672 40,710 97,404 17,852 11,897 831,040 1980-2000 70,389 99,226 29,480 18,412 134,227 230,301 94,123 68,131 121,702 23,229 13,989 903,209 2000-2020 65,373 109,318 28,547 19,642 135,540 230,044 138,264 34,506 120,616 24,437 13,720 920,007 Total 196,294 296,100 86,720 54,320 378,271 686,299 368,059 143,347 339,722 65,518 39,606 2,654,256 1 Fish and Wildlife 1970-1980 488 253 160 15 450 440 403 127 .465 176 15 2,9922 1980-2000 430 200 320 15 750 602 630 478 800 309 0 4,534 2000-2020 435 200 320 15 750 776 630 470 Soo 300 0 4,696 Total 1,353 653 800 45 1,950 1,818 1,663 1,075 2,065 785 15 12,2222 Total All Programs 1970-1980 61,906 88,414 29,038 16,531 111,409 229,941 138,860 41,269 98,744 18,409 12,252 846,773 1980-2000 71,621 99,954 , 30,146 18,627 137,589 235,983 99,053 68,963 122,962 28,998 -14,149 923,045 2000-2020 66,690 110,106 29,253 19,897 137,790 236,380 144,094 35,376 121,996 25,277 13,920 940,779 Total 200,217 298,474 88,437 55,055 386,788 702,304 382,007 145,608 343,702 67,684 40,321 2,710,597 1 Does not include $237,364,000 in program costs for beach erosion and sediment studies, soil surveys, etc., planned for the Puget Sound Area but not apportioned by basins. 2 Does not include $388,000 for stream surveys planned for Puget Sound Area. TABLE 4-4. Total project investment costs, Puget Sound Area ($1000) Skagit- Skagit- Whidbey- Nooksack- Samish Samish Camano Cedar- Feature and Period Sumas Alt. A Alt. B Stillaguarnish Islands Snohomish Green Puyallup M& I Water Supply 1970-1980 11,189 5,440 5,440 564 10,316 35,721 21,704 42,063 1980-2000 9,077 8,125 8,125 M 2,500 64,382 74,520 36,516 2000-2020 4,998 11,290 11,290 1,152 0 19,465 87,847 59,607 Total 25,264 24,855 24,855 2,574 12,816 119,568 184,071 138,186 1 nrigation 1970-1980 2,700 1,350 1,350 540 0 825 0 340 1980-2000 22,240 7,100 7,100 540 0 527 55 680 2000-2020 0 17,750 17,750 0 0 175 55 340 Total 24,940 26,200 26,200 1,080 0 1,527 110 1,360 Water Quality Control 1970-1980 15,800 4,880 4,880 1,860 3,187 97,390 113,850 34,000 1980-2000 19,030 8,050 8,050 3,294 8,110 32,480 275,800 51,200 2000-2020 37,080 8,900 8,900 3,980 10,345 43,700 237,000 79,600 Total 71,910 21,830 21,830 9,134 21,642 173,570 626,650 164,800 Navigation 1970-1980 667 1,465 1,465 0 0 2,200 3,779 5,430 1980-2000 1,343 9,417 9,417 0 0 7,696 0 4,488 2000-2020 0 2,989 2,989 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,010 13,871 13,871 0 0 9,896 3,779 9,918 Power 1970-1980 0 0 0 0 0 32,845 0 0 1980-2000 20,000 68,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000-2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 20,000 68,000 0 0 0 32,845 0 0 Flood Control 1970-1980 25,435 37,800 45,800 7,700 0 77,818 16,740 1,600 1980-2000 26,760 65,800 7,800 3,700 0 39,870 1,300 27,500 2000-2020 0 0 0 0 0 36,255 0 0 Total 52,195 103,600 53,600 11,400 0 153,943 18,040 29,100 Watershed Management 1970-1980 10,973 10,637 10,637 1,645 0 2,503 2,180 4,972 1990-2000 5,950 1,850 1,850 5,620 3,245 12,387 5,510 4,167 2000-2020 936 1,460 1,460 1,310 0 100 200 0 Total 17,859 13,947 13,947 8,575 3,245 14,990 7,890 9,139 Recreation 1970-1980 27,289 35,814 35,814 20,420 28,450 97,542 54,425 35,389 1980-2000 27,200 42,700 42,700 20,800 31,800 69,500 70,000 55,600 2000-2020 49,800 71,300 71,300 40,200 51,900 123,200 104,600 88,040 Total 104,289 149,814 149,814 81,420 112,150 290,242 229,025 179,029 Fish and Wildlife 1970-1980 3,697 11,799 11,799 5,220 577 18,937 5,937 3,306 1980-2000 11,167 18,909 18,909 5,568 528 12,294 7,916 8,039 2000-2020 13,610 23,035 23,035 9,412 734 18,220 16,517 11,864 Total 28,474 53,743 53,743 20,200 1,839 49,451 30,370 23,209 Total (All Features) 1970-1980 97,750 109,185 117,185 37,949 42,530 365,761 218,615 127,100 1980-2000 142,767 229,951 103,951 40,380 46,183 239,136 435,101 188,190 2000-2020 106,424 136,724 136,724 56,054 62,979 241,115 446,219 239,451 I otal 346,941 475,860 357,860 134,383 151,692 846,032 1,099,935 554,741 1 Alternative A-Skagit-Samish Basins. 2 AlternativeA-Nisqually-Deschutes Basins. 4-14 Nisqually- Nisqually- Puget Sound Area Deschutes Deschutes West Elwha- San Juan Alt, A-S.S.1 Alt. A-S.S. Alt. B-S.S. Alt. B-S.S. Alt. A Alt. B Sound Dungeness Islands Alt. A-N.D.2 Alt. B-N.D. Alt. A-N.D. Alt. B-N.D. 1,290 1,290 8,320 1,464 670 138,741 138,741 138,741 138,741 435 435 18,190 2,678 10,200 227,481 227,481 227,481 227,481 1,167 1,167 5,360 848 0 191,734 191,734 191,734 191,734 2,892 2,892 31,870 4,990 10,870 557,956 557,956 557,956 557,956 300 300 50 15,380 0 21,485 21,485 21,485 21,485 680 680 70 0 0 31,892 31,892 31,892 31,892 1,080 1,080 70 0 0 19,470 19,470 19,470 19,470 2,060 2,060 190 15,380 0 72,847 72,847 72,847 72,847 5,375 5,375 10,900 13,595 1,824 302,661 302,661 302,661 302,661 6,760 6,760 25,300 9,760 2,968 442,752 442,752 442,752 442,752 10,200 10,200 37,300 21,300 3,600 493,005 493,005 493,005 493,005 22,335 22,335 73,500 44,655 8,392 1,238,418 1,238,418 1,238,418 1,238,418 1,853 1,853 0 0 0 15,394 15,394 15,394 15,394 3,713 6,113 0 0 0 26,657 29,057 26,657 29,057 0 0 0 0 0 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 5,566 7,966 0 0 0 45,040 47,440 45,040 47,440 0 0 0 0 0 32,845 32,845 32,845 92,845 0 0 0 0 0 88,000 88,000 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120,845 120,845 52,845 52,845 0 0 150 0 167,243 167,243 175,243 175,243 0 3,000 1,140 0 0 166,070 169,070 108,070 111,070 3,500 3,500 0 2,750 0 42,506 42,505 42,505 42,505 3,500 6,500 1,290 2,750 0 375,818 378,818 325,818 328,818 0 0 1,079 0 0 33,989 33,989 33,989 33,989 4,340 4,340 8,055 2,962 2,736 56,822 56,822 56,822 56,822 100 100 970 300 0 5,376 5,376 5,376 5,376 4,440 4,440 10,104 3,262 2,736 96,187 96,187 96,187 96,187 21,951 21,951 62,212 8,259 15,224 406,975 406,975 406,975 406,975 30,200 30,200 82,100 12,700 16,200 458,800 458,800 458,800 458,800 53,700 53,700 133,700 19,800 28,200 764,440 764,440 764,440 764,440 105,851 105,851 278,012 40,759 59,624 1,630,215 1,630,215 1,630,215 1,630,215 5,051 2,551 6,284 2,749 585 64,142 61,642 64,142 61,642 5,612 5,612 13,389 3,474 580 87,476 87,476 87,476 87,476 7,437 7,437 14,854 1,998 676 118,357 118,357 118,357 118,357 18,100 15,600 34,527 8,221 1,841 269,975 267,475 269,975 267,475 35,820 33,320 88,995 41,447 18,203 1,183,475 1,180,975 1,191,475 1,188,975 51,740 57,140 148,244 31,457 32,684 1,585,950 1,591,350 1,459,950 1,465,350 77,184 77,184 192,254 46,996 32,476 1,637,876 1,637,876 1,637,876 1,637,876 164,744 167,644 429,493 120,017 83,463 4,407,201 4,410,201 4,289,301 4,292,201 4-15 FEATURES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE of Everett. Additional interbasin transfer of water is PLAN planned to supply Seattle, with a diversion structure constructed on the North Fork Tolt River. Further The Comprehensive Plan summarized in Tables utilization of conservation storage at the Howard 4-1 through 4-4 is expanded in this section with a Hanson Dam project on the Green River is recom- description of project and program features and an mended to satisfy the needs of Tacoma. The Olympia enumeration of investment costs required over the service. area in the Nisqually-Deschutes Basins could 50-year planning period. continue obtaining its water supply through further development of ground water resources. The least costly means of satisfying water supply needs in most Municipal and Industrial Water Supply cases involves the expansion of existing systems, as is The Comprehensive Plan provides specific pro- the case in the West Sound Basins. A Ranney well posals for the satisfaction of municipal and industrial system is planned near the Elwha River to supple- water supply needs for the various urban areas and ment the existing Morse Creek supply to meet the rural communities through the utilization of both needs of the city of Port Angeles. Before 2020 major development would include ground and surface water. Surface water derived from ly pumping and treating water from the Snohomish sources within each basin would be the main supp River by Everett, additional storage on the North for eight of the eleven major river basins. Three of the Fork Snoqualmie and Cedar Rivers by Seattle and use basins would use or depend upon imported water of Puyallup River water through a well system or from adjoining basins. These include the Whidbey- direct diversion and treatment to meet Tacoma's Camano Islands, Cedar-Green, and Puyallup Basins. needs. Utilization of Lake Aldwell in the Elwha Basin The quantity and the quality of the water supplies are to supply industrial water and other uses is recom- adequate for all requirements. The total supply, mended through modification of the outlet works to transmission and treatment cost estimated to satisfy increase the conservation storage capabilities of the the Puget Sound Area municipal and industrial water supply needs over the 50-year planning period is reservoir. Satisfaction of water supply needs in the estimated at $557,956,000, which averages San Juan Islands would entail use of the collection $11,159,000 per year. and storage capability of Mountain Lake and con- The ear .ly action program requires an invest- struction of a submerged pipeline from Orcas Island ment of $138,741,000 for construction of supply and to other islands. Cmano Island could receive water transmission facilities prior to 1980 to meet the level supply through an interbasin transfer from the of needs projected for that year. Major water pur- Stillaguamish River. veyors in the Cedar-Green and Puyallup Basins, which Development of water supply by major pur- presently depend on imported water, would draw veyors and the consolidation of smaller water districts additionally upon these sources to a much greater into larger regional supply and transmission systems is extent, consistent with projected population and recommended to obtain economies of scale and to industrial expansions. In many of the basins a major minimize the possible adverse impacts on the environ- portion of the early action needs can be met through ment and water resource which could occur if every expansion of the existing systems. However, signifi- water district developed its own supply. cant projects would be required in several of. the A total investment of $419,215,000 is esti- basins in order to meet the 1980 level needs. These mated to be required to satisfy the municipal and include development of surface water supplies on the industrial water supply needs of the Area from 1980 South Fork Nooksack River by the city of Belling- to 2020. ham through water stored at the proposed Edfro Dam and interbasin transfer of additional water to serve Irrigation Whidbey Island by purchasing water from the city of Future irrigation development is projected to Anacortes to the north, with the southern portion of be accomplished primarily through private means. In the Island satisfied by a pipeline connecting to the most locations where the ground and surface water mainland and serviced by the city of Everett. In the supplies are adequate this can be economically Snohomish Basin, second stage construction of Culm- developed by the individual farmers. However, in back Dam on the Sultan River would meet the needs some areas project-tvpe developments are considered 4-16 to be the best means of bringing additional lands River and conveyed by gravity pipeline to elevated under irrigation. All the basins in the Area would storage tanks from which it would be delivered to the have a net increase in land under irrigation except farmlands with adequate pressure for sprinkler irriga- Whidbey-Camano and San Juan Islands, which are tion. The project is estimated to cost $14,610,000, projected to remain at current levels of development, with on-farm systems required by individual farmers and the Cedar-Green Basins where a net reduction in amounting to $770,000, for a total project cost of irrigated land is projected due to industrial and urban $15,380,000. growth onto presently irrigated lands. Total invest- The long-range plan projects an incremental ment costs for irrigation facilities over the 50-year increase in irrigated acreages of 85,000 acres between planning period is estimated at $72,847,000, averag- 1980 and 2020. Project-type developments are pro- ing $1,457,000 annually. posed for the Nooksack-Sumas Basins prior to 2000 The early action plan sets forth the develop- and the Skagit-Samish between 1980 and 2020. ment of individual farm and project irrigation facili- Storage would be necessary in the Nooksack-Sumas ties costing $21,485,000. This includes diversion Basins. A multiple -purpose storage project, on the facilities, conveyance pipe, pumps, elevated storage North Fork of the Nooksack River would provide the tanks and on-farm distribution systems necessary to needed irrigation water supplies. Water would be deliver the irrigation water to the individual farms. released from storage into the river, diverted at An increase of 46,300 acres of land above the current selected downstream locations, and conveyed to amount being irrigated is projected by the year 1980. irrigable lands. Principal irrigation expansion is expected to occur in Adequate natural strearnflows are available to the Nooksack-Sumas, Skagit-Samish and Elwha- meet the projected irrigation needs in the Skagit- Dungeness Basins. These lands would be served by Samish Basins. Here water would be diverted from direct diversion from ground and surface sources. the river and conveyed by project facilities to farm Storage would be necessary in only the Nooksack- headgates with adequate pressure for sprinkler irriga- Sumas Basins to provide the projected irrigation tion. water supplies. The other lands projected for irrigation in the During the early action period all irrigation long-range period are located in small scattered tracts development is expected to be by the individual suitable for economic development by individual farmer except for the Sequim area in the Elwha- farmers. Adequate ground and surface water supplies Dungeness Basins. Here a project-type development is are available to meet these needs. proposed which would update the existing open ditch The projected irrigation diversions.and deple- irrigation system and serve 6,100 acres of additional tions for each basin are shown in Table 4-5. lands. Water would be diverted from the Dungeness TABLE 4-5. Projected irrigation diversions and depletions (1000 acre-feet) Present 1980 2000 2020 Diyersion Ue-p-leto. Diyension Depl.tiog- 6=-i.. Depletion Diyersion Depletion SIN GIN SW GW SIN GVY SW GW SW GVV SW GIN SW GIN SW GIN Nooksack-Sumas 29.0 44.0 20.0 30.0 33.0 78.0 23.0 53.0 71.0 78.0 49.0 53.0 71.0 78.0 49.0 53.0 Sk.gil-Sernish 3.6 8.4 3.5 8.0 7.6 23@ 5 7.2 22.9 17.6 32.7 16.5 372 55.6 42.7 53.7 41.5 Stillaguarnish 3.5 1.3 2.4 0.9 7.5 5.0 5.1 3.6 11.5 8.7 7.8 6.3 11.5 8.7 7.8 6.3 Whidbey-Camano Islands 1.9 5.5 1.9 5.5 1.9 5.5 1.9 5.5 1.9 5.5 1.9 5,5 1.9 5.5 1.9 5.5 Snohovnish 11.9 12.6 8.9 8.3 20.9 7.3 10.4 9.1 26A 9.3 14.2 10A 28.9 9.3 15.9 10.4 Cedar-Green 4.5 1.1 3.0 0.8 3.1 0.8 2.1 0.5 1 5 0.4 1.0 03 2.0 0.4 1.3 0.3 Puyallup 5.0 3.8 34 2.3 9@0 5.7 5,7 3.9 17.0 9.5 10.8 '6@5 21.0 11.5 13.4 7.7 Nisqually De@hutes 8.1 5.2 5.3 3.4 8.6 9.9 5.6 6.5 11.0 19.4 T1 12,7 15.0 34.3 9.7 22.5 West Sound 2.5 0.6 1.7 0.4 3.3 0.8 2.3 0.5 4.3 1.1 3.0 0.7 5.3 1.3 3.7 0.9 Elwha-Dungeness 75,0 -_ 75.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 San Juan Islands --- --- --- ... --- --- --- --- --- ... --- ... Total 145.0 82.5 125.1 59.6 154.9 136.5 123.3 105.5 222.2 164.6 171.3 127.6 272.2 191.7 216.4 148.1 SW-Surface Water GW-Ground Water Source: Appendix V1 I. 4-17 A total investment of $51,362,000 is estimated amount of the annual wasteload on receiving waters to be required, to satisfy the long-range irrigation in the Puget Sound Area. needs for the period 1980 to 2020. Major investments amounting to $113,850,000 Irrigation of forest lands is largely in the for water quality control and improvement are experimental stages and, while not yet economically planned prior to 1980 for the Cedar-Green Basins, justified, may become so in the future. The Puget where over 50 percent of the Area population resides. Sound Area is expected to provide a significant share Much of this program is currently underway by the of the national wood fiber needs through 2020. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Significant in- expected demand would require accelerated growth vestments for water quality control and treatment are inducement and management techniques. Should also indicated for the Snohomish and Puyallup Basins irrigation prove feasible under these circumstances, where $97,390,000 and $34,000,000, respectively, there is an estimated 635,000 acres of forest land that are scheduled for,projects to be started prior to 1980. may be affected. Completion of the elements contained within the Comprehensive Plan for waste treatment and collec- Water Quality Control tion facilities and annual treatment costs would be at The Comprehensive Plan provides for the satis- a fairly uniform annual level. Substantial investments faction of water quality needs of the Puget Sound would be required, however, for sewage collection Area through water quality surveillance, construction facilities. of collection and treatment facilities, and provision of Streamflows in most basins are expected to be minimum dilution flows in streams. Satisfaction of adequate in the future to assimilate residual waste Federal and State standards for receiving waters and discharges. Lake Washington would continue to re- as set forth in the Implementation and Enforcement quire substantial fresh-water inflows to achieve and Plan for Interstate Waters, 1967, and for Intrastate maintain adequate, quality, with recovery from near Waters, 1969, of the State of Washington, can be eutrophication dependent upon 'these inflows. A achieved by implementation of the Plan. The cost of minimum flow in the Cedar River would be required water quality control and collection and treatment to insure that nutrients formerly discharged into the facilities proposed over the 50-year planning period is lake are eventually flushed out. Inflow from the estimated at $1,279,766,000, averaging $25,595,000 Cedar River also is required to insure that a sufficient per year. amount'of water is available to maintain an adequate The early action plan requires an investment of level of the lake during the summer months when $302,661,000 to construct collection and treatment peak use of the Hiram Chittenden Locks occurs, facilities prior to 1980 to meet water quality objec- resulting in salt water intrusion into Lake Union and tives. Water quality control programs, recommended the Ship Canal. for implementation prior to 1980, are estimated to The long-range program for satisfying water cost $11,930,000, with water quality surveillance quality needs of the Puget Sound Area provides for stations to be located in all eleven major river basins further construction of collection and treatment of the Puget Sound Area. A comprehensive sewerage facilities commensurate with the location and in- plan would be developed for each basin. The major tensity of growing urban and industrial developments water quality problems existing within the Area are projected for the Area. During the long-range period largely the result of inadequately treated waste expansion by industry, new developments and growth discharges from the pulp and paper, and food and of urban and recreation areas correspondingly would kindred products industries. Four bays in the Area require that new sewer systems be installed and have experienced significant water quality degrada- treatment facilities enlarged and/or constructed. A tion due to discharges of these wastes. Provision of total cost of $965,175,000 is estimated for the water adequate treatment facilities by these industries quality improvement in the long-range period. This represents the primary key to the solution of the includes provision for a continuation of the control major water quality problems. Discharges from pulp program initiated during the early action period. and paper plants are recommended for treatment including construction of sulphite removal facilities Navigation and adequate marine outfalls and diffusers. The pulp Future navigation needs of the Puget Sound and paper products industry contributes a significant Area would be met through retention of lands 4-18 having a potential for terminal and water trans- West Waterway of Olympia Harbor in the Nis- port-oriented industrial use and the scheduling of qually -Deschutes Basins. major river and harbor channel deepening projects Navigation land requirements through 1980 to accommodate the growing draft of the world's generally would be satisfied by expansion of exist- fleet. Channel projects are proposed in six of the ing facilities and use of areas already partially or eleven basins; through the year 2000 in the Nook- wholly developed. However, some development of sack-Sumas, Snohomish, Cedar-Green, Puyallup, new lands in the Snohomish River delta would be and Nisqually-Deschutes Basins; and through 2020 needed by 19M The undeveloped areas cited in in the Skagit-Sarnish Basins. The channel improve- Appendix VIII, Navigation, as having a favorable ments and the retention of land areas for terminal potential for development as terminal and/or water and water transport-oriented industry would be transport-oriented industrial land should be re- necessary to service the annual waterborne com- tained for future navigation related use. This merce of nearly 252,000,000 tons projected for would insure that land does not become a con- the Area by the year 2020, compared to straint to that portion of the Area's economy tons currently handled annually by related to commercial navigation. However, the Puget Sound Area ports. The harbor and channel reservation of these favorable sites need not pre- projects planned for the 50-year planning period clude interim use for other purposes. are estimated to range from $45,040,000 to Approximately 27 small boat harbor projects, $47,440,000, averaging about $900,000 each year providing nearly 18,00o wet moorages are pro- depending on the alternative plan selected. posed for construction by the public sector prior Pleasure boating, although included as one to 1980 as shown in Table 4-6. Wet moorage aspect of outdoor recreation With total costs and needs for the Stillaguarnish Basin would be satis- benefits of rnoorage facilities covered under that fied through development in the Skagit-Sarriish function, was accorded special study as a facet of Basins as no favorable sites were found in that navigation. Small boat harbors required to satisfy a basin. major portion of present and" future moorage During the early action period, a study needs are viewed as important navigation projects. would be undertaken to determine the require- The Comprehensive Plan contains those small boat ments, size, and distribution of harbors of refuge harbors that would probably be undertaken by the needed to provide havens for small craft.seeking public sector to satisfy the wet moorage needs of shelter from sudden storms. The study would be Puget Sound boaters. conducted over a period of 3 years at an esti- The early action portion of the Compre- mated cost of $500,000 (not shown in tables). A hensive Plan calls for investments of $15,394,000 comprehensive plan of developmentfor harbors of to deepen thirteen existing navigation channels and refuge would be developed by the study with dredge one new channel for a total of approxi- preliminary site layouts made of suitable. locations mately 28 miles of channel improvements (see along the shoreline of Puget Sound and adjacent Table 4-6) to enable vessels expected by 1980 to waters. A preliminary economic analysis would be call at Puget Sound Area ports. Deepening of the performed of each site to determine project feas- Whatcom Creek waterway in the Nooksack-Surnas ibility. The study would be undertaken on a joint Basins would be undertaken to accommodate the Federal-State -local basis. large freighters that would be calling at the Port A management program should be prepared of Bellingham. Oil tankers that service refineries at for the future use of Puget Sound and adjacent Anacortes in the Skagit-Samish Basins would be marine waters on the basis of a study evaluating provided with deeper draft channels, up to 54 feet the needs for commercial and recreational naviga- in depth. Major investments are planned for the tion. The problem of oil spills from tankers and Snohomish Basin with deepening of the Port of conflicts in traffic between vessels carrying com- Everett's East Waterway and a portion of the shal- merce and. those involved in recreational activity low draft Snohomish River channel to accommo- requires that consideration be given to such alter- date deep draft vessels. The Duwamish. River natives as (1) use of shipping lanes and traffic waterways in the Cedar-Green Basins are also pro- control, and (2) designation of recreational. water- posed for deepening as are the Port of. Tacoma's ways. existing waterways in the Puyallup Basin, and the The long-range portion of the Comprehensive 4-19 Plan provides for. the satisfaction of navigation $29,646,000. A deep draft channel in the Nis- needs through additional channel deepening, com- qually delta, dredged to a 55-foot depth, would mensurate with the increasing vessel drafts ex- cost an estimated $2,400,000. pected. Channels of up to 106-foot in depth are On a long-range basis all sites are needed proposed to accommodate the super bulk carriers that have been designated as being favorable for projected for the future, with channels up to 46 navigation related development, including the Nis- feet deep proposed for freighters. A 4i6I-foot qually delta. The Plan provides for a multi- channel is proposed through the Nooksack River discipline study of the Nisqually delta to be delta prior to the year 2000 as a now develop- undertaken during the early action period to de- ment. Deepening of the existing shallow draft termine whether port development in the delta can channel in the Snolionfish River and an extension be undertaken compatible with fish and wildlife of this waterway approximately 3 miles upstream and outdoor recreation use. If the Nisqually delta to the head of Ebey Slough is also proposed in is not developed, an alternative site would be re- the long-range plan prior to the year 2000. quired to satisfy projected navigation land area Further deepening of existing channels is planned needs. Lands now part of Indian Reservations or in the long-range period in the Nooksack-Sumas, military reservations that were not considered as Skagit-Samish, Snohon-fish, Puyallup, and Nis- being available for development in this study qually-Deschutes Basins. Long-range navigation im- would be reviewed and studied to determine pos- provements, excluding development of the Nis- sibilities for development as alternatives to the qually River delta, are estimated to cost Nisqually Delta. TABLE 4-6. Navigation projects, Puget Sound Area Navigation Channels Small Boat Harbors By 1980 1980-2000 2000-2020 By 1980 1980-2000 _ 2000-2020 Number of Number of Number of Number of Wet Number of Wet Number of Wet Basins Projects Miles Projects Miles Projects Miles Projects Moorages Projects Moorages Projects Moorages Nooksack-Sumas 1 1.5 2 2.8 2 870 1 550 1 1,150 Skagit-Samish 2 5.7 3 9.4 2 4.8 2 850 2 1,900 3 3,340 St. 11 aguamish Whidbey-Camano Is. 3 2,300 2 2,660 6 9,390 Snohomish 2 4.2 3 11.3 2 3,130 4 5,940 8 13,680 Cedar-Green 5 7.4 3 2,100 5 10,020 Puyallup 3 5.4 2 2.1 2 1,550 1 2,720 N isqually-Deschutes A Iternative A 1 3.8 2 5.9 1 230 2 2,180 2 1,210 Alternative 6 1 3.8 3 6.5 1 230 2 2,180 2 1,210 West Sound 6 4,310 9 8,710 8 13,220 E twha-Dungeness 2 710 3 800 1 700 San Juan Islands 1,480 4 1,800 5 3,040 Puget Sound Area Alternative A 14 28.0 12 31.5 2 4.8 27 17,530 33 37,280 34 45,730 Alternative B 14 28.0 13 22.1 2 4.8 27 17,530 33 37,280 34 45,730 More intensive and efficient use of other lands moorage is anticipated than currently is desired by also would be considered. However, present in- boaters in order to meet moorage needs. In several of formation indicates that the bulk cargo facilities the basins, wet moorage needs, projected to the year proposed as part of the'navigation development in 2000, can be satisfied in adjacent basins. However, the delta may not entirely be replaceable in other needs projected to the year 2020 cannot be entirely- basins. satisfied for the Cedar-Green and Puyallup Basins After 1980 the construction of 56 new small even with this means. Shown in Table 4-6 is a boat harbors and expansion of 11 existing facilities summary of navigation projects scheduled for con- would provide additional wet moorages for pleas- struction after 1980. ure boaters. All of the wet moorage needs pro- jected for the Area cannot be satisfied at sites Power found to have a potential for development. Con- In the Pacific Northwest, planning for the sequently, proportionately greater use of dry satisfaction of electrical power needs is accom- 4-20 plished on a regional basis. The geographic and 150 economic relationships between the Puget Sound Area and the surrounding region are inter-related. PUGET SOUND STUDY AREA 40 COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC POWER The region is --served on a coordinated basis ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND through a number of interconnected generating ENERGY RESOURCES 30 x' and transmission systems with the Federal regional transmission grid of the Bonneville Power Admin- .20 istration providing the major lines. 0 0 As the Puget Sound Area is one of two 'P@ NUCLEAR Q MISC. major load centers of the region, its needs would 10 have a strong influence on the regional rate of EDuLzD development. Presently the major outside source of AREA 0 power is from the Upper and Middle Columbia 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 River hydroelectric plants. These plants could reach ultimate installed capacity by the 1990's, )00 which coincides with the time that the trans- mission corridor across the North Cascade Moun- PUGET SOUND STUDY AREA 80 tains would be filled to capacity. COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC POWER PEAK REQUIREMENTS AND The Puget Sound Area would have a peak PEAK 'RESOURCES demand of approximately 30,000 megawatts (mw) PUMPED STORAGE 60 8 FOSSIL FUEL by the year 2000, almost ten times the present demand. Early in the period 1980-2000 the Area 40 would begin developing nuclear-fueled steam- 5 electric plants and pumped storage hydroelectric NUCLEAR IN MISC, 120 plants late in the period to meet the demand for power. I.MPOWIM EXI$TJN0: W, SCHEDULED The Area has numerous potential nuclear- nu@ 0 electric power sites utilizing various types of cool- 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 ing, and many excellent pumped storage hydro- FIGURE 4-1. Electric power-energy and peaking electric sites to meet the future power demands. requirements and resources, Pugel Sound Area Therefore, by the year 2020, when the electric power peak requirement is forecasted at almost 90,000 megawatts (nearly 30 times present demand) pumped Many existing hydroelectric power plants in the storage and nuclear-electric generation is projected to Puget Sound Area are now operating as peaking dominate the scene. ?lants. Others, however, are too old or too small to Figure 4-1 illustrates the development of elec- justify additional units for peaking purposes. Thus, tric power resources in meeting energy and peak there probably would be no significant change in the requirements from 1965 to 2020. The nuclear and operation of most existing Area hydroelectric plants. miscellaneous portion includes geothermal or other However, the Skagit River system does represent a unknown sources of generation. The pumped storage potential source of additional peaking capacity. The and fossil-fuel portion includes possible gas-turbine or existing power production of the Skagit River system steam-electric peaking plants. can be increased by raising Ross Dam, installing Future new electric power developments within additional generation units at Ross, Diablo and Gorge the Puget Sound Area would be determined by Dams, and constructing a reregulating dam at Copper economics of location, and the impact on the natural Creek. environment. Some, or even all, of the base-load Eighty-nine potential hydroelectric sites, with a thermal nuclear generation could be located within total installed capacity of 3,390 mw, were investi- the Area itself. Having the power plants located gated. The results of the investigation revealed that within the Area would result in minimizing trans- no site approaches economic justification from a mission costs. However, due to environmental con- single-purpose standpoint. siderations, some thermal base-load plants -may be During the study, the potential of pumped- near the ocean or east of the Cascade Mountains. storage was investigated at more than 100 sites in the 4-21 Puget Sound Area. In the northern Cascade Moun- shore, providing good access by sea, and (4) prox- tains, there are an unusually large number of excel- imity to major load centers and major transmission lent pumped-storage sites. With off-peak thermal facilities. However, around Puget Sound there are generation available for pumping energy, pumped some siting problems that stem from growing high storage is potentially the most econon-dcal source of density populations and in some cases restricted peaking capacity once the conventional hydroelectric mixing in the waters of the Sound. Sites under active capability of the area are fully developed. Additional consideration by public utilities for nuclear power site investigation is required. plant development are Kiket and Samish Islands, 'in The Puget Sound Area, with a peak electric the Skagit-Samish Basins, Cherry Point in the Nook- load of about 3,500 mw, presently imports about sack-Sumas Basins, and Sequim in the Elwha- 2,000 mw. The importation of electric energy is at Dungeness Basins. about the same ratio, two-thirds of requirements Power plants that would use once-through being met from outside sources. This importation is cooling systems, as envisioned for those in the Puget expected to continue as long as electrical generation Sound Area, need a large water supply. The expected is available from areas outside the Puget Sound Area. circulating water requirement for a 1,000 mw nuclear Included in the early action portion of the power plant would be about 1,600 efs to limit the Comprehensive Plan is hydroelectric power develop- coolant temperature to maximum rise of 20 degrees ment as part of the North Fork Snoqualmie River F. This type of cooling system generally limits the project. Raising of Ross Dam on the Skagit River to potential thermal-nuclear plants to the use of salt provide increased Dower output from generating water for cooling. With once-through cooling each facilities at Ross power plant is recommended for nuclear plant requires about 350 acres. Hypo- further consideration to meet the Area's thetically, the total land requirements of fifty-two power needs. The importation of electric peaking 1,000 mw plants would, with once-through cooling, capacity and energy from east of the Cascade be 18,200 acres. Mountains would continue @ to increase through the Capital and operating costs of nuclear plants 1990's until the Columbia River hydroelectric system determine whether they are economically competitive is completely developed. Importation of 13,400 mw with other types of thermal power plants. Nuclear peaking capacity and 5,000 mw average energy would plants with the larger size units tend to cost less per thereafter remain the same. The existing development kilowatt, In the period 1975-1980, new nuclear under consideration would meet the 1980 demand plants most likely would be composed of several units projected for the Puget Sound Area. However, by the in the 750-1500 mw range and would cost in the year 2000, the Puget Sound Area would need range of $100 to $200 per kilowatt. At the rate of additional generation of 13,490 mw of peaking $200 per kilowatt (1968 price levels), a 1000 mw capacity and 10,380 average mw of energy. The nuclear power plant would cost about $200,000,000. means for satisfying this additional demand would In the decade between now and 1980, over , primarily be base-load thermal installations. Nuclear billion dollars would be invested in electric power power plants are scheduled to supply 12,100 mw facilities in the Pacific Northwest. Of this total, about peaking capacity with 10,300 mw of energy. 2.7 billion dollars would be attributable to low Pumped-storage power plants that satisfactorily meet voltage transmission and distribution, about 1.7 environmental considerations may be provided to billion dollars to high-voltage transmission, about 1.6 assist in supplying peaking capacity. Some fossil-fuel billion dollars to hydro capacity, and, about 1.3 plants in the form of gas turbines may also be billion dollars to thermal generation. In the next 10 installed in the future at locations near load centers years, from 1980 to 1990, about 9 billion do!lars to assist in meeting peak power demands. would be invested in electric power facilities in the Installation of about 52,000 mw of n 'uclear region, of which 3.2 bill ,ion dollars would be in power generation would be required by the year low-voltage transmission distribution, 1.2 billion 2020. The Puget Sound Area has many features dollars would be in high-voltage transmission, 1.9 advantageous to nuclear power plants siting, these billion dollars in additional hydro capacity, and 2.6 include: (J) a plentiful supply of cold marine water billion dollars in thermal generation facilities. Under for cooling purposes, (2) favorable tidal currents at past and present trends, about one-third of the many locations conducive to rapid dispersal of investment is expected to be in the Puget Sound cooling water, (3) protected deep water, close to Area. 4-22 Flood Control The early action portion of the Comprehensive The Comprehensive Plan provides for the reduc- Plan requires an investment ranging from tion of future flood damages associated with main- $168,054,000 to $176,054,000 to implement flood stem overbank flooding of urban and rural com- plain management programs, construct economically munities and agricultural lands in the flood plains of justified levees and channel improvements, and pay each of nine major river basins. The two island for the allocated flood control costs of multiple- groups, San Juan and Whidbey-Camano Islands, do purpose storage projects. In the Nooksack-Sumas not have serious overbank flooding. Complementary Basins a storage project would be constructed at the measures of flood prevention and control are dis- Edfro site on the North Fork Nooksack River. In the cussed under Watershed Management. Skagit-Samish Basins levees would be raised, the The objectives of flood protection adopted for operation of Upper Baker Dam changed, and the this study would generally be met by a combination Avon Bypass constructed. The size of the bypass of management programs and flood control projects. would depend on the alternative plan selected. In the All urban and industrial lands would have at least a Stillaguarnish Basin levee and channel improvements 100-year level of protection, with the exception of a would be constructed. In the Snohomish Basin relatively small amount of land in the Snohomish multiple -purpose storage projects on the North and River Basin above the town of Snohomish along the Middle Forks Snoquahnie River would be con- Pilchuck River. Prime agricultural lands with a high structed, Cuhnback Dam on the Sultan River raised, density of farm buildings and residences would be and levee and channel improvements made along the provided a 50-year level of protection. Other agri- lower Snohomish River. In the Cedar-Green Basins cultural lands in all but the Skykomish River Basin additional storage would be obtained at Chester would be provided with a 25-year level of protection. Morse Lake on the Cedar River through construction In that basin levees or storage projects required to of a low dam at the lake outlet. In the Puyallup Basin achieve a 25-year level of protection are neither levees would be constructed to protect the town of economically justified at this tirne nor expected to be Orting. In the Nisqually-Deschutes Basins the plan in the future. Flood plain management is an integral includes using storage at Alder Lake on the Nisqually part of the Comprehensive Plan. Management and River by agreement with the city of Tacoma. In the project costs to satisfy a significant amount of the West Sound Basins a levee would be constructed Puget Sound Area flood control needs over the along the Dosewallips River to protect the State park. 50-year planning period are estimated to range from Flood plain management, including land use $328,589,000 to $381,589,000, averaging from zoning, floodproofing and other regulations necessary $6,600,000 to $7,600,000 per year, depending on to protect existing structures and prevent unwar- which alternative plan is selected. ranted development in the flood plains is an essential TABLE4-7. Flood control projects for main-stem overbank flooding, Puget Sound Area Levees Channel Improvements torage Projects By 1980 11980@2000 2000-2020 By 1980 1980:2000 2000-2020 By 1980 1980-2000 2000@2020 Ko. of No. of No. of Wo of 4o -of i@. of No. of No. of No. of Basins Projects Miles Projects Miles Projects Miles Projects Miles Projects Miles Projects Miles Projects Ac. Ft. Projects Ac. Ft. Projects Ac. Ft. Nook@ck-Sumas 1 6.0 3 20 1 63,000 1 21,000 Skagit S-ish Alternative A 2 39.5 2 7 21 10.8 1 100,000 1 134,000 Alternative B 2 39.5 2 7 21 10.8 1 100,000 0 0 Stillaguamish 1 13.0 1 11 1 6:2 Snohomish 6 13 2 11.5 1 3.3 1 3.7 3 270,000 1 15,000 Cedar-Green 1 13 1 16 1 50,000 Puyallup 1 6.0 1 2 1 24,000 Nisoually Deschutes Alternative A 0 0 0 0 1 55,000 1 15,000 Alternative a 1 2 1 1, 1 55,000 1 15,000 West Sound 1 0.3 2 6.1 Elwha Dungeness 2 9.5 Whidbey-Camano Is. San Juan Is, Puget Sound Area Allernati" A 6 64.8 16 72.1 2 9.5 6 44.5 1 3.3 1 3.7 7 538,000 4 194,000 1 15,000 Alternative 8 6 64.8 17 75.1 2 9.5 6 44.5 2 4.3 1 3,7 7 538,000 3 60,000 1 15,000 1 Avon Bypass (8 miles) has been included with channel improvements. 4-23 part of the Comprehensive Plan. Flood plain regula- management measures are usually applied by the tions would be utilized, to establish and protect the owner of the land under a planned program. required minimum channel for passage of flood flows An important part of watershed management and to control land use and development in those includes selection of watershed lands for specific areas with less than 100-year level of flood protec- development purposes in accordance with the capabil- tion. Flood plain zoning would also provide a means ity of the land to sustain such use, coupled with of retaining open space, if supported by land use adequate land treatment and water management zoning. As a condition for construction of Federal or based on the chosen use or combination of uses. The Federally-assisted flood control projects the State watershed area requiring management remains con- and/or local governments should be required to stant while the intensity of management increases regulate flood plain encroachments such that growth with changed or more intense use of the land. Future in flood damages from new developments is pre- development of the Area would require acceleration vented. of management of land and water resources. Shown in Table 4-7 is a summary of flood Nonstructural measures consist of land treat- control projects that would be implemented prior to ment and management operations for protection, 1980. rehabilitation, and improvement of watershed lands The long-range program for satisfying flood and water flows originating thereon. Examples of control needs includes development of additional rehabilitation and protection measures are fire pro- storage in the Nooksack-Sunias Basins as part of the tection 'special precautions in road building to reduce multiple-purpose North Fork project, and in the hazard of resource damage, and construction activity Skagit-Samish Basins with the Sauk River project, if modifications to reduce stream pollution by sedi- found to be desirable after completion of the Wild metit. Development activities may be on-farm or and S 'cenic River Study in the Skagit Basin. Modifi- urban water management measures installed to cation of the outlet works at the South Fork Tolt achieve known potentialsi often made possible by River project would provide additional flood control. structural projects. Many of these measures are storage for the Snoquahnie River system in the on-going at the present time and would be.a part of Snohomish Basin. Storage projects are planned for the planned program. Some elements of existing construction on the Puyallup River prior to the year management are good, while others need substantial 2000 and on the Deschutes River after 2000. Addi- improvement and r .edirection. tional channel and levee projects would be under- Projects, some of which are interrelated to taken in many of the basins in the long-range period mainstem overbank flooding projects discussed under to provide increased levels of flood protection com- Flood Control, are generally multiple-purpose and mensurate with the increase in urban and rural designed to reduce damages caused by floodwater and developments in the flood plains. Levees and channel sediment. improvements would be provided in the NisquallY The watershed management programs and River delta if port development is undertaken there. projects contained in the Comprehensive Plan to A change in operation of the 'existing dam on the satisfy the Area's needs over the 50-year planning Elwha River would be undertaken after 1980 to period are estimated to cost $2,987,807,000 provide flood control protection in that basin. A total ($237,364,000 in program costs not shown in tables) investment ranging from $152,535,000 to averaging $59,800,000 per year. A large portion of $213,535,000 is estimated to be required to provide this cost represents ongoing management and de- the long-range flood control projects and flood plain velopment costs, a portion of which would be management scheduled for the period 1980 to 2020, redirected and accelerated. These costs, together with depending on which alternative plan is selected. other costs of acquisition and development, represent the total given. The early action program calls for the invest- Watershed Management ment of $33,989,000 for projects planned under The means provided in the Comprehensive Plan criteria similar to Public Law 566 for implementation to achieve the objectives of watershed management prior to 1980, and $831,040,000 for complementary include a wide spectrum of structural and non- programs of land treatment, drainage, and erosion structural measures for development and improved control. A five-year study of beach and shore erosion use of the land and water resources. Structural is planned for initiation and completion by 1980 at measures are often the result of formal cost-sharing an estimated cost of $500,000. This study would projects, while nonstructural land treatment and identify and evaluate areas where significant erosion 4-24 TABLE 4-8. Early action watershed protection and management projects, Puget Sound Area Modification Basin of Existing Water and Project Channel Protective Outlet Storage Debris F loodwater Drainage Watershed Area Improvement Works Structures Facility Basin Protection Improvement (acres) (mi.) (mi.) (no.) (no.) (no.) (acres) (acres) NOOKSACK-SUMAS BASINS Middle Tribs. Nooksack 6,750 6.7 5.0 1 3,199 4,582 Fishtrap-Bertrand Cr. 23,914 37.0 6.0 2 13,159 13,508 Wiser Lake Area 38,305 29.0 10.1 4 14,791 18,832 Lower Nooksack Tribs. 19,835 18.9 9.3 5 10,499 12,559 Sumas River 33,079 22.0 1 14,509 14,692 Dakota Creek 20,314 18.0 593 3,118 California Creek 14,192 13.8 1 1,397 3,500 Silver Creek 10,855 16.0 5.0 1 2,736 4,999 Total 167,255 161.4 35.4 13 1 1 60,883 75,790 SKAGIT-SAMISH BASINS Gages Slough 14,419 17.0 1 9,520 7,087 South Mt Vernon 32,132 21.5 4 9,619 10,501 Samish River 63,716 65.0 5 23,859 24,028 Skagit Flats 41,148 43.0 5.0 5 31,788 28,402 Total 151,415 146.5 15 74,786 70,018 STILLAGUAMISH BASIN Lower Stillaguarnish 8,522 17.0 1.0 3 5,547 5,422 Church Creek 8,060 8.4 1.0 3 2,732 4,424 Total 16,582 25.4 2.0 6 8,279 9,846 SNOHOMISH BASIN Patterson Creek 12,451 8.0 667 1,426 Snohomish Estuary 29,759 15.0 11.0 3 12,321 10,222 F3. 0 Total 38,216 11.0 3 12,988 11,648 CEDAR BASIN Swamp, Bear, North Crs. 44,795 24.0 2 5,963 3,826 Evans Creek 29,800 16.0 2 3,348 3,620 Total 73,595 40.0 4 9,311 7,446 PUYALLUP BASIN Algona-Pacific 6,457 12.0 1,688 1,444 Clear Creek 8,060 21.0 2,364 6,587 H y lebos Creek 15,000 7.0 1 2,376 1,258 Wapato Creek 6,407 7.0 1 3,24i 1,699 Clover Creek 58,092 14.0 4,990 805 Total 125, _10- 14,661 11,793 WEST SOUND BASINS Goldsborough Creek 38,501 5.0 3,388 261 Chimacum 22,326 16.0 8 1 .3,375 2,717 Total 60, _10 8 1 'T 6,763 2,978 GRAND TOTAL 632,900 478.3 53.4 51 2 2 187,671 189,519 4-25 TABLE 4-9. Summary of principal measures for watershed: protection and management on cropland, Puget Sound Area Early Action Program Proposed for Installation Appl. Cum. Throl Treatment Measures Unit 1966 1980 2000 2020 Total Erosion Control Measures Conservation cropping system A cre 210,600 58,000 115,700 115,700 500,000 Pasture and hay land planting 1 Acre 10,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 33,000 Cover cropi A cre 24,000 28,800 57,500 57,500 167,800 Flood Prevention Measures Dike and levee Feet 1,443,790 154,810 309,500 309,500 2,217,600 Clearing and snagging Feet 211,500 380,460 760,020 760,080 2,112,000 Streambank protection Feet 892,500 143,580 287,160 287,160 1,610,400 Stream channel improvement Feet 459,580 76,960 153,930 153,930 844,400 Stream channel stabilization Feet 25,350 17,110 34,210 34,210 110,880 Drainage Measures Drainage main or lateral Feet 7,042,420 1,391,5?0 2,783,030 2,783,030 14,000,000 Drainage field ditch F eet 81,470 2,152,710 4,305;410 4,305,410 10,845,000 Tile drain F eet 5,790,860 11,133,240 22,266,450 22,266,450 61,457,000 Recreation Measures Recreation access road Feet 1,105,350 444,210 888,420 888,420 3,326,400 Wildlife habitat management Acre 107,180 192,940 385,850 385,850 1,071,820 Farm pond Number 1,010 390 800 Soo 3,000 1 Conservation measures applied annually. 2 This includes accomplishments that are part of Soil Conservation Service Records System. is occurring, determine relevant factors for evalu- measurement and evaluation of sediment production, ation, describe justifiable remedial measures, and movement, and impacts on various economic and establish priorities for treatment. ecologic factors are estimated at $2,250,000 for the Small multiple-purpose watershed projects early action period and $150,000 annually in the shown in Table 4-8 would assist in reduction of long-range period. floodwater and sediment damage to lands at the small Completion of cooperative soil surveys on Area watershed level (250,000 acres or less) and make lands, updating older inadequate surveys, and initiat- possible improved management of these lands. ing surveys of greater intensity in areas expected to Twenty-five such projects have feasibility for con- become part of metropolitan developments is pro- struction by 1980 and an additional 86 projects are posed. These surveys would be accelerated for guid- projected as feasible by 2020. The Nooksack Basin ance of development. This survey work and reports, contains eight of the proposed early action projects; included for early action, are estimated to cost the Puyallup Basin five such projects; the Skagit- $3,000,000. Samish Basins four; and the remaining eight projects A summary of principal measures for cropland would be scattered in the Stillaguarnish, Snohomish, and natural forest land is given in Tables 4-9 and Cedar, and West Sound Basins. These projects and 4-10, respectively. The list of practices given in these programs are discussed in more detail in Appendiy tables serves to indicate the level of management XIV, Watershed Management. needed on these lands, and it is expected the same Additional studies are needed in land manage- level of management would be applied to State and ment and its impacts on various environmental corporate forest lands. Small private holdings would factors, such as the production and effects of generally lag behind large ownerships in sophisti- sediment. Cooperative studies involving long-term cation of management. 4-26 TABLE 4-10. Summary of principal measures for watershed protection and management on National Forests, Puget Sound Area Early Action Progra Proposed for Installation Treatment Measures Unit i965-1980 Percent' 1980-2000 2000-2020 Managerial Surveys Acres 8,875,970 95 5,048,170 0 Plans for watersheds Numbers 87 100 41 0 Research studies2 Dollars 461,600 30 559,400 559,400 State and private programs2 Dollars 2,317,700 95 3,090,200 3,090,200 Protection Fire control Acres 3,095,080 50 3,095,080 3,095,080 Insect and disease control2,3 Dollars 32,500 95 43,500 43,500 Road development6 Permanent Miles 2,429 75 3,770 2,460 Temporary Miles 9,432 60 16,810 20,705. Land use development6 Logging5 Acres 402,280 95 717,300 883,080 Grazing Acres 11,720 75 33,020 64,600 Recreation2 Dollars 4,885,000 30 6,513,500 6,513,500 Restoration Reforestation Acres 199,530 95 272,300 272,300 Gully stabilization Miles 17.5 5 25 25 Erosion control Acres 5,310 5 5,910 5,910 Channel clearance Miles 83.7 10 150.3 150.3 Bank stabilization Miles 143.4 5 156.5 156.5 Road and trail rehabilitation Acres 150.2 5 206 206 Roadside stabilization Acres 756 5 955 955 Water Yield I mprovement4 Cover-type conversion Acres 0 0 40,750 40,450 Snowpack management facilities Miles 0 0 810 798 Sediment basin construction Acres 420 0 1,975 1,885 Flow regulation structures Each 40 0 45 43 Water storage structures Each 63 0 276 278 Wet land drainage structures Each 2 0 8 0 1 Approximate percentage of needs met by current funding levels. 2 Based on allocatiob of the total State and private forestry program that is water related. 3 Costs include detection only. 4 Measures based on local determination of future off-site needs for water. These should be viewed as potential developments rather than specifically planned projects. 5 Area includes thinnings and release cuttings as well as harvest cuts. 6 Units shown are not wholly watershed protection and management items, costs, where presented, include that part needed for soil and water protection only. 4-27 TABLE 4-11. Watershed management projects 1980-2020, Puget Sound Area - -1980-2000 2000-2020 Total Total N umber of I nstallation Number of I nstallation Basin Projects Cost Basin Projects Cost (dollars) (dollars) Nooksack-Sumas 7 5,950,000 Nooksack-Sumas 5 936,000 Skagit-Samish 3 1,850,000 Skagit-Samish 5 1,460,000 Stillaguarnish 3 5,620,000 Stillaguamish 3 1,310,000 Whidbey-Camano Is. 4 3,245,000 Whidbey-Camano Is. 0 0 Snohomish 8 12,387,000 Snohomish 1 100,000 Cedar 3 3,810,000 Cedar 1 100,000 Green 1 1,700,000 Green 1 100,000 Puyallup 4 4,167,000 Puyallup 0 0 Nisqually 4 2,930,000 Nisqually 1 100,000 Deschutes 3 1,410,000 Deschutes 0 0 WestSound 12 8,055,000 WestSound 7 970,000 Elwha-Dungeness 5 2,962,000 Elwha-Dungeness 2 300,000 San Juan Is. 3 2,736,000 San Juan Is. 0 0 Total 60 56,822,000 Total 26 5,376,000 Includes Lake Stevens project installation cost of $147,000, not shown in Appendix XIV, Watershed Management. TABLE 4-12. Summary of watershed management program and project costs. all lands (in thousands ofdollars)l Time Periods Type of Cost To 1980 1980-2000 2000-2020 Tota I Federal Tech. Assistance2 3 127,010 203,649 201,073 531,732 Struc. Measures3 23,077 56,822 5,376 .85,275 Accel. Tech. Assist. 3,424 7,599 3,205 14,228 Total 153,511 268,070 209,654 631,235 Federal & Cooperative Beach Erosion Study 500 0 0 500 Beach Stabiliz. (Constr.) 100,000 100,000 200,000 Cooper. Sedim. Monitoring 2,250 3,000 3,000 8,250 Cooper. Soil Surveys 3,000 0 0 3,000 Tota 1 5,750 103,000 103,000 211,750 Non-Federal Technical Assistance 87,627 116,839 116,838 321,304 Structural Measures 3,984 50 50 3,984 Rights-of-Way 6,928 50 50 6,928 OM&R, Structures4 7,648 16,353 1,613 25,614 Water Management 57,351 57,813 73,743 188,907 Urban Drainage 500,692 446,527 457,078 1,404,297 Land Treatment 54,936 70,782 68,070 193,788 Total 719,166' 708,314 717,342 2,144,822 Grand Total 878,427 1,079,384 1,029,996 2,987,807 1 Base: 1967 prices. Source: Appendix X IV, Watershed Management. 2 Does not include technical assistance and management costs for urban drainage. 3 Costs of flood control not included. 4 Base: 1967 adjusted normalized prices. 5 Amounts not estimated for future time periods. 4-28 The long-range planning for satisfying water- The early action needs can be met to a large shed management needs provides for further small degree by the expansion of existing facilities and watershed projects for flood prevention and a con- development of public lands located within the Area. tinuation of rehabilitation and protection programs Emphasis should be given to the provision of access and activities associated with development of land to waterfront lands adjacent to saltwater, lakes, and and water. An investment of $2,091,414,000 is major rivers within one hour's drive of urban areas. estimated to satisfy watershed management needs for Examples are the University of Washington the period 1980-2020. About 43 percent of this is for Arboretum trail, acquisition and development of' the urban water management. Magnolia tideflats, Everett to Edmonds beach trail, The long-range program features are shown in and the development of street ends as access to water Tables 4-9 and 4-10 and projects are indicated in areas such as Lake Union. In urban areas, recreation Table 4-11. A summary of the watershed manage- lands must be acquired as soon as possible to insure ment features for all lands is given in Table 4-12. their availability for future public use. In the Skagit-Samish Basins, the Skagit River and some tributaries have high potential for inclusion Recreation in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Prior In satisfying the future water-related recreation to any determination of whether it should be needs, the Comprehensive Plan sets forth a schedule included in the national system, future studies of its of land acquisition and development providing for the potential and expressions of national need must be timely construction of well-planned recreation facili- made. These studies are scheduled for completion in ties, the retention of public lands for recreational use, 1973. and the identification of natural areas which should A major challenge to be met during the early be protected. Future recreation developments would action period is the provision of public access along be in accordance with the Washington Statewide the shorelines of fresh and marine waters where Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Pinn. developments have, to a great extent, shut off the The plan of development calls for an invest- public in many locations. The railroad tracks located ment of S 1,630,215,000 to acquire lands and develop along the marine shoreline from Everett to Seattle recreation facilities during the 50-year period, averag- and other locations restrict public use of the shorel 'ine ing $32,600,000 per year. The plan includes and access to the marine resource. Access easements $406,975,000 investment during the early action with road access and pedestrian crossings should be period. The land requirements for developments acquired along the railroad right-of-way to provide including buffer zones are shown in the following for public use of the marine shoreline. Additional tabulation: s@L;_idies should be undertaken to determine the desirability and justification for opening the closed 1980 2000 2020 municipal watersheds for recreational use. The Plan includes a network of scenic routes to Acres of development 9,500 12,200 21,800 provide travel links between recreation attractions Acres of buffer zones 8,200 10,500 18,700 used by a large segment of the population who enjoy driving for both pleasure and sightseeing. In addition, Total acreage 17,700 22,700 40,500 a network of trails is planned and scenic and recreation rivers are designated for possible inclusion The early action schedule proposes identifying, as a part of a State-wide system. acquiring, and developing over 600 recreation areas. The high country in the Cascades has a fragile Priority is given to acquiring and developing salt ecological balance and while the apparent need is to water beaches, acquiring and providing acc--@ss to increase capacity through a strong development public areas, designation of a state-wide system of program, care must be taken lest the resource itself be scenic and recreation rivers, a program for setting destroyed. A study is needed to find answers to the aside unique, natural, archeological and historical question of the proper level of human use in the high sites, and the construction of facilities for camp- country, prior to initiation of development programs. grounds, picnic areas, beaches, swimming pools, Both winter and summer sport activities are involved. boating areas and facilities including small boat This concept also is applicable to most other areas harbors. receiving intense recreation use. 4-29 The long-range program for satisfying recre- in this study. However, these flows could not be ation needs provides for expansion and development supplied in any of the river basins on a sustained basis of additional recreation facilities and acquisition of without significant carry-over storage. Consequently, lands at 918 recreation areas. A total investment of planning proceeded on the basis of augmenting $1,223,240,000 is estimated to be required to satisfy naturally occurring streamflows during critical low the long-range recreation needs for the period 1980 flow periods for fish to the extent possible, com- to 2020. mensurate with other water resource needs. Further Fish and Wildlife project studies would be required after the The Comprehensive Plan provides a schedule of cross-sectional studies are completed. project and facility developments concurrent with Artificial propagation facilities for trout, steel- program and management proposals to increase pro- head and salmon are planned for implementation duction and harvest of the fish and wildlife resources prior to 1980 throughout the Puget Sound Area. of the Puget Sound Area. The development schedule These include I new salmon and 14 new trout initially sets forth specific measures to acquire addi- hatcheries, expansion of 3 existing trout and 4 tional natural spawning, rearing, nesting, and forage existing salmon hatcheries, 2 miles of salinon egg habitat areas for greater natural propagation. This incubation or spawning channels and 55 controlled would be followed by construction and development rearing areas for steelhead and searun cutthroat. The of artificial measures such as hatcheries, spawning Plan contains 9 artificial passage facilities at natural channels, and rearing ponds. Concurrent with these and man-made barriers. Approximately 510 miles of developmental measures would be water control stream access, 87 access sites on fresh water and 62 measures to decrease flood flows, provide low flow on salt water would be acquired and developed. Seven augmentation, and prevent water pollution. Low flow lake enlargements are planned and surveys would be augmentation in many of the rivers is considered one conducted on 530 miles of stream and 5,270 surface of the most important and best means of increasing acres of takes. Muttipte-purpose storage projects in anadromous and game fish production. the Nooksack-Sumas, Snohomish and Cedar-Green To provide needed opportunities for fishing and Basins would provide for fish resource enhancement hunting, streambank, lake, and salt water access areas through low flow augmentation and control of floods would be acquired and developed. Boat launching that damage spawning beds through erosion and ramps, waterfowl observation and hunting facilities siltation. would be included in the access area developments. Cross-sectional stream surveys are planned to The fish and wildlife projects and programs determine minimum flows required to maintain cur- contained in the Comprehensive Plan for the 50-year rent fish production levels and optimum flows for period are estimated to cost between S283,103,000 increased production. Also proposed for early action and $285,603,000 depending upon the alternative are fishing piers or jetties designed for use by selected, including $3,018,000 for programs and sportsmen and located within or near the major projects on National Forest lands. This would average metropolitan areas. The Plan contains proposals for about $5,700,000 per year. The National Forest increasing production of shellfish species for both projects would involve stream clearance, debris re- commercial and sport use. Projects and programs are moval from lakes, and lake fertilization and game called for to protect the marine environment with habitat improvement. These are included with other particular emphasis on water quality, aquaculture, fish and wildlife projects in the Area discussion. and the preservation of natural beach and intertidal The early action plan requires an investment zones to maintain and enhance shellfish production ranging from $62,703,000 to $65,203,000 levels ($1,061,000-National Forests) for projects planned Wildlife projects for enhanced hunting oppor- to meet the 1980 level of needs, and $3,380,000 for tunities include acquisition of 19,700 acres of water- complementary fish and wildlife programs, including fowl habitat and 3,000 acres of upland bird habitat. $388,000 for an Area-wide program of stream sur- Expansion of pheasant propagation facilities are veys. The minimum stream flows necessary to rnain7 planned to allow increased production of 37,300 tain present fish production levels are unknown and birds annually. Big game habitat improvements are would be determined from the cross-sectional stream scheduled for 10,500 acres of Area lands. surveys. Tentative minimum flow data were provided Programs also are contained in the Compre- in Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife, for consideration hensive Plan for increasing the supply of fish and 4-30 wildlife through basic research studies, especially Deschutes Basins), Elk Marsh (Nooksack-Sumas those designed to develop new or improved manage- Basins), Union Bay and Indian Island (West Sound ment techniques. These include: Basins). There is a minimum of 4,000 acres that could 1. Development ot lake and stream fertiliza- serve as refuge areas. tion techniques which do not degrade water quality. The 3,000-acre Nisqually Delta is the last 2. Development of new fish toxicants and lake remaining significant river delta waterfowl habitat and stream rehabilitation methods which do not area between Skagit Bay and the Columbia River. degrade water quality. Development of 1,300 acres of the delta for flaviga- 3. Development of fish disease-control pro- tion and related purposes would require a reduction grams for lakes. in the water fowl-re cre ational development plan 4. Analysis of fish and wildlife population and presently being undertaken by the State of Wash- development of effective management programs. ington which includes the full 3,000 acres. If part of 5. Stimulation of interest in spiny-ray fishing. the delta is developed for navigational uses, the 6. Provision of fisherman and hunter access to natural waterfowl-recreational potential may not be closed watersheds. met. Although the Comprehensive Plan does not 7. Expansion of range surveys and develop- determine the best use or uses of the Nisqually Delta, ment of new habitat improvement techniques. the Plan does provide for a multi-discipline study to 8. Development of cooperative programs with be undertaken during the early action period to landowners to maintain, develop and assure hunter determine whether port development in the delta can access. or should be undertaken, compatible with wildlife __ The rapid development of the Puget Sound and recreational use. Area, with increasing urban and rural land trans- The long-range program for satisfying the fish formation from farming and timbered areas, is pro- and wildlife needs in the Puget Sound Area provides jected as having a significant impact on wildlife. for construction of 44 hatcheries, 18 miles of Based on the current trends of purchasing hunting spawning channels, habitat improvement on 114 licenses, approximately 286,000 licensed hunters streams, fish passage over 22 barriers, development in would reside in the Area by 1980, Meeting future excess of 670 acres of rearing ponds as well as land hunting needs depends upon the ability and effort of measures designed to increase wildlife production. A the responsible management agencies, coupled with total investment of $217,020,000 ($1,957,000- the mutually cooperative efforts of all entities inter- National Forests) is estimated to be required to ested in the protection and enhancement of wildlife satisfy the long-range fish and wildlife needs for the habitat. Important elements of the wildlife program period 1980 to 2020. are those that deal with land management to improve the game carrying capacity of existing lands, with Estuaries and Coastal Zones forest management playing an important role. To maintain wildlife at the present ievel in the The management of the sea coast, estuaries and Area, a number of conditions must be met. These related shorelands of Puget Sound and adjacent include the acquisition and development of suitable waters is concerned with the conservation of natural lands for public access, habitat improvement, arti- resource values and maintenance of productivity. ficial propagation for upland game, eventual use of These waters and related land constitute one of the the closed watersheds, and education of the public on Puget Sound Area's most valuable geographic the need for the conservation of the wildlife resource. features. To satisfy needs for 1980, either hunter success The marine resource includes wide physical (game-kill per hunter-day) must be lowered, more diversities ranging from rugged shorelands, with many sportsmen must hunt outside the Area, or program indentations, islands and rocks to smooth coastlines and projects to enhance hunter use must be ex- with few offshore features. Sandy beaches, rocky panded. headlands, marshlands and river estuarial areas are There are a number of sites which possess located here. Water depths may increase gradually significant resource potential for waterfowl habitat from the shoreline or decline precipitously to depths development. These are: Padilla and Samish Bays of 800 feet or more. (Skagit-Samish Basins), Port Susan (Stillaguamish and Each of the shoreline areas and estuaries has a Snohomish Basins), Nisqually Delta (Nisqually- potential for satisfying various uses. Historically, the 4-31 estuaries have been the basis for social and economic and adjacent properties but contributes to silt development. deposition in the estuaries. The pressures for shoreline space and water Finally, a coordinated program for future surface use have increased rapidly in recent years and seacoast resource use to include: are expected to accelerate. Coordinated efforts by 1. Detailed appraisal of the present and Federal, State and local government and the private potential resource. sector are required in order to provide for the best 2. Determination of opportunities for use of this resource. The estuaries of many of the multiple use and enhancement of natural pro- rivers that flow into Puget Sound have been altered. duction. The Sound itself remains relatively unaffected. The 3. Analysis of the significance of natural estuaries are important as they contribute to salmon, and man-caused environmental variations. steelhead, inarine fish and shellfish production and 4. Identification for reservation of selected provide waterfowl and shorebird habitat. Collectively unique water and related land elements. the many streams of the Puget Sound Area signifi- 5. Development of management guidelines cantly contribute to the wealth of the Area in terms for future use of the coastal resource. of fish and wildlife, recreation and aesthetics. Two 6. Identification of research needs, and large estuaries and adjoining tidelands, the Nisqually development of units of measurement and and Skagit River deltas, remain relatively prediction techniques. undeveloped. INVESTMENT COSTS OF Details on -the possible use of these areas and COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the other elements in the Comprehensive Plan for management and control of the estuaries and coastal A distribution of program and project invest- zones are given in previous pages. ment costs for the Comprehensive Plan for the Puget The Comprehensive Plan includes the following Sound Area are shown in Tables 4-13 to 4-18. Cost provisions for the management and control of the distributions shown are only approximations. The estuaries and coastal zones: largest investments shown in the Plan are for water- Water quality measures of waste treatment shed management, recreation, water quality, and by municipalities and industry, and construc- municipal and industrial water supply features. tion of marine outfalls and diffusers to properly The Federal watershed management costs on disperse treated wastes; an expanded water private lands are related to the project measures and quality surveillance program to insure com- programs which offer technical or other assistance ', pliance with State standards which protect the while the private and State costs are for program estuaries, measures. All costs on public lands are borne by the Recreational development along the marine management agency. Prograrri'measures refer to on- shoreline to permit public access to the salt farm, forest management, and urban on-site practices water with retention of all lands now in public which take advantage of improvements made possible ownership; priority for acquiring and develop- by the structural works of improvement, as well as ing salt water beaches and pedestrian crossings measures for watershed protection, erosion control, along the railroad right-of-way which follows and water management, Estimated costs include the shoreline of Puget Sound from Seattle to on-going protection and management costs as well as Everett. necessary acceleration. These measures would include PreservaLion and protection of the marine seeding of improved grasses and legumes, cover crops, estuaries and shorelines to sustain the fish, cropland and urban drainage control works and shellfish, waterfowl and wildlife species de- facilities, and forest management practices. pendent on these specific natural habitats for The recreation costs include all of the costs for their existence; and, to provide acquisition of water-related recreational development to satisfy the marine shorelines for fish and wildlife habitat projected recreational needs. The costs are borne by preserves, as well as fishing and hunting recre- Federal, State, and local government, and private ational access areas. enterprise. The costs are for land acquisition and A study to identify specific erosion sites and facility development at campgrounds and picnic determine correction measures, as erosion of areas, swimming pools, beach acquisition and de- the shoreline not only destroys developments velopment, small boat basins, and the planning and 4-32 design for these developments. The State costs are for The navigation costs are for channel improve- recreational development at State Parks, and on State ments. The cost-sharing between local and Federal lands. The local government costs include county and varies according to the degree project benefits are municipal parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, hik- general in nature. Port District costs are included in ing trails, access areas, boat launching ramps, scenic the local sector. areas, and small boat basins. The private costs include Flood control costs vary with the type of fishing resorts, hunting areas, boat launching ramps, project and include as local costs for levee and moorages, camping and picnic areas, etc. As the local channel improvements the acquisition of right-of- and private recreational facilities are more numerous, way, modification to transportation facilities, and and recreational use more widespread, they have been relocation of utilities. Remaining costs are borne by historically, and are, projected to provide the largest the Federal Government, assuming the improvement share of the investment. is a Federal project. For multiple-purpose storage The water quality costs include treatment projects the Federal Government bears all costs facilities, sanitary sewers, monitoring, evaluation, allocated to flood control. control, and planning and design costs. The treatment Fish and wildlife enhancement costs would be facilities costs and sewers are generally borne by the borne primarily by the State with some Federal local municipal governments and by private industry contribution. Where anadromous fish benefits are with additional funding provided by grants from the part of a federally constructed multiple-purpose Federal and State governments. storage project, the allocated project cost to fishery The greatest future investment in water quality enhancement would be borne by the Federal Gov- costs are for industrial and municipal treatment and ernment. sewage collection facilities. The largest costs would be A more detailed determination of program and for the State and local sectors. State costs are for project cost-sharing would be made during authoriza- grants to local governments and for surveillance tion studies. programs. Industry costs for treatment are shown The costs summarized in the following tables separately as private costs, with industrial sewers represent the total estimated investment necessary to contained in the local costs since many industries implement the programs and projects presented in the discharge into municipal sewer systems. Local gov- Comprehensive Plan. Although the total cost for ernment costs shown would be reduced by Federal programs and projects to the year 2020 (approxi- grants. The amount of these grants has not been mately $7 billion) appears staggering, it must be estimated. remembered that this represents investment costs The municipal and industrial water supply costs over a period of one-half century. Additionally, as include facilities for storing, diverting, and trans- mentioned in the above discussion, many of these mitting water by the purveyor. The costs do not costs are ongoing investments that would have been include distribution systems within the municipality, made in the absence of this study. No attempt has rural community systems, or industry. As water been made to estimate the costs of the ongoing supply systems costs are borne by the local govern- programs because any such breakdown would require ment, water district, or individual, they have been a series of arbitrary judgments. Most of the $2 billion nearly all assigned to the local sector. The Federal private investment along with significant portions of costs for grants in aid to the local sector for the $3 1/3 billion local-State costs and even some of construction of municipal water supply systems have the Federal share would fall in this category. The cost not been estimated. distribution by features is shown for the early action Most irrigation development is expected to be and long-range periods in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. accomplished through private development by the individual farmer and the costs have been distributed accordingly. 4-33 FISH AND WILDLIFE MUNICIPLE & INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY $138.7 $68.6 IRRIGATION 3.3% 6.8% Q $21.5 REATI WATER QUALITY $407.0 $314.6 STRUCTURAL 20.0 15.4% MEASURES FOR WATER NAVIGATION MANAGEMENT 0.8% $15.4 $37.4 1.7 POWER ............. $32.8 .. .... 8.6% FLOOD CONTROL ...... ........ ..... . .. .... . $176.0 479 .................. URBA WATER MAN E ENT . . . . . . FOREST WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 5 0.6 $167.6 AGRICULTURAL WATERSHED M TTAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT $865.0 - 42.5% ...... FIGURE A-2. Distribution of program and project investment costs, Puget Sound Area, 1970-1980 ($ million) FISH AND WILDLIFE MUNICIPLE & INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY $217.0 $419.2 4.2% 8.2% IRRIGATION RECREATION $51.A $1,223.2 WATER QUALITY $965.2 24.1% 19.0% STRUCTURAL MEASURES NAVIGATION FOR WATER $32.1 MANAGEMENT 0.6% './q' POWER $72.9 4.2% $88.0 .... .. ..... FLOOD CONTROL 7.8% ...10 $213.6 URBAN FOREST WATERSHED WATER MANAG MENT MANAGEMENT 903.6 $516.0 TOTAL ......... AGRICULTURAL WATERSHED MANAGEMEN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT $1,885.A - 37.0% $392.0 FIGURE 4-3. Distribution of program and project investment costs, Puget Sound Area, 1980-2020 ($ million) 4-34 TABLE 4-13. Distribution of program investment costs, Puget Sound Area 1970-1980 ($1000) Whidbey- Puget Feature Nooksack- Skagit- Camano Cedar- Nisqually- West Elwha- San Juan Sound Sumas Samish Stillaquamish Islands Snohomish Green Puyallup Deschutes Sound Dungeness Islands A rea Water Quality Control Private 140 83 28 45 486 580 420 55 95 55 55 2,042 Government Local 140 83 28 45 486 580 420 55 95 55 55 2,042 State 373 226 73 110 1,003 1,570 1,230 165 380 165 170 5,465 Federal 187 98 31 50 425 670 530 75 180 75 60 2,381 Total 840 490 160 250 2,400 3,400 2,600 350 750 350 340 11,930 Flood Control Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Locel. 32 90 19 0 38 84 130 57 87 22 0 559 State 9 17 4 0 11 24 37 16 25 6 0 149 Federal 5 8 2 0 6 39 18 9 13 3 0 103 Total 46 115 25 0 55 147 185 82 125 31 0 811 Watershed Management 1 Private 41,455 42,685 14,709 9,050 54,351 113,160 71,177 23,024 45,563 6,205 6,107 427,486 Government Local 4,410 7,988 3,301 5,267 28,640 98,881 53,403 8,957 23,590 2,471 2,676 239,584 State 3,721 4,888 3,248 832 5,050 1,095 553 2,875 8,282 2,139 980 33,663 Federal 10,946 31,995 7,435 1,117 20,463 12,818 10,5@39 5,854 -19,969 T7,037 -i 2,134 130,307 Total 60,532 87,556 T8,693 T6,266 iO8,504 25,954 35,672 @0,711 0 7,404 7,852 1,897 1,0,40 Fish and Wildlife- Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 488 253 160 15 450 440 403 127 465 176 15 2,992 Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total @88 253 160 15 450 440 403 127 465. 176 1.5 2,992 TOTAL Private 41,595 42,768 14,737 9,095 54,837 113,740 71,597 23,079 45,658 6,260 6,162 429,528 Government Local 4,582 8,161 3,348 5,312 29,164 99,545 53,953 9,069 . 23,772 2,548. 2,731 242,185 State 4,591 5,384 3,485 957 6,514 3,129 2,223 3,183 9,152 2,486 1,165 42,269 Federal 11,138 32,101 7,468 1,167 20,894 13,527 11,087 5,938 20,162 7,115 2,194 132,791 Total 61,906 88,414 39,038 T6 531 Tj 1 409 9 941 T38 860 @j 269 8744 f8 409 i2 252 846,773 IDoes not include program costs and studies estimated on an Area basis only ($5,750,000) TABLE 4-14. Distribution of program investment costs, Puget Sound Area 1980-2000 ($1000) Whidbey- Puget Nooksack-- Skagit- Camano Cedar- Nisqually- West Elwha- San Juan Sound Feature Sumas Samish Stillaguarnish Islands Snohomish Green Puyallup Deschutes Sound Dungeness Islands A rea Water Quality Control Private 171 64 42 32 920 812 660 48 60 68 24 2,901 Government Local 171 64 42 32 920 812 660 48 60 68 24 2,901 State 264 164 150 94 480 2,252 2,020 104 168 210 76 5,982 F ederal 104 68 66 40 192 860 860 40 72 94 36 2,538 Total 710 360 -ioo- 200 2,512 4,840 4,200 240 360 440 160 14,322 Flood Contro I Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 65 117 32 0 70 168 70 so 70 14 0 686 State 18 34 9 0 20 48 20 23 20 4 0 196 Federal 9 17 5 0 10 24 10 11 10 2 0 98 Total 92 168 46 0 100 240 100 114 100 20 0 980 Watershed Management Private 47,794 43,765 14,339 10,629 58,564 112,147 47,186 35,578 53,392 6,258 7,125 436,777 Government C@ Local 5,351 6,554 919 5,050 26,225 94,955 26,432 17,394 22,634 2,401 2,550 210,465 State 4,961 6,517 4,331 1,109 6,733 1,460 737 3,833 11,042 2,851 1,308 44,882 Federal 12,283 42,390 9,891 1,624 42,705 21,739 19,768 11,326 34,634 11,719 3,006 211,085 'iT- - -- -- -i- - , 9 Total 70,389 99,226 2@i-,4-8-0 T8,4-12 T3-4,2 2 7 2 30,301 4,123 65, 131 T21,702 3,229 13989 03,209 Fish and Wildlife Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 430 200 320 15 750 602 630 478 800 309 0 4,534 Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total 430 200 T2-0 15 750 -j@02 630 478 800 309 0 4,534 TOTAL Private 47,965 43,829 14,381 10,661 59,484 112,959 47,846 35,626 53,452 6,326 7,149 439,678 Government Local 5,587 6,735 993 5,082 27,215 95,935 27,162 17,522 22,764 2,483 2,574 214,052 State 5,673 6,915 4,810 1,218 7,983 4,362 3,407 4,438 12,030, 3,374 1,384 55,594 Federal 12,396 42,475 9,962 1,666 42,907 22,727 20,638 11,377 34,716 11,815 3,042 213,721 -- -- -Y3 - T22,962 998 4,149 923,045 Total 71,621 99,954 @0, 146 8,6 2-7 T37,589 @35,983 @9,053 68,963 Does not include program costs and studies estimated on an Area basis only ($3,000,000). TABLE 4-15. Distribution of program investment costs, Puget Sound Area 2000-2020 ($1000) Whidbey- Puget Nooksack- Skagit- Camano Cedar- Nisqually- West t:lwha- San Juan Sound Feature Sumas Samish Stillaguarnish Islands Snohomish G reen Puyallup Deschutes Sound Dungeness Islands A rea Water Quality Control Private 187 70 54 40 284 892 840 48 80 84 28 2,607 Government Local 187 70 54 40 284 892 840 48 so 84 28 2,607 State 298 196 162 112 600 2,476 2,460 132 224 244 100 7,004 Federal 118 84 70 48 232 - 1,060 960 58 96 108 44 2,878 Total 240 1,400 5,320 5,100 286 480 520 200 15,096 _T40 20 Flood Control Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 65 117 32 0 70 168 70 80 70 14 0 686 State 18 34 9 0 20 48 20 23 20 4 0 196 Federal 9 17 5 0 10 24 10 11 10 2 0 -5- -fO -- -55- -0 980 Total 92 168 46 70-0 @40 0 114 TO-O Watershed Management Private 41,761 58,554 14,160 11,497 56,729 111,252 67,395 19,165 49,774 6,829 6,740 443,856 Government Local 7,538 7,244 1,948 5,483 29,236 96,548 50,568 586 22,526 2,543 2,801 227,021 -P. State 4,961 6,517 4,331 1,109 6,733 1,460 737 3,833 11,042 2,851 1,308 44,882 Federal 11,113 37,003 8,108 1,553 42,842 20,784 19,564 10,922 37,274 12,214 2,871 204,248 Total 65,373 109,318 28,547 19,642 135,540 230,044 138,264 34,506 120,616 24,437 13,720 920,007 Fish and Wildlife Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 435 200 320 15 750 776 630 470 800 300 0 4,696 Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -i5 -7-7- - - -io-o '@20 - --iM T50 6 -930 @7 0 -90-0 -io-o- _0 4,696 TOTAL Private 41,948 58,624 14,214 11,537 57,013 112,144 68,235 19,213 49,854 6,913 6,768 446,463 Government Local 7,790 7,431 2,034 5,523 29,590 97,608 51,478 714 22,676 2,641 2,829 230,314 State 5,712 6,947 4,822 1,236 8,103 4,760 3,847 4,458 12,086 3,399 1,408 56,778 Federal 11,240 37,104 8,183 1,601 43,084 21,868 20,534 10,991 37,380 12,324 2,915 207,224 Total 66,690 110,106 '@9,253 -19,897 137,790 236,380 144,094 35,376 121,996 25,277 13,920 940,779 GRANDTOTAL Private 131,508 145,221 43,332 31,293 171,334 338,843 187,678 77,918 148,964 19,499 20,079 1,315,669 Government Local 17,959 22,327 6,375 15,917 85,969 293,088 132,593 27,305 69,212 7,672 8,134 686,551 S tate 15,976 19,246 13,117 3,411 22,600 12,251 9,477 12,079 33,268 9,259 3,957 154,641 Federal 34,774 111,680 25,613 4,434 106,885 58,122 52,259 28,306 -92,258 31,254 8,151 553,736 '@8,437 T5,055 386,788 702,304 382,007 145,608 343,702 67,684 - Total 200,217 298,474 70,321 597 Does not include program costs and studies estimated on an Areas basis only ($3,000,000). TABLE 4-16. Distribution of project investment costs, Puget Sound Area 1970-1980 ($1000) Whidbey- Nooksack- Camano Cedar- Feature Sumas Skagit-Somish Stillaguamish I sl and s Snohomish G reen Puyallup Alt. A Alt. B M& I Water Supply Private 2,730 0 0 0 0. 900 2,704 660 Government Local 8,459 5,440 5,440 564 10,316 34,821 19,000 41,403 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 Total 11,189 9,440 440 564 10,316 35,721 21,704 42,063 Irrigation Private 2,700 1,350 1,350 540 0 825 0 340 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- -9- - -0-5 -5-4-0- - -i,350 40 0 0 Total 2,700 T350 Water Ouality Control Private 10,260 2,400 2,400 670 0 85,230 0 5,600 Government Local 2,020 1,000 1,000 370 1,379 5,645 55,500 13,300 State 1,010 500 500 185 689 2,823 27,750 6,650 Federal 2,510 980 980 635 1,119 3,692 30,600 8,450 T -88 0 Total 15,800 8 8-0 1,860 T 18-7 0,390 T13,850 34,000 Navigation Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 210 426 426 0 0 1,043 2,212 2,084 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 457 1,039 1,039 0 0 1,157 1,567 3,346 --- --- -- - -- -@,200 779 5,430 Total -@6 7 1 465 465 0 Po.e,3 Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 0 0 0 0 0 32,845 0 J Total 0 32,845 0 -0 Flood Contro I Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 250 5,660 7,060 800 0 3,195 1,200 160 S tale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 25J85 32,14 38,740 6,9DO 0 74,623 15,540 1,4410 Total 25,435 37,800 45,800 7,700 0 77,818 16,740 1,600 Watershed Management Priva a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 3,292 3,412 3,412 496 0 621 654 1,947 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 7,681 7,225 7,225 1,149 0 1,862 1,526 3,025 -i -5 972 Total 10,973 -fO,637 10,637 1,645 0 03 180 Recreation Private 5,458 7,163 7,163 3,063 7,100 12,180 16,328 8,847 Government Local 9,551 10,744 10,744 6,126 7,100 24,104 24,490 12,386 State 6,822 7,163 7,163 7,147 11,405 12,180 10,885 7,078 Federal 5,458 10,744 10,744 4,084 2,845 49,078 2,722 7,078 -- [email protected] - -- -j-5,814 TO-, 4 2-0 T6, 4-5 0 75,389 Total 27,289 T5,814 T7,542 Fish and Wildlife Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 3,455 11,799 11,799 5,220 577 8,797 5,067 3,132 Federal 242 0 0 0 0 10,140 870 174 Total 3,697 Tl-.799 T1,799 5,220 i77 T8 937 E 937 306 TOTAL Private 21,148 10,913 10,913 4,273 7,100 26,635 19,032 15,447 Government Local 23,782 26,682 28,082 8,356 18,795 69,429 103,056 71,280 State 11,287 19,462 19,462 12,552 12,671 23,800 43,702 16,860 Federal 41,533 52,128 58,728 12,768 3,964 173,417 52,825 23,513 Total $97,750 $109,185 $117,185 $37,949 $42,530 $365,781 $218,615 $127,100 1 Alternative A-Skagit-Samish Basins shown are nuclear power and fossil fuel fired plant or 2 Alternative A-Nisqually-Deschutes Basins. pumped storage facilities Costs. r 3 Power investments represent hydr-l-t- cost, only. Not 4Does not include operation, maintenance and replacement ($7,648,000). 4-38 Puget Sound Area Nisqually- West Elwha- San Juan Alt. A-S.S.1 Alt. A-S.S. Alt. B-S.S. Alt. B-S.S. Deschutes Sound Dungeness Islands Alt. A-N.D.2 Alt. B-N.D. Alt. A-N.D. Alt. B-N.D. Alt. A Alt. B 0 0 2,190 0 0 9,184 9,184 9,184 9,184 1,290 1,290 6,130 1,464 670 129,557 129,557 129,557 129,557 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -i 290 290 F320 7464 d7O 138,741 138,741 138,741 138,741 300 300 50 770 0 6,875 6,875 6,875 6,875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 14,610 0 14,610 14,610 14,610 14,610 - - - _F _500 256 0 15,380 0 21.485 21,485 21,485 21,485 775 775 2,300 9,870 225 117,330 117,330 117,330 117,330 1,850 1,850 3,700 1,600 186 86,550 86,550 86,550 86,550 925 925 1,850 800 94 43,276 43,276 43,276 43,276 _L,825 1,825 3,050 1,325 1,319 55,505 55,505 55,505 55,505 5,375 5,375 10,900 13,599 1,824 302,661 35'2,661 T02,661 302,661 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 891 891 0 0 0 6,866 6,866 6,866 6,866 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 962 962 0 0 0 8,528 8,528 8,528 8,528 T853 T853 0 0 0 15,394 15,394 15,394 15,394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,845 32,845 32,845 32,845 _0 32,845 32,845 32,845 32,845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 is 0 0 11,280 11,280 12,680 12,680 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 0 0 155,96 155,963 162,563 162,563 7_ 0 _i5O 7 167,243 167,243 T75,243 175,243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 343 0 0 110,765 10,765 10,765 10,765 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 736 0 0 2@,224 23,224 23,224 23,224 I _0 3a,989 33,989 33,989 33,989 6 1,079 4,400 4,400 15,553 1,652 3,806 85,550 85,550 85,550 85,550 7,680 7,680 18,664 2,066 3,045 125,956 125,956 125,956 12 5,956 5,471 5,471 21,774 2,889 7,612 100,426 100,426 100,426 100,426 4,400 4,400 6,221 1,652 761 9S,043 95,043 95,043 95,043 _40-6,975 406,975 -62,212 _r2 5-9 T5-,224 406,975 -,iO6,975 -il,951 @1,9511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,051 2,551 6,284 2,749 585 52,716 50,216 52,716 50,216 __0 - 0 0 - - 0 0 11,426 lis426 ILIL6 11,426 F,051 F551 @,284 i,-149 585 64,142 61,642 64,142 61,642 5,475 5,475 20,093 12,292 4,031 218,939 218,939 218,939 218,939 11,711 11,711 28,852 5,130 3,901 370,974 370,974 370,974 370,974 11,447 8,947 29,908 6,438 8,291 196,418 193,918 196,418 193,918 7,187 7,187 10,142 17,597 2,080 391,144 397,144 403,744 403,744 $35,820 $33,320 $88,995 $41,447 $18,305 $1,183,475 T1,180,975 $1,191,475 $1,188,975 4-39 TABLE 4-17. Distribution of project investment costs, Puget Sound Area 1980-2000 ($1000) Whidbey- Nooksack- Camano Cedar- Feature Surnas Skagit-Samish Stillaguarnish Islands Snohomish Green Puyallup Alt. A Alt. B M&I Water Supply Private 1,640 0 0 0 0 650 10,140 900 Government @Local 7,437 8,125 8,125 858 2,500 63,732 (>4,380 35,616 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 9,077 i._1 25 il 25 859 2,500 [email protected] 74,520 36,516 Irrigation Private 11,120 1,100 1,100 540 0 527 55 680 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S ate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 11,120 6,000 6,000 0 0 0 0 -0 Total 22,240 7,100 7,100 540 0 !@2_7_ -975- 1@80 Water Quality Control Private 6,950 2,650 2,650 830 0 10,300 0 7,200 Government Local 5,040 2.250 2,250 772 3,555 9,790 135,000 20,800 State 2,520 1,125 1,125 386 1,778 4,895 67,500 10,400 Federal 4,520 2,025 2,025 1,306 2,777 7,495 73,300 12,800 Total 19,030 li,_050 'iT.-050 @',_29_4 -9-,110 -52-,480 '@T7_5,800 51,200 Navigation Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 448 2,682 2,682 0 0 2,309 0 1,720 State a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 895 6,735 6,735 0 0 5,387 0 2,768 --- g.417 Total 1,343 -6,417 0 0 7,696 T Z488 Po.er Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 20,000 68,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,000 _6 Total 68-'0_00 0 Flood Control Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 1,000 580 780 400 0 3,787 130 100 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 25,760 7,020 3,300 0 36,083 1,170 27,400 7T9- Total 26,760 65,800 7,800 3,700 0 870 730-0 7,500 Watershed Manageme,t3 Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 1,785 592 592 1,694 1,136 3,051 1,653 1,625 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 4,165 1,258 1,258 3,926 2,109 9,336 3,857 -2,542 Total 5,950 1,850 1,850 E510 5,620 T-24-5 i2 387 167 Recreation Private 5,440 8,540 8,540 3,120 7,950 13.900 21,000 13,00 Government Local 9,520 12,810 12,810 6,240 7,950 20,850 31,500 19,460 State 6,800 8,540 8,540 7,280 12,720 13,900 14,000 11,120 Federal 5,440 12,810 12,810 4,160 3,180 20,850 3,500 11,120 '69,5 00 70,000 55,600 Total 27,200 T2-,700 42,700 20,800 71,800 Fish and Wildlife Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 11,067 18,909 18,909 5,568 528 12,294 7,916 7,629 Federal 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 Total 11,167 T85909 909 5,S68 528 12,294 7,916 8,039 TOTA L Private 25,150 12,290 12,290 4,490 7,950 25,377 31,195 22,680 Government Local 25,230 27,039 27,239 9,964 15,141 103,519 232,663 79,321 State 20,387 28,574 28,574 13,234 15.026 31,089 89,416 29,149 Federal 72,000 162,048 35,848 12,692 8,066 79,151 81,827 57,040 Total $142,767 i229,951 i103,951 $40,380 $46,183 $239,136 $435,101 $188,190 1 Alternative A-Skagit-Samish Basins. 3 Does not inefude b ... h @tabili-tion vorstruction and other 2 Alternative A-Nisqvally-Deschutes Basins. measures estimated in an Area basis only ($116,353,000). 440 Puget Sound Area Nisqually- West E I.ha- San Juan Deschutes Sound Dungeness Islands Alt. A-S.S.' Alt: A-S.S. Alt. B-S.S. Alt. B-S.S. VIt. A Alt. B Alt. A-N.D.2 Alt. B-N.D. Alt. A-N.D. Alt. B-N.D. 0 1,280 0 0 14,610 14,610 14,610 14,610 435 435 16,910 2,678 10,200 212,871 212,871 212,871 212,871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -i 0-210 227,481 T2-7-,481 T2@_,48_1_ @_27_,481 _T35 _Z5 8-19-0 7678 680 680 70 0 10 14,772 14,772 14,772 . 14,772 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117@120 17,120 17,120 17,120 wo- _E5RO_ -2- - - 0 T1,892 T1,892 71-,892 31,892 1,960 1,960 4,400 7,340 0 41,630 41,630 41,630 41,630 1,550 1,550 8,300 560 134 187,751 187,751 187,751 187,751 775 775 14,150 280 67 93,876 93,876 93,876 93,876 2475 2,475 8,450 1,580 2,767 119,495 119,495 119,495 119,495 - __ _@4 6,760 6,760 25,300 9,760 9-6-8 @R2,752 ZZ2,752 2,752 442,752 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,784 2,984 0 0 0 8,943 10,143 8,943 10,143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,929 3,129 0 0 0 17,714 18,914 17,714 18,914 3,713 6,113 0 0 _0 26,657 T9, 0 5-7 @6,657 29,057 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88,000 88,000 20,000 20,000 T _0 0 0 T8,000 ii8,000 @0,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 114 0 0 6,111 6,411 6,311 6,611 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,700 1,026 0 159j959 1621659 101,759 104,459 0 3,000 -i- 1,140 0 0 166,070 169,070 108,070 111,070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,519 1,519 2,416 1,037 958 17,466 17,466 17,466 17,466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,821 2,821 5,639 1,925 1,778 39,356 39,356 39,356 39,356 4,340 4,340 8,055 2,962 7-3 6 iT6,822 T6,822 @6,822 56,822 6,040 6,040 20,525 2,540 4,QSO 107,005 107,005 107,005 107,005 10,570 10,570 24,630 3,180 3,240 149,950 149,9SO 149,950 149,950 7,5,50 7,550 28,735 4,440 8,100 123,185 123,185 123,185 123,185 6,040, 6,040 8,210 2,540 . 810 78,660 78,660 78,660 78,660 30,200 30,200 @2,1100 12,700 16,200 i58,800 4@,800 458,800 458,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,612 5,612 13,389 3,474 580 86,966 86,966 86,966 86,966 0 0 0 0 0 -510 510 510 510 _@7,476 T7,476 T7,476 87,476 5,612 6,612. -13,389 3,474 580 8,680 8,680 26,275 9,880 4,050 178,017 178,017 178,017 178,017 15,858 17,358 52,370 7,455 14,532 583,092 584,592 583,292 584,792 13,937 13,937.46,274 8,194 8,747 303,527 303,527 303,527 303,527 13,265 17,165 23,325 6,045 5,355 520,814 524,714 394,61 398,514 @57,140 $148,244 $31,574 @5 1 .740 T32,684 $1,585,950 iF1,591,350 $1,459,950 $1.465,350 4-41 TABLE 4-18. Distribution of project investment costs, Puget Sound Area 2000-2020 ($1000) Whidbey- Nooksack@ Camano Ceclar- Feature Sumas Skagit-Samish Stillaguamish Islands Snohomish Green Puyallup Aft. A Alt. B M&I Water Supply Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 22,087 2,210 Government Local 4,998 11,290 11,290 1,152 0 19,465 65,760 57,397 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4,998 11,290 11,290 1,152 0 19,465 87,847 59,607 Irrigation Private 0 2,750 2,750 0 0 175 55 340 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 0 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 - - --- T--- T T 7-5 75 Total 0 f7,750 7,750 0 Water Quality Control Private 9,000 4,200 4,200 1,380 0 23,200 0 18,400 Government Local 13,040 1,850 1,850 840 4,673 8,000 117,000 29,400 State 6,520 925 925 420 2,336 4,000 58,500 14,700 Federal 8,520 1,925 1,925 1,340 3,336 8,500 61,500 17,100 Total 37,080 8,900 8,900 3,980 10,345 43,700 237,000 79,600 Navigation Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 747 747 0 0 0 0 0 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 0 2,242 2,242 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 2,989 2,989 0 0 0 0 0 Flood Control Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 3,626 0 0 State 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 a Federal 0 0 0 0 0 32,629 0 0 0 0 0 0 36,255 Total 0 0 Watershed Managennent3 Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 281 467 467 395 0 25 60 0 State 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Federal 655 993 993 915 0 75 140 0 - 1 1,460 T.310 0 100 @00 Total --936 460 0 Recreation Private 9,960 14,260 14,260 6,030 13,DDO 24,640 31,380 22,010 Government Local 17,430 21,390 21,390 12,060 13,000 36,960 47,070 30,814 State 12,450 14,260 14,260 14,070 20,710 24,640 20,920 17,608 Federal 9,960 21,390 21,390 8,040 5,190 36,960 5,230 17,608 Total 49,800 71,300 T1,300 @0,200 91,900 f23,200 T04,600 88,040 Fish and Wildlife Private 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Government Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State 13,610 23,035 23,035 9,412 734 18,2220 16,517 11,F17 Federal 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 347 Total 13,610 23,035 23,035 9,412 734 18,220 16,517 11,864 TOTAL Private 18,960 21,210 21,210 7,410 13,000 48,015 53,522 42,960 Government Local 35,749 35,744 35,744 14,447 17,673 68,076 229,890 117,611 State 32,580 38,226 38,220 23,902 23,780 46,860 95,937 43,825 Federal 19,135 41,550 41,550 10,295 8,526 78,164 66,870 35,055 '@2 Total 106,424 T36-,724 T-36,724 56.0-54 .979 F41.115 i46,219 239.451 GRANDTOTAL Private 65,258 44,413 44,413 16,173 28,050 100,027 103,749 81,087 Government Local 84,761 89,465 90,070 32,767 51,609 241,024 565,609 268,212 Slate 64,254 86,256 86,256 49,688 51,477 101,749 229,055 89,834 Federal 132,668 256,721 137,121 35,755 20,556 330,732 201,522 115,608 Total $346,941 i475,860 @357,860 @134,383 f151,692 773.532 $1,099,935 $554,741 1 Alternatwe A-Skagit-Sannish Basins. 3 Does not include beach stabilization construction and other 2 Alterrictive A-Nisqually-Deschutes Basins. Mes-es estimated on an Area basis only J$101,613,000) 4-42 Puget Sound Area Nisqually- West Elwha- San Juan A It. A-S.S. 1 Alt.A-S,S. Alt.8-S.S. A It. B-S.S. Deschutes Sound Dungeness Islands Alt. A-N.D.2 Alt. B-N.D. Alt. A-N.D. Alt. B-N.D. Alt. A Alt. B 0 0 0 0 0 24,297 24,297 24,297 24,297 1,167 1,167 5,360 848 0 167,437 167,437 167,437 167,437 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6360 T91,734 191,734 T91,734 191,734 -i 167 i48 7167 1,080 1,080 70 0 0 4,470 4,470 4,470 4,470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 1,080 TO-80 7@0 _0 _0 19,47-0 19,470 T9,470 19,470 3,000 3,13w 8,000 16,000 0 83,180 83,180 83,180 83,180 2,500 2,500 12,250 1,650 100 191,303 191,303 191,303 191,303 1,250 1,250 6,125 825 50 95,651 95,651 95,651 95,651 3,450 3,450 10,925 2,825 3,450 122,871 122,871 122,871 122,871 - T7 -i,-- If TO_,200 70,2-00 3_00 31,3 600 93,005 93,005 93,005 493,005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 747 747 747 747 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,242 2,242 2, 242 2,242 _0 -a- 2,989 T 9-8 9 i,989 2,989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 350 0 275 0 4,251 4,251 4,251 4,251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,160 3,150 0 2,475 38,254 38,254 38,254 38,254 T50-0 T500 0 2,750 0 42,505 -i2,505 'Z2,505 @2,505 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 291 105 0 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 65 679 195 0 3,717 3,717 3,717 3,717 _T_00 _00 _i7 0 _iO_O _0 5,376 5,376 5,376 5;376 10,730 10,730 33,425 3,960 7,050 176,445 176,"S 176,445 176,445 18,820 18,820 40,110 4,955 5,640 248,249 248,249 248,249 248,249 13,420 13,420 46,795 6,925 14,100 205,898 205,898 205,898 205,898 10,730 10,730 13,370 3,960 1,410 133,848 133,848 133,848 133,848 - -7- - @i - 764,440 764,440 937700 93700 T33,700 T9,800 200 440 T64,440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,437 7,437 14,854 1,998 676 118,010 118,010 118,010 118,010 0 0 0 0 0 347 347 347 347 -- -i Tia-, Ti -8, - T18,357 3s7 357 118,W7 T 4 3-7 437 F4 854 1,998 7-6 14,810 14,810 41,495 19,960 7,050 288,392 288;392 288,392 288,392 22,872 22,872 58,011 7,833 5,740 613,646 613,646 613,646 613,646 22,107 22,107 67,774 9,748 14,826 419,559 419,559 419,559 419,559 17,395 17,395 24,974 9,455 4,860 316,279 316,279 316,279 316,279 1,637,876 -i7,184 7,184 192,254 T6,996 T2,476 1,637,876 1,637,856 1,637,876 28,966 28,965 87,863 42,132 15,131 685,348 685,348 685,348 685,348 50,441 51,941 139,233 20,418 24,173 1,567,712 1,569,212 1,569,312 1,570,812 47,491 ",991 143,956 24,3PO 31,864 920,004 9117,5134 920,0134 917,504 37,847 41,747 58,441 33,087 12,295 1,234,237 1,238,137 1,114,637 1,118,537 $164,744 $167,644 429,493 11-20,017 18-3,463 T4,407,301 $4,410,201 $4,289,301 $4,292,201 443 -7- A* - -1 V 51 AN . . . ...... . . i,-- , 4-40i7- PHOTO 4-4. Typical summer weekend activity at Hiram M. Chittenden Locks where over 1 million visitors come each year to view the activity of the 50-year-old locks. The locks, primarily used by pleasure craft, make possible deep draft ship movement through the heart of Seattle from Puget Sound to Lake Washington. Corps of Engineers Photo -Ll hem R Ak@ all �r@' GENERAL provides for watershed management measures that The Puget Sound Area has a heritage-of a high would rehabilitate and protect watershed resources quality environment with coordinated planning for and provide for more efficient use of these lands in the future being necessary to retain and improve this the future. environment. The basic objective in the formulation of plans was to provide the best use, or combination PRESERVATION OF of uses, of water and related land resources to meet FREE-FLOWING RIVERS all foreseeable short and long-term needs. In pursuit of this basic conservation objective, full consideration A large number of streams have been designated was given to preservation, development opportunities for possible inclusion in a proposed State system of and the well-being of the people. The overriding recreational rivers. These streams, listed below, are determinant was the well-being of the people. The recommended for further study for preservation in a following chapter evaluates the effects of plan imple- natural free-flowing state in their entirety or portions mentation on . the Puget Sound Area. Exhibit B thereof, with stream access retained for public use. contains an evaluation of the Plan based on the use of alternative economic projections (OBE-ERS). Nooksack-Sumas Basins Mainstern, North, Middle, and South Forks of Nooksack River PRESERVATION OF WATER Skagit-Samish Basins AND RELATED LAND Cascade, Suiattle, Whitechuck and por- tions of the Sauk and Skagit Rivers The future withdrawal of water from rivers is planned to be consistent with continued fish produc- Stillaguarnish Basin tion in all streams. In many instances projects would North and South Forks of Stillaguan-@ish result in increased production through low flow River, and Deer, Boulder, Squire, Jim and augmentation. Detailed stream surveys planned for Canyon Creeks implementation prior to .1980 would provide a basis for refined planning and determination of optimum Snohomish Basin flow requirements in major rivers. South Fork of Snoquahnie River, and @ Conflicting demands are being made on the portions of the North and Middle Forks marine waters and coastal shoreline to satisfy eco- of Snoqualmie, Skykomish, Wallace, nomic development needs and to meet requirements Beckler, Miller, Foss, Tyee and Pilchuck for preservation of the natural environment. The Rivers Comprehensive Plan attempts to accommodate as much of the future demands for this resource as Cedar-Green Basins, possible by providing for balanced use of the marine Sammamish River, portions of Cedar and shoreline as well as abating water pollution that Green Rivers hampers and limits production of shellfish and other fauna that inhabit these areas. Puyallup Basin The land-use planning, undertaken on a broad Carbon Ri-ver, and portions of White and basis, sought to continue as much as possible the Puyallup Rivers current forest, cropland and other open space uses to meet future needs. To accomplish this objective, an Nisqually-Deschutes Basins urban density of 9.9 persons per acre compared with Nisqually River the existing average density of 4.35 persons per acre was employed in planning for the.Puget Sound Area West Sound Basins population expected by the year 2020. The Plan also Skokomish, and its North and South 5-3 Forks, Hamma tiamma, Duckabush, Identification of specific erosion sites and Dosewallips and Big Quilcene Rivers determination of correction measures, as ero- sion of the shoreline not only destroys develop- Elwha-Dungeness Basins ments and adjacent properties but contributes Elwha and Dungeness Rivers and Morse to deposition of silt in the estuaries. Creek Finally, development of a coordinated State program for future sea coast resource use. A 165-mile portion of the Skagit River and several of its tributaries have been designated in an alternative PRESERVATION OF UNIQUE plan for the Skagit-Samish Basins for inclusion in the AND HISTORICAL AREAS National Wild and Scenic River system. This complex Numerous archeological, historical, outstanding is currently under study by the Departments of natural and underwater marine areas have been Agriculture and. Interior for recommendations to identified in the study. The Plan includes the Congress. more significant and interesting features to be classi- fied, protected and properly developed for public PRESERVATION OF ESTUARIES enjoyment and scientific purposes. These areas are AND COASTAL ZONES identified in Appendix X, Recreation. Also see Appendix XV, Plan Formulation. The management of the sea coast, estuaries and related shorelands of Puget Sound Area is concerned WELFARE OF PEOPLE with the use and care of natural resource values and The socio-economic environment of the Puget productivity. These waters and related land constitute Sound Area has been considered to be one of the best one of the Puget Sound Area's most valuable geo- in the Nation and has accounted for substantial graphic features. The pressures for shoreline space and water surface use have increased rapidly in recent inunigration to the Area. The population has grown years and are expected to accelerate. The Compre- from 1.7 million to 2.0 million within the past ten years. The people of the Area have combined their hensive Plan includes the following provisions for skills with the natural resources to develop an management and control and preservation of estuaries industrial complex heavily oriented toward aerospace, and coastal zones: forest products, shipbuflding, trade, transportation Institution of water quality measures, in- and diversified manufacturing. In addition, com- cluding waste treatment by municipalities and mercial fisheries and recreation activities, agriculture, industry, construction of marine outfalls and and timber production have long been important to diffusers to properly disperse treated wastes; the economy. The contrasts and variations that occur and expansion of water quality surveillance in the econon-dc conditions in various parts of the program to insure compliance with State water Area are a result of the urbanization of the eastern quality standards which protect the estuaries. shoreline of Puget Sound, with natural resourcies and Retention of all shorelands now in public transportation influencing the pattern of economic ownership with emphasis on additional acqui- development in other parts of the Area. The Area is sition and development of salt water beaches primarily split into three economic areas with the and pedestrian crossings along the railroad Central Division containing the industrial complex right-of-way which follows the shoreline of and 80 percent of the Area's population. The North Puget Sound from Seattle to Everett. Division accounts for 30 percent of the Area's Preservation and protection of the marine commercial forest land with the agriculture, timber estuaries and shorelines to sustain the fish, production and fishing and related activities the main sheEfish, waterfowl and wildlife species de- factors of the economy. In the West Division the pendent on these specific natural habitats for waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca support an their existence; and, to provide acquisition of abundance of marine-oriented recreation and fish and marine shorelines for fish and wildlife habitat wildlife associated activities. Trade and service indus- preserves, as well as fishing and hunting recre- tries have been expanding to meet the present and ational access areas. anticipated needs for outdoor recreation. 5-4 The welfare of the p eople was the overriding Regional systems of water supply and sewerage consideration in the study which sought to provide collection and treatment are planned to provide a opportunities for an improved living environment. more efficient use of the resources thereby allowing The basic needs of particu'@ar groups such as those more of the natural resources to be retained for having a special interest in water and related land recreation and aesthetic enjoyment than would other- resources for either economic development or en- wise occur if the numerous utility districts and vironmental preservation and enhancement purposes community systems continued to develop were considered. However, the overall welfare of the haphazardly. general public was viewed as being paramount and The study sought to provide a good inventory care was taken to avoid resource use and development of soil characteristics which can be used for detailed for the benefit of a few or the disadvantage of many. land use planning and zoning to encourage urban The depletion of a resource for a single purpose was development on those lands that are suitable for this not considered to be in the interest of the public. The purpose. The Comprehensive Plan in its entirety Comprehensive Plan was designed to provide for supports the retention of flood plains for agricultural balanced use of Puget Sound Area resources. Mini- production in those areas that are considered to be mum streaniflows for fish, water quality and aesthetic uniquely suited for this purpose. Large expanses of purposes were considered in the study for all of the open space land are planned for retention near urban major streams in the Area with provision made for areas. Developing access to public areas along the reconsideration of plan elements after the stream marine shoreline within the urban areas is viewed as survey planned for early action is completed. a high priority element. Rural considerations involve The living environment would be improved by the drainage and flood damage reduction projects and the provisions for adequate water supply, recreation would provide an improved environment for those facilities, restoration and maintenance of the quality choosing to live in rural areas. of streams and estuaries, development of access to water areas for public use and enjoyment, the The Comprehensive Plan is designed to accom- provisions for preservation of selected natural stream modate the projected economy for the Puget Sound reaches in a free-flowing state, and retention of sites Area through the year 2020. The economic pro- of historical significance and areas of unique natural Jections were translated into needs for food and fiber, beauty. The reduction of flooding would help to water supp .ly and power. The Plan provides that these alleviate health problems associated w'.'Ii floodflows necessary inputs to the economic well-being of the people of the Area would be available in accordance and provide for improvement of the welfare of those residing in the flood plain. The flood protection with the projections. Comprehensive Plan elements obtained by plan elements would, together with flood would play an important role in enabling econornic plain zoning, allow for continued economic farming growth of the Puget Sound Area to continue. The of croplands in the flood plain thereby satisfying the provisions for improved navigation channels would needs for food and fiber as well as providing open facilitate waterborne commerce which is a growing space and greenbelts for the enjoyment of sightseeing factor in the local economy. Puget Sound is a unique urban dwellers. Irrigation would also help maintain a harbor with deep waters capable of accommodating stable economy and at the same time maintain open the largest of present and planned ocean-going vessels. space and green areas. The recreation facilities The retention of sufficient back-up lands for terminal planned for the Area, in urban and rural areas, and water transport-oriented industry also is an important measure which would, contribute to the including the small boat harbors, and the fish and economy of the Puget Sound Area. Water supply has wildlife enhancement projects are designed to en- been planned to satisfy industrial needs with industry hance the social environment. expected to account for 60 percent of the total water The production of food and fiber would be consumed within the Puget Sound Area by the year enhanced by projects designed to increase yields 2020. Adequate quantity and quality of water are through irrigation, drainage improvement and better necessary for continued industrial development in the land-use management. The planning undertaken in Area. Irrigation and watershed management measures this study attempts to direct urban growth in such a would enable increased production of food and fiber manner that it would be related to and integrated supporting those industries related to agriculture and with the natural environment, providing for an forestry and wood products. ecological improvement. 5-5 The projection of future acreage requirements between man and his environment; to promote for cropland, forests, and rangeland provides im- efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage portant information for use in guiding future in- to the environment and biosphere and stimulate tensive land use development to enable sufficient the health and welfare of man; to enrich the acreages of the foregoing categories to be relegated to understanding of the ecological systems and satisfying the projected share of Area and national natural resources important to the Nation; and needs for food and fiber and in retaining favorable to establish a Council on Environmental Qual- hydrologic and other related conditions on such ity. lands. Section 101 of the Act declares the policies and ACCOMPLISHMENTS goals to be: "The Congress, recognizing the profound A detailed discussion of the accomplishments impact of man's activity on the interrelations of of the Comprehensive Plan is presented for each of all components of the natural environment, the eleven basins in Appendix XV, Plan Formulation. particularly the profound influences of popula- Generally, all quantifiable water and related land tion growth, high-density urbanization, indus- resource needs of the Puget Sound Area, projected trial expansion, resource exploitation, and new for the year 2020, would be met by the Comprehen- and expanding technological advances and sive Plan except flood damage reduction to the extent recognizing further the critical importance of desired and wet moorages for pleasure craft. Approxi- restoring and maintaining environmental mately �2 percent of flood damages projected for the quality to the overall welfare and development year 2020 would be prevented by the management of man, declares that it is the continuing policy and structural measures of the Plan. About 83 of the Federal Government, in cooperation percent of the additional permanent wet moorages with State and local governments, and other required by 2020 would be provided. Urban water concerned public and private organizations, to management needs would be met by 2020, although use all practicable means and measures, includ- in preceding time periods a residual need is indicated ing financial and technical assistance, in a as a minimum population density is required in order manner calculated to foster and promote the to facilitate project undertakings. Sport and com- general welfare, to create and maintain con- mercial fishery needs would be satisfied by plan ditions under which. man and nature can exist elements. However, satisfaction of future hunting in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, needs requires that hunters accept a lower success economic, and other requirements of present ratio or use resources located outside the Area. and future generations of Americans '. RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL (b) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this Act, it is the continuing responsi- ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT bility of the Federal Government to use all OF 1969 practicable means, consistent with other es- sential considerations of national policy, to The Comprehensive Plan has as one of its improve and coordinate Federal plans, func- primary objectives that of environmental preservation tions, programs, and resources to the end that and enhancement. Although the National Policy Act the Nation may- of 1969 was not in force during the course of the (1) fulfill the responsibilities of study its purposes were adhered to by conformance each generation as trustee of the environ- with existing State and Federal laws, regulations and ment for succeeding generations; policies. (2) assure for all Americans safe, In response to increasing citizen concern, Public healthful, productive, and esthetically and Law 91-190 known as the National Environmental culturally pleasing surroundings; Policy Act of 1969 was signed into law on January 1, (3) attain the widest range of be 'ne- 1970. The stated purposes of the Act are: ficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or "To declare a national policy which will other undesirable and unintended conse- encourage production and enjoyable harmony quences; 5-6 (4) preserve important historic, (i) the enviromnental impact of cultural, and natural aspects of our the proposed action, national heritage, and maintain, wherever (ii) any adverse environmental possible, an environment which supports effects which cannot be avoided should diversity and variety of individual choice; the proposal be implemented, (5) achieve a balance between (ii.0 alternatives to the proposed population and resource use which will action, permit high standards of living and a wide (iv) the relationship between local sharing of life's amenities; and short-term uses of man's environment and (6) enhance the quality of renew- the maintenance and enhancement of able resources and approach the maxi- long-term productivity, and mum attainable recycling of depletable (v) any irreversible and irretriev- resources. able commitments of resources which (c) The Congress recognizes that each would be involved in the proposed action person should enjoy a healthful environment should it be implemented. and that each person has a responsibility to Prior to making any detailed statement, the contribute to the preservation and enhance- responsible Federal official shall consult with ment of the environment." and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special Prior to implementation of any portion,of the expertise with respect to any environmental Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Comprehensive impact involved. Copies of such statement and Plan and as part of detailed project authorization the comments and views of the appropriate studies all Federal agencies must conform with Federal, State, and local agencies, which are Section 102 of the Act which states: authorized to develop and enforce environ- mental standards, shall be made available to the "The Congress authorizes and directs President, the Council on Environmental Qual- that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the ity and to the public as provided by section 552 policies, regulations, and public laws of the of Title 5, United States Code,, and shall United States shall be interpreted and adrriin- accompany the proposal through the existing istered in accordance with the policies set forth agency review processes; in this Act, and (2) all agencies of the Federal (D) study, develop, and describe approp- Government shall- riate alternatives to recommended courses of (A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary action in any proposal which involves unre- approach whi 'ch will insure the integrated use of solved conflicts concerning alternative uses of the natural and social sciences and the environ- available resources; mental design arts in planning and in decision- (E) recognize the worldwide and long- making which may have an impact on man's range character of environmental problems and, environment; where consistent with the foreign policy of the (B) identify and develop methods and United States, lend appropriate support to procedures, in consultation with the Council on initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed Environmental Quality established by Title 11 to maximize international cooperation in antici- of this Act, which will insure that presently pating and preventing a decline in the quality of unquantified environmental amenities and mankind's world environment; values may be given apptopriate consideration (F) make available to States, counties, in decisionmaking along with economic and municipalities, institutions, and individuals, technical considerations; advice and information useful in restoring, (C) include in every recommendation or maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the report on proposals for legislation and other environment; major Federal actions significantly affecting the (G) initiate and utflize ecological in- quality of the human environment, a detailed formation in the planning and development of statement by the responsible official on- resource-oriented projects; and 5-7 (H) assist the Council on Environ- restoration and enhancement of the natural environ- mental Quality established by Title 11 of this ment. Recommendations or reports on individual Act." proposals for Federal legislation, for which this study acts as a guide, will be accompanied by detailed The planning undertaken in this study was in statements required by Section 102 of the Act. full agreement with the sense of the National En- Adherence to the principles of the Act also should be vironmental Policy Act with a balance sought in sought in implementing non-Federal elements of the satisfying economic needs, resource preservation and Comprehensive Plan. @T Irk PHOTO 5-1. Puget Sound Area has"a significant shortage of wet moorages. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan would provide additional marinas to reduce this shortage, such as the well-designed complex constructed by the Port of Edmonds on the shore of Puget Sound. Corps of Engineers Photo 5-8 P 0@ffg@ Y GENERAL development within the framework of the Compre- hensive Plan. Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan will The Comprehensive Plan is intended as a guide require the active partici .pation and cooperation of all for future water and related land development in the Federal, State and local government, and private Puget Sound Area with further refined and more interests in defining goals and objectives and in detailed studies required for specific. programs and sharing the legal, financial and environmental respon- projects that have been identified as elements of the sibilities and obligations. Many of the expen itures Plan. The criteria prevailing at the time of individual called for by the Plan are already part of on-going project studies will determine project feasibility. This programs. An entity representing various levels of includes the interest rate used in econon-Lic analysis. government is required to coordinate future develop- The non-development alternative will also be ment within the framework of the Plan consistent reexamined at that time. The public should be given with the capabilities and limitations of the natural an active role initially and throughout the project environment. The existing Puget Sound and Adjacent studies. See Exhibit C for public involvement guide- Waters Task Force or some similar entity could be the tines. logical body to provide future leadership and guid- ance in performing this task. LEADAGENCY Provision must also be made for periodic review and updating to maintain the viability of the Plan. Projects and programs not now part of the Plan may The Puget Sound Task Force (or a successor become evident in future studies, which reflect arrangement), under the leadership of the State of changed economic conditions as well as possible Washington, should continue to coordinate planning, changes in the goals, objectives and desires of the implementation, research, communications, financing people. and periodic review as required to realize full benefits It must be recognized that the United States of the Comprehensive Plan. Citizens advisory groups, Government is trustee for all Indian natural resources responsible for arranging continuous and broad public including land in the Puget Sound Area. The Indian participation in all future studies and actions leading natural resources are private property held in trust for to implementation of the Plan, are recommended as the Indian. All federal, state and localagencies and important adjuncts to the follow-on coordination other planning groups should be aware that the prior entity. immemorial rights of the Indian (land, water, fishery) The Task Force, having responsibilities in must be recognized and the Indian Tribes should be a comprehensive water-related resource planning, part of any plan formulation. The Bureau of Indian would assist in Plan implementation in accordance Affairs is exploring ways and means, including funds, with defined policies, goals and objectives by:. to inventory all Indian natural resources to insure 1. Documenting a State viewpoint including that the unique character of these paramount rights is priorities. recognized and protected and preserved. Any action 2. Establishing procedures for addinS pew by any planning group-federal, state, or local-must elements to the Plan and modifying elements now be inIcontemplation of the unique and distinct Indian included. interest. These interests must not be confused with 3. Assisting local organizations in coordinat- public rights or interests, which could impair and ing, planning, financing, implementation, main- invade the Indians' rights. tenance and operation of interrelated facilities and services in water-related development. RESPONSIBILITY 4. Developing a program of fiscal coordination including project -expenditures and repayments, estab- The State of Washington, other legal entities, lishing formulas for grants and incentives to encour- and local interests have the responsibility for initiat- age Federal, State, and local participation in planning ing and coordinating many of the projects and and development by drainage areas and as integral programs included in the Plan. The impetus for parts of the Comprehensive Plan. activities in which a Federal agency normally per- 5. Preparing annual reports, coordinating forms the detailed planning and construction should 5-year revision and updating of the Comprehensive be originated by a coordinating entity to direct future Plan and preparing public information releases. 6-3 6. Coordinating the following: 3 . Passage of legislation establishing an (a) Information gathering systems. emergency fund to permit timely rehabilitation of (b) Establishment of ecological definitions watershed resources following a natural disaster. and standards. 4. Revise legislation to allow acquisition of (c) Establishment of prototype and dem- surplus Federal lands by State and local public onstration programs. agencies at minimal or no costs for use as recreation (d) Basic and applied research and tech- lands. nology in water and related land re- 5. Provide authority to allow funding as part sources. of Federal studies of essential review and coordi- nation by local government. 6. Consideration should be given to changes in NEW LEGISLATION AND ZONING legislation and policy governing Indian trust or The following State legislative action is needed: restricted lands to facilitate and perrnit inclusion in, 1. Passage of' Coastal Zone legislation to and assessment for operation and maintenance, bet- authorize multiple-purpose use and to control dredg- terment, and construction by any diking and drainage ing, filling and spoils disposal in accordance with district, flood control district, flood control zone defined environmental criteria. district, or other improvement district that may be 2. Passage of small boat act to provide for the formed under the laws of the State of Washington. control of wastes from water craft, ports and marinas, Further discussion of Comprehensive Plan and for a Safe Boating Law referenced to pertinent implementation and the above legislative needs is elements of the Federal Recreation Boating Act of contained in Appendix 11, Political and Legislative 1958. Environment. 3. Passage of land use and surface water zoning laws, with provision for State action if local PLAN FEATURES governments do not implement adequate controls. Special attention is needed to use and protection of Plan implementation responsibilities by major riverbanks and streambeds, marine waters and shore- features follows: lands and to flood plain zoning, industrial and urban development, land drainage, agricultural lands, public Municipal and Industrial Water Supply access and open space and greenbelts and re- Municipalities and private interests would have quirements for urban renewal projects. primary responsibility for providing an adequate and 4. Passage of legislation to improve partici- potable water supply, including development of pation in comprehensive planning at the local level. regional type supply and transmission systems. S. Establishment of procedural arrangements A Federal-State cost-sharing program is pro- to finance State and local participation investigations posed as a basis for enabling water purveyors to associated with program and project implementation comply with Federal-State criteria for supply and studies. quality control, and for participation in the State The following Federal legislative action is Water Plan. Communities with large seasonal required: populations would require special considerations. 1. Passage of legislation that would provide for technical assistance, training, research and develop- Irrigation ment, standards and grants to state and local govern- Private interests would be primarily responsible ment for public water supply. for most future irrigation development in the Puget 2. Statutes relative to the location and Sound Area. The project-type developments antici- clearance of bridges and causeways in the navigable pated between 1980 and 2020 would use Federal and waters of the Unite; States, containizA in Title 33, State technical and financial assistance. U.S. Code, should be enlarged to provide that the Rivers and Harbors Act be amended to include Water Quality Control funding of necessary alterations of bridges and Municipalities and private interests would be causeways in way of proposed waterway modi- primarily responsible for implementation of water fications. quality control programs, in compliance with Federal 6-4 and State water quality standards. County govern- forest and agricultural lands. However, matching ments would be responsible for preparation and funds and program incentives are needed for addi- adoption of comprehensive sewage drainage basin tional Federal and State support to attain unified plans. for waste collection, treatment and control and action at an accelerated pace. for environmental quality management for sedi- Programs of the U.S. Department of Agri- mentation, solid waste disposal, land management culture provide substantial technical and financial practices and small boat sanitation, with appropriate assistance for installation of watershed measures on Federal and State support. private lands and for installation of similar measures on national forest land; and for intensive cooperation Navigation with various State and Federal agencies in areas of The Federal Government together with the mutual responsibility. Ongoing programs of the De- State and local port authorities would have the partment are expected to continue with such redirec- primary responsibility for maintenance and develop- tion as is required to meet the needs of the times. ment of commercial and recreational navigational Twenty-five projects are described in the Compre- facilities. hensive Plan as feasible for installation by 1980, and Terminal and water transport-oriented develop- are discussed in more detail in Appendix XIV, ments in the Puget Sound Area and construction of Watershed Management, under Department of Agri- small boat harbor projects planned for early action culture Early Action and Other Programs. These should be coordinated on a regional basis. projects and programs have interrelated aspects with projects proposed by various State and Federal Power agencies. Because of the interrelated nature, the Public utilities now serving the Area have the Secretary of Agriculture is urged to consider request- continuing primary responsibility for satisfaction of ing Area-wide authorization for planning of projects power requirements. This will be met by development and related programs contained in the early action of thermal-electric plants (nuclear and fossil-fueled), program. utilization and expansion of existing systems, and @,-iportation from other areas. The Federal role in this Recreation expansion is to provide the backbone transmission The Plan is intended to be compatible with the grid for integration of new power plants and for Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Open Space coordination with the Pacific Southwest, to provide Plan of the State of Washington. The responsibilities additional hydroelectric peaking capability to supple- for providing recreation opportunities rest with the ment the new thermal-electric energy, and to provide Federal, State and local governments and commercial on occasion secondary hydroelectric energy for fuel interests with the Federal Government providing displacement. Additional hydropower and numerous facilities on Federal lands and grants to the State and pumped storage sites will, in time, be evaluated as a local governments for developments on other public part of multiple -purpose use. Selected sites are to be lands. reserved for future use. Fish and Wildlife Flood Control Primary responsibilities for providing fish and Primary responsibilities for flood control im- wildlife recreational opportunities rest with the State provements rests with the Federal, State and local government. government for the development of flood control Flow management requirements and policies plans including storage, stream channel maintenance are to be defined and management programs activated and diversions and management of flood plain use by the State during the first half of the early action consistent with the degree of protection provided. phase of the Comprehensive Plan for the streams and lakes of the Area. The Federal Government would be Watershed Management responsible for carrying out fish and wildlife enhance- Primary responsibilities rest with the Federal, ment projects on Federal lands and assisting the State local and private interests for programs of erosion where opportunities arise through multiple-purpose control, water management, and management of projects. 6-5 41 -7a' 1,101 CONCLUSIONS the segments of the Plan for which it may have In view of the information in this report it is responsibility; concluded that the Plan formulated would generally 5. The additional studies and other actions meet the projected water and related land resource discussed in this report be undertaken as soon as needs of the basin through the year 1980 and act as a practicable (see Syllabus for a summary listing of framework for resource preservation and develop- proposed studies); ment to 2020. The Plan, to be effective, must be 6. An entity of local, State and Federal implemented in the form of actual projects and Governments be established in the Puget Sound Area programs. However, 'because the Plan is based on under State leadership to (a) provide guidance in long-range assumptions and projections, and because coordinating future development within the it must be sufficiently flexible to be adjusted to framework of the Comprehensive Plan.. (b) establish conform to future unforeseen changes in national, priorities, (c) maintain the Plan's viability through state, and local conditions, it will need periodic data collection and periodic updating, and (d) report reviews to insure that it is properly responsive to annually on progress and activity to the Northwest changing times and conditions. River Basins Commission and the Governor of the The public review of the Plan, undertaken prior State of Washington; to hearings conducted in May and June 1970 and 7. Citizen advisory groups be formed to during county workshops held from November 1970 arrange continuous and broad public participation in through early April 1971, revealed that some ele- all future studies and actions leading to ments of the Plan may be modified or other implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; alternatives selected during detailed implementation 8. The first review and updating of the Plan be studies. However, the Plan as presented provides a accomplished within five years, including re- reasonable basis for future planning. (See Exhibit C examination of economic projections with local for a summary of the public workshops and how governments and lay citizens participating; issues raised at the workshops were responded to by the Task Force. Additions and changes were made to 9. Prototype developments be undertaken to the Summary Report to reflect comments received provide information for guiding resource use in a from the workshop participants. A brief summary of manner that is harmonious with the natural environ- the final hearings is presented in Exhibit D. Also see ment, e.g., nuclear power plant siting, Indian reserva- Appendix 1, Digest of Public Hearings, Volumes 11 tion development; and III for a more detailed presentation of the 10. Basic research and data gathering in follow- hearings and workshops.) up studies be undertaken on a coordinated basis; 11. Land use policies and goals be determined by methods that assure public participation; RECOMMENDATIONS 12. Federal, State and local governments re- examine current policies with regard to taxation to The Puget Sound Task Force recommends that: determine if desirable changes in resource use can be 1. The Comprehensive Plan, as presented and induced through modification of tax policy; discussed in this report, be used as a guide for the 13. A single port planning entity be established development and beneficial use of the water and for guiding future development for waterborne com- related land resources of the Area; merce; 2. The projects and programs in the early 14. Concerted action be undertaken by all action (before 1980) phase of the Plan be imple- responsible agencies to regulate vessel movements on mented through the appropriate agency or interest; Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters to minimize the 3. This report be a supporting document for potential for pollution resulting from collision and the individual Federal agency reports that would be accidents; the basis for authorization of the various parts of the 15. Federal and state legislative needs identified Plan; herein and in Appendix 11, Political and Legislative 4. Each of the affected and concerned Fed- Environment, by reference be acted upon by the eral, State and local agencies make periodic review of appropriate legislative body. 7-3 41 ca@ k m COUNTIES AFFECTED: 1-0 21 igg, .65 EFFn"'F MM@ UX NOOKSACK-SUMAS BASINS SUMMARY OF PLAN Early Action 1970-1980 degree of protection to an additional 34,000 acres of The projected 1980 level of municipal and land. A levee project is programmed for construction industrial water needs of the city of Bellingham and during this period. Approximately 6,200 acres of its service area could be satisfied through the con- agricultural land would receive 25-year protection. In struction of the Edfro Dam on the South Fork of the -connection with the Edfro project the protection Nooksack River. Lynden would continue to obtain its would increase to 75 years. Flood plain management water from surface sources while Ferndale, Blaine, would provide an effective means of reducing future Sumas, Emerson and other small communities would flood damages through land use zoning of lands in the use ground water sources. Industrial water would also flood plain consistent with the levels of flood be developed from surface wdter sources. protection provided. Floodproofing and warning An additional 20,000 acres of cropland would systems also would be implemented. be placed under irrigation with water being supplied Eight small watershed multiple-purpose projects from both ground and surface sources. All of the are planned for implementation during this period to development, would be by individual farmers utilizing achieve floodwater damage reduction and improved the most economical means available. water management. These projects consist of im- Compliance with Washington State water proved channels, dikes, small reservoirs and outlet quality standards would be obtained through instal- control structures. Important complements to the lation of adequate collection and treatment by the watershed management projects are the programs of communities within the Basins. Pulp and paper mills technical assistance and management and land treat- would remove settleable solids from mill effluents ment and drainage. prior to discharge, install adequate outfalls and Campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, and boat diffusers to achieve maximum dilution and dispersion launching ramps would be developed on existing and removal of existing sludge deposits in Whatcom public lands, together with the acquisition of addi- Waterway to land disposal. A water quality surveil- tional land and water areas to satisfy recreational lance program would be expanded in order to provide needs. Recreation sites -would be developed as part of an adequate monitoring system with a sampling the multiple -p urp ose Edfro storage project. Addi- station on marine and fresh waters. A comprehensive tional land and water areas would be acquired along sewerage plan would be developed in the Basins. the Puget Sound shoreline to provide badly needed Navigation needs would be met through chan- marine parks. Over 40 recreation areas would be nel deepening of the Whatcom Waterway. Increased expanded or developed before 1980. depth is required to accommodate bulk carriers and Land acquisition and fish and wildlife enhance- freighters. Lands found suitable for terminal or water ment projects would be undertaken to increase the transport-oriented industrial development would be opportunities for this form of outdoor recreation. retained for this purpose to insure future availability. Additional fish hatcheries would be constructed for Wet moorage would be provided for pleasure boats both resident and migratory fish together with rearing through the construction of two small boat harbors ponds and spawning channels. Low flow augmenta- with 1,766 moorage spaces. tion would be provided from the South Fork of the Power needs for the Basin would be satisfied by Nooksack multiple-purpose storage project. The im- the Northwest Regional system which is discussed portant cross-sectional stream surveys would be under Power in the Area portion of this Report. undertaken during this period in order to determine A multiple-purpose storage project on the the minimum and optimum strearnflows required for South Fork of the Nooksack River would provide fish production. Subsequent to these cross-sectional significant flood control for the Nooksack River surveys further studies of new projects may be flood plain. This project would provide 100-year required, as well as reconsideration of the operation protection to 15,000 acres downstream and a lesser of existing projects. A-2 Long-Range, 1980-2020 structed on the right bank between Lynden to above Expansion of the transmission system from the Everson and on the left bank opposite Lynden. A Edfro Project to the distribution works would be ring dike to protect the conuriunity of Sumas is also necessary to satisfy the Bellingham service area water programmed. These measures would provide 100-year supply needs through the year 2020. The small and level of protection to 3,000 acres and 25 to 50 year rural communities as well as industry would be protection to an additional 7,000 acres of land. Flood supplied from combinations of ground and surface plain management would also be continued. Imple- waters to the year 2020. mentation of land use zoning would preclude the necessity of further structural measures within the An additional 20,000 acres of land Would be Basins. placed under irrigation during this period with water Further programs and projects would be under- supplied primarily from the Nooksack River. The North Fork rhultiple-purpose storage would assist in taken to satisfy watershed management needs, These meeting peak irrigation demands. would include 12 projects and a significant program of technical assistance, land treatment, and urban and Existing treatment and collection facilities rural water manageme nt. would be expanded commensurate with the growth in Additional development of campgrounds, population and industrial development to insure that picnic areas, and other recreation facilities would be the State water quality standards are continually met. undertaken after 1980 at over 100 sites throughout The water quality program would be maintained. the Basins, on public lands as well as on private lands, Navigation needs during this period require that with both public and private sectors participating in the Whatcom Waterway again be expanded to accom- the providing of recreation facilities. Recreation modate deep draft vessels. In addition, a new channel facilities provided at the North Fork project would be would be constructed in the Nooksack River delta to expanded commensurate with the growth in recre- meet the expected increase in navigation in the area. ation use of the reservoir. Segments of the North, Approximately 1,700 wet moorages would be pro- Middle and South Forks may be included in a State vided through the Hale Passage small boat harbor system of scenic and recreational rivers for retention project, proposed between 1980 and the year 2020. in a free-flowing state for public use. During this period all lands that were indicated in Additional fishing opportunities would be pro- Appendix VIII, Navigation, as being suitable for vided through anadromous and resident fish re- terminal or water transport-oriented industrial de- source enhancement measures. A number of fish velopment would be utilized for this purpose. passage improvements are planned during the long- Power development would probably include range period as well as additional spawning habitat pumped-storage at a number of the potential sites development. Wildlife preservation and enhancement within the Basins. The North Fork multiple-purpose programs begun prior to 1980 would be continued. storage project would also assist in meeting the power Table I summarizes the Nooksack-Sumas demands. Oil or gas-fueled steam electric plants may Basins elements of the Comprehensive Plan, showing also be located during this period to meet short-term the benefits and costs for the early action portion of peaking requirements. Development of nuclear elec- the Plan, and provides a summary of investment costs tric generating plants may occur, but specific sites by water resource functions for the entire@50-year have not been determined and would be dependent period ending in 2020. The early action portion of upon future studies that consider shoreline- . charac- the Plan includes p rograms amounting to teristics, nearness to major load centers and impacts $61,906,000 and projects costing $07,750,000, for a on the environment. total investment of $159,656,000. Program and Flood control needs would be satisfied by the project investment costs for the 1980-2000 period North Fork multiple-purpose storage project and by amount to $214,388,000 and for the 2000-2020 levees in the lower valley. Levees would be con- period, $173,114,000, for a total 50-year investment of $547,158,000. A-3 TABLE 1. Comprehensive Plan, Nooksack-Sumas Basins 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-202 1 nvestmenti Benefits I nvestment I nvestment I nvestment Feature Item costs Costs G ross Net Costs costs Costs ($1000) ($10001 ($1000) ($10001 ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) Management Programs Monitoring, Evaluation, and Water Quality Control Control Programs 840 710 790 2,340 Flood Control Flood Plain Management 46 92 92 230 Watershed Management Programs 60,532 70,389 65,373 196,294 Fish & Wildlife Programs _____488 430 435 1,353 Total Programs $ 61,906 $71.621 $ 66,690 $200,217 Non-Storage Project M&I Water Supply Ground Water Use 1,663 192 1924 0 1,144 456 31263 Surface Water Use 7,112 1,073 1,0734 0 7,933 4,542 19,587 Irrigation Water Ground Water Use 2,230 311 3114 0 2,230 Supply Surface Water Use 470 35 354 0 22,200 0 22,670 Water Quality Control Sewerage Treatment & Collection Facilities 15,800 998 9984 0 19,030 37,080 71,910 Navigation Channels 667 36 42 6 1,343 --- 2,010 Power2 Small Boat Harbors (1,766)3 1105)3 (16413 (591 (1,108) (2,326) (5,2001 Flood Control Channels & Levees 2,500 125 141 16 10,000 12,500 Watershed Management Flood water damage reduction, protection and rehabilitation, and water management 10,973 614 2,269 1,655 5,950 936 17,859 R.ecreation Land Acquisition, Access & Recreation Facilities 25,680 1,743 3,156 1,413 27,100 49,8DO 102,580 Fish and Wildlife Land Acquisition, Access& Enhancement Facilities 3,455 271 534 263 11,067 13,610 28,132 Total Non-Storage $ 70,550 $5,398 $ 8,751 $3,353 $105,767 $106,424 $282,741 Storage Projects Edfro M&I Water Supply 2,414 137 150 13 0 0 2,414 Flood Control 22,935 1,298 1,425 127 0 0 22,935 Recreation 1,609 92 100 8 0 0 1,609 Fish & Wildlife 242 13 15 2 0 0 242 Total Project 27,200 1,540 1,690 150 0 0 27,200 North Fork Power 0 0 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 Flood Control 0 0 0 0 16,760 0 16,760 Recreation 0 0 0 0 1100 0 100 I rrigat ion 0 0 0 0 40 0 40 Fish& W ildl ife 0 0 0 0 100 0 100 Total Project 0 _T_ __6__ -6- 37,000 -0 '-i-7,000 Total Storage. $27,200 $1,540 $1,690 $150 $37,000 0 $64,200 Total Program and Pr ojects $159,656 $6,938 $10,441 $3,503 $214,388 $173,114 $547,158 1 Include cumulative annual program costs for the period for management featrues and capital costs for non-storage and storage projects. 2 Power facilities not included in basin plan. 3 General Navigation facilities cost and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation. 4 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. A-4 SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT The projects and programs of the Comprehensive Plan. are summarized in Table 2 by period. The project numbers identify features on Figure 1. TABLE 2. Future projects and programs, Nooksack-Sumas Basins Projects Prior to 1980 18. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Cali- fornia Creek. Project 19. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Silver No. (Marietta) Creek. Municipal and industrial Water Supply 20. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Wiser 1. Expansion of existing water Supply and trans- Lake. mission systems at Ferndale, Lynden, Sumas, Blaine and other rural communities. Recreation 2.- Increase capacity of self-supplied industrial surface 21. Development of one recreation site at Point water system. Roberts. 3. Provide water supply storage from Edfro multiple- 22. Development of two recreation sites along salt- purpose project, South Fork Nooksack River and water shoreline from Birch Bay to Blaine. transmission system-Bellingham. 23. Development of one recreation site along saltwater shoreline from Lummi Bay to Birch Say. Irrigation 24. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. 4.- Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping 25. Development of two recreation sites along the and sprinkler systems (private). saltwater shoreline of Lummi Island and Hale Passage. Water Quality Control 26. Development of two recreation sites along the 5. Construction of secondary treatment and disinfec- saltwater shoreline of Bellingham Bay and south. tion facilities at Ferndale, Lynden food processing 27. Development of two recreation sites in this vici- plants and Birch Bay area. nity. 6. Construction of secondary treatment, disinfection, 28. Development of two recreation sites along Nock- and sewage interception facilities at Everson, sack River from Lynden to junction with South Nooksack and Sumas. Fork of Nooksack. 7. Installation of interception facilities for septic tank 29. Development of two recreation sites along Nook- effluent at Lake Whatcom. sack River from junction with South fork to 8.* Improvement of collection and treatment of waste National Forest. discharges and submarine outfall at Bellingham. 30. Development of two recreation Sites along Middle 9. Improvement of collection and treatment of Waste Fork Nooksack River to National Forest. discharges and submarine outfall at Bellingham. 31. Development of three recreation sites along South Fork Nooksack River to National Forest. Navigation 32. Development of 15 recreation sites in National 10. Small boat harbor development at Bellingham and Forest and Nation Park. B laine. 3. Installation of recreation facilities at Edfro multi- 11. Channel improvement at Bellingham, ple-purpose project-South Fork Nooksack River. Flood Control Fish and Wildlife 3. Construction of flood control storage at Edfro 33.* Acquisition and development of 12 lake access multiple-purpose project-South Fork Nooksack areas. R iver. 34. Enlargement of Barrett Lake. 12. Construction of levee-Ferndale. 35. Construction of fish hatchery for game fish. 36. Development of fishing piers and habitat at Lake Watershed Management Whatcom. 13. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Middle 37.* Acquisition and development of 50 miles of stream Nooksack tributaries. access. 14. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Fish- 38. Acquisition and development of 20 salt water trap and Bertrand Creeks. access areas. 15. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Lower 39.* Acquisition and development of 1,900 acres of Nooksack tributaries. waterfowl and fur animal habitat. 16. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Sumas 40. Acquisition and development of 200 acres of River. band-tailed pigeon area. 17. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Dakota 41.* Acquisition of salt water access area for waterfowl Creek. hunting. *Projects not shown on Figure 1 A-5 TABLE 2. Future projects and programs, Nooksack-Sumas Basins (Cont'd) 42.* Development of propagation sites for rearing ana- 48.' Additional development of self-supplied industrial dromous game fish. surface water system. 43.' Construction of steelhead rearing pond. 44. Expansion of game farm to produce 3,000 phea- Irrigation sants annually. 49. Provide irrigation water supply to serve cropland at 45. Improvement of lake and stream on Skookum Lake Terrell and northeast of LVnden from North Creek and Musto Marsh Ponds. Fork multiple-purpose project-North Fork Nook- 3. Low flow augmentation from Edfro multiple-- sack River. purpose project-South Fork Nooksack River. Water Quality Control 50.* Expansion of waste treatment and interception Programs Prior to 1980 facilities for municipalities, industry and recrea- tion. Water Quality Control a. Establish and operate water quality surveillance Navigation stations at key salt and fresh water locations and 51. Small boat harbor development-Haie Passage, East prepare comprehensive sewerage plan for the Side. Basins. 52. Channel improvement at Bellingham. 53. Navigation channel dredging in Nooksack River delta. Flood Control Power b. Establish and administer county-wide flood plain zoning measures under flood plain management 49. Installation of hydroelectric facilities at North program. Fork multiple-purpose project-North Fork Nook- sack River. Watershed Management C. Provide technical assistance and management for Flood Control State and Federal lands. 49. Flood control storage at North Fork multiple- d. Provide technical assistance for onfarm and other purpose project-North Fork Nooksack River. private practices. 54. Construction of levee on the left bank (10 miles)- opposite Lynden. Fish and Wildlife 55. Construction of levee to protect Sumas. e. Develop lake fertilization techniques. 56. Construction of levee between Lynden and Ever- f. Make wildlife population analysis and timberland son. management practices studies, develop habitat im- Watershed Management provernent techniques and an education program 57. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-South on proper game hunting concepts, and begin a Fork Nooksack. program with land owners for game habitat reten- 58.* Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Middle tion and hunter access. 9- Develop fish disease controls and new toxicants. tributaries Nooksack. h. Conduct cross-sectional stream surveys to deter- 59. S m all watershed multiple-purpose project- mine minimum and optimum strearnflows for fish. Anderson Creek. i. Locate, survey, and mark boundaries of all State- 60.' Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Coastal owned second class tidelands in the Basins. Take Creeks. steps to reserve all such lands for public use except 61. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Terrell as required for specific circumstances. Creek. j. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and 62. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Squali- recreational use of tidelands. cum Creek. 63. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Lummi I sland. Projects 1980-2000 Recreation 64. Development of one recreation site at Point Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Roberts. 46. Expansion of @.i @ting su@rface water supply and 65. Development of three recreation sites along salt- transmission facil ities-B ell ingham. water shoreline from Birch Say to Blaine. 47. Expansion of existing water supply and trans- 66. Development of two recreation sites along salt- mission systems at Ferndale, Sumas, Blaine, Lyn- water shoreline from Lummi Bay to Birch Bay. den and other rural communities. Projects not shuwn on Figure 1 A-6 1,47,87 1, 777 7-7: Main. 5 7 %Silver tok, ,96 T7 060 Ly@ 47 24 S, 1, 47,87 1,47,8 Vaq,,,@J ksock 0 p@ 'rell C4- I a, -61 A24 29 2 T02 "V. 67, 98 le-11 I-ence 20 iiiiA 71, 101 9 1 0-Ma 67 M 058 19 62 27 Van Z. dt 92 @70 3 3 .6 81 3iPpe, . 1c,' A A67, 9; 7 L.11FIGHAM Whotcom @A@ske Acm. -,r e P P,d,; .d d. X7-. 3,86,46 9 C, 4 9 o@ o 5 NOTE: Potenti 9 power and WHAT storage sit 3 SKAGIT C 31 A, not shown A 4,104 Appendix A( LEGEND ITEMS NOT SHO Proposed Proposed Rural and small cc early-action projects FEATURE long-range projects Irrigable land and M & I Water Supply T.r.i..1 and at-- Irrigation industrial lacd. 0 Small vvater,hecl bou Water Guality Control Scale in Mil.. Ssmic highway ad zm Navigation 5 0 5 10 6- segment. P Pourer t Fish and wildlif. prc, X Flood Control X S.. 1-tiomst PP Watershed Management NOOKSACK-SUMAS BASINS Recreation A Fish & Wildlife -4 Dams & Reservoir FIGURE 1. Comprehensive Plan Elements TABLE 2. Future projects and programs, NooksackSumas Basins (Cont'd) 67. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. Projects 2000-2020 68. Development of two recreation sites along the saltwater shoreline of Lum,mi Island and Hale Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Passage. 86. Expansion of existing surface water supply and 69. Development of three recreation sites along the Vansmission facilities-Bellingham. saltwater shoreline of Bellingham Bay and south. Expansion o f existing water supply and transmis- 70. Development of two recreation sites in this vici- sion systems at Ferndale, Sumas, Blaine, Lynden nity. and other rural communities. 71. Development of three recreation sites along Nook- 88.* Additional development of self-supplied industrial sack River from Lynden to junction with South surface water system. Fork of Nooksack. 72. Development of three recreation sites along Nook- Water Quality Control sack River from junction with South Fork to 89. Expansion of waste treatment and interception National Forest. facilities for municipalities, industry and recrea- 73. Development of two recreation sites along Middle tion. Fork Nooksack River to National Forest. 74. Development of four recreation sites along South Navigation Fork Nooksack River to National Forest. 90. Small boat harbor expansion@Hale Passage-East 75. Development of 20 recreation sites in National Side. Forest and Nation Park. 49. Installation of recreation facilities at North Fork Watershed Management multiple-purpose storage project-North Fork 91. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-North Nooksack River. Fork Nooksack. 92. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Middle Fish and Wildlife Fork Nooksack. 76.' Construction of fish passage facilities, 93.*1 Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Upper 77.* Improvement of salmon habitat on 14 streams. South tributaries of Chilliwack. 7k* Construction of one salmon hatchery. 94. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Lake 79.* Construction of one mile of spawning channel for Whatcom. salmon. 95. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Chucka- 49. Low flow augmentation from North Fork multi- nut Mountain. ple-purpose project-North Fork Nooksack River. 80.* Construction of fish hatcheries for game fish. Recreation 81.* Construction of fishing piers on Lake Whatcom. 96. Development of one recreation site at Point 82.* Continue acquisition of wildlife areas. Roberts. 83.* Development of access and parking to all State- 97. Development of two recreation sites along salt- owned beaches. water shoreline 84.* Development of one subtidal park for skin divers. 98. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. 85.* Acquisition of five miles of tideland for Dublic use. 99. Development of one recreation site along the saltwater shoreline of Lummi Island and Hale Programs 1980-2000 Passage. 100. Development of one recreation site along the Water Quality Control saltwater shoreline of Bellingham Bay and south. k. Continuation of water quality monitoring, evalua- 101. Development of four recreation sites along Nook- tion and control programs. sack River from Lynden to junction with South Fork of Nooksack. Flood Control 102. Development of five recreation sites along Nook- 1. Continuation of flood plain management programs. sack River from junction with Sourth Fork to I National Forest. Watershed Management 103. Development of three recreation sites along Middle M. Provide technical assistance and management for Fork Nooksack River to National Forest. State and Federal lands. 104. Development of six recreation sites along South n. Provide technical assistance for onfarm and other Fork Nooksack River to National Forest. private practices. 1.05. Development of 20 recreation sites in National Forest and National Park. Fish and Wildlife 0. Continuation of fish and wildlife programs. p- Improvement of public beaches for clam culture. *Projects not shown on Figure 1 A-8 TABLE 2. Future projects and programs, Nooksack-Sumas Basins (Cont'd) Fish and Wildlife Watershed Management 106.* Construction ot three new salmon hatcheries and S. Provide technical assistance and management for development of 100 acres of rearing facilities. State and Federal lands. t. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other private practices. Programs 2000-2020 Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Control U. Continuation of fish and wildlife programs. q. Continuation of water quality monitoring, evalua- tion and control programs. Flood Control r. Continuation of flood plain management programs. *Projects not shown on Figure 1 A-9 wn @o t Ukl@l 01 wrluvl ak-1.1 Tll@-W) X @11 I-A RX COUNTIES AFFECTED: eo-"' M., A If. . ... .......... T Snohomish I J fF, N4 it iT o4 SKAGIT-SAMISH BASINS SUMMARY OF PLAN Stream reaches assumed to be designated under A major consideration in planning for the Alternative B for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Skagit-Samish Basins was the possible future inclusion system are identified in the tabulation below: of portions of the Skagit River and its tributaries in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers systern in Alternative B accordance with the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Segments of the Skagit River and its Act. Under the Act, the classifications "wild," Tributaries in the "scenic," and "recreation" would impose different National Wild and Scenic Rivers System restrictions upon future improvements along the stream. Because of the possibility of parts of the Miles Skagit River system being classified under the Skagit Mount Vernon to and 70 national system, two alternatives, A and B, are including the mouth of presented herein for consideration. Bacon Creek Alternative A allows full use of storage oppor- tunities to obtain maximum flood control in the Cascade Mouth to junction of 17 Skagit River Basin. The assumption is made under its North and South Forks this Alternative no part of the Skagit River or its Cascade, North Mouth to Glacier Peak 2 tributaries would be included in the National Wild Fork Wilderness Area and Scenic Rivers system. However, portions of the Skagit River system would be included for study Suiattle Mouth to Glacier Peak 28 under a State recreational river system. Wilderness Area at Alternative B is based on the assumption that Milk Creek the entire 165-mile river complex cited in the Act would be designated in the National Wild and Scenic Sauk Mouth to junction with 38 Rivers system. Also, the assumption is made that the Elliott Creek entire complex would be given a "Recreational River" classification and that nonstorage develop- Sauk, North Mouth to Glacier Peak 10 ments would be compatible with this classification * Fork Wilderness Area The elements of the alternative plans are the 165 same for all features except for flood control, power and recreation. The latter only differs as to the inclusion of the designated portions of the Skagit Alternative A is presented first in the sub- River and tributaries in a National Wild and Scenic sequent discussion in its entirety with a discussion of Rivers system. Alternative B following, limited to those features which differ with Alternative A. A-12 ALTERNATIVE A Lake from the Thunder Creek Basin; and (3) nuclear power development sites on the salt-water shoreline. Early Action, 1970-1980 During this period municipal and industrial During this period 100,000 acre-feet of flood water supply needs of the city of Anacortes and the control storage would be obtained by changing the Skagit County PUD No. I would be satisfied by operation of the Upper Baker project. The Avon pumping and treating water from the Skagit River for Bypass also would be constructed in conjunction with the city and further withdrawal of water from the downstream levee and channel improvements. The Cultus Mountain Watershed for the PUD. Ground Bypass would be siz ed:for a flow of 60,000 efs. A water resources would continue to supply small and levee would. be constructed at Nookachamps Creek rural communities and industry. before 1980.,Flood plain management by land use About 10,000 acres of cropland would be zoning of lands. would_control development in the placed under irrigation with water supplied by indi- flood plain consistent with the levels of flood vidual farmers from both surface and ground sources. protection. Floodproofing and warning systems also Compliance with Washington State water qual- would be implemented. These measures would con- ity standards would be obtained through installation tribute significantly to the reduction of future flood of adequate collection and treatment facilities by a damages. number of communities and cities and by food Small watershed multiple-purpose projects at processors. The paper mill at Anacortes would re- Gages Slough, South Mount Vernon, the Samish move settleable solids from mill effluents prior to River and at the Skagit Flats watersheds are planned discharge and would install adequate outfalls and for implementation during this period to achieve diffusers to achieve maximum dflution and dispersion floodwater damage reduction, protection and re- into Puget Sound. A water quality surveillance habilitation of lands, and water management. The program would be expanded in order to provide an projects include stabilized channels and outlet control adequate monitoring system with sampling stations structures. Programs of technical assistance, water on marine and fresh water. A comprehensive sewerage management, land treatment and drainage, would plan would be developed for the Basins. complement structural measures. Navigation needs would be met through deep- Campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, and boat ening of Guemes Channel and by providing a deep launching ramps would be developed on existing draft channel in Fidalgo Bay. These channels would be deepened to accommodate bulk petroleum vessels public lands. Additional land and water areas would and freighters respectively. Lands found to be suit- be acquired to satisfy recreational needs. Acquisition able for terminal or water transport-oriented indus- would include additional land along the Puget Sound trial development would be retained for this purpose shoreline to provide badly needed marine parks. Over to insure future availability. Development of existing 60 recreation areas would be expanded or developed and new areas of the Port of Anacortes would begin before 1980. during this period in order to provide a basis for Fish and wildlife enhancement projects includ- future port expansion. Wet moorage would be pro- ing acquisition of access would be undertaken to vided for pleasure boaters through the construction increase the opportunities for this form of outdoor of two small boat harbors with 850 moorage slips. recreation. Additional fish hatcheries would be con- Power needs for the Basin would be satisfied by structed for both resident and migratory fish together the Northwest Regional system which is discussed with rearing ponds, spawning channels and fish under Power in the Area portion of this Report. passage improvements including a collection and Additional power production is recommended for transportation facility to provide migratory fish further consideration at Ross power plant with the access above Cascade Falls and on the North Fork of raising of Ross Dam. Also recommended for further the Cascade River. Cross-sectional stream surveys consideration is (1) a reregulation project on the would be undertaken during tl-ds period to determine Skagit River at Copper Creek which would make the minimum and optimum strearnflows required for possible the addition of further capacity at each of fish production. These cross-sectional surveys may the Ross, Diablo, and Gorge plants; (2) the Thunder result in further studies of new projects as well as Creek diversion project to divert water into Ross reconsideration of the operation of existing projects. A-13 Long-Range, 1980-2020 tion. Flood plain management would be,continued with zoning being required to guide future develop- Existing water supply systems would be ex- ment and prevent unwarranted development in the panded to meet elements of population and industrial flood plain. Under Alternative A, 134,000 acre-feet growth. The projected water supply needs of muni- of flood control storage would be provided by the cipalities, small and rural communities and industry Lower Sauk project. would be satisfied. Eight additional multiple-purpose projects An additional 45,000 acres of land would be would be undertaken to satisfy watershed manage- placed under irrigation during this period with water ment needs in this time period. In addition to the supplied from surface and ground water. A project structural measures included in these projects, a type development is planned by the year 2000. program of technical assistance, land treatment, and Existing treatment and collection facilities water management would be continued and enlarged. would be expanded commensurate with the growth in Additional development of campgrounds, pic- population and industrial development. State water nic areas, and other recreation facilities would be quality standards would be met and the water quality undertaken after 1980 at nearly 170 sites throughout surveillance program would be-maintained. the Basins, on public lands as well as on private lands, Further terminal and water transport-oriented with both public and private sectors participating in industrial development is envisioned during this providing facilities. The recreation facilities at the period to meet the navigation needs of the Basins. Avon Bypass project would be expanded com- Lands would be developed in Padilla Bay through mensurate with demand. Portions of the Skagit River dredge fill as a deep-draft channel would ultimately system would be included in a State system of scenic be provided having a depth of 54 feet. Further and recreational rivers for retention in a free-flowing channel dredging is planned in Fidalgo Bay. The state for public use. Guemes channel would be deepened to accommodate Additional fish and wildlife opportunities bulk petroleum vessels. would be provided through anadromous and resident Power development could include pumped- fish enhancement measures. A number of fish passage storage at a number of the potential sites within the improvements are planned during the long-range Basins. Oil or gas-fueled steam electric plants also period as well as additional spawning habitat develop- may be located during this period to meet short-time ment. peaking requirements. Development of nuclear elec- Table 3 summarizes the Skagit-Samish Basins tric generating plants may occur but definite schedul- elements of the Comprehensive Plan, showing the ing of fa&ilfties and exact siting have not been benefits and costs for the early action portion of the completed and would be dependent upon future Plan, and provides a summary of investment costs by studies of shoreline characteristics, major load centers water resource functions for the entire 50-year period and impacts on the environment. Power facilities ending in 2020. The early action portion of the Plan would be provided as part of the Lower Sauk storage includes programs amounting to $88,414,000 and project. projects costing $ 109,185,000; for a total investment After 1980 levees would provide 100-year of $197,599,000. Program and project investment winter flood protection for the communities of costs for the 1980-2000 period amount to Hamilton and Sedro Woolley. These projects, gen- $329,905,000 and for the 2000-2020 period program erally would be a matter of raising existing structures and project costs would be $246,830,000. A total to heights sufficient to provide the 100-year protec- 50-year investment would amount to $774,334,000. A-14 TABLE 3. Comprehensive Plan, Alternative A, Skagit-Samish Basins 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 200OL2020 1970-2020 I nvestmenti [Te-nefits Investment Investment I nvestment Costs Costs Gross Net Costs Costs Costs Feature Item ($1000) ($1000) ($10001 ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) management Programs Water Quality Control Monitoring, Evaluation 490 -- 360 420 1,270 and Control Flood Control Flood Control Management 115 168 168 451 Watershed Management Programs 87,556 99,226 109,318 296,100 Fish and Wildlife Programs 253 2GO 200 653 Total Programs $88,414 $99,954 $110,106 $298,474 Nonstorage Projects M& I Water Supply Ground Water Use 0 0 0 0 565 905 1,470 Surface Water Use 5,440 503 5034 0 7,560 10,385 23,385 Irrigation Water Supply Ground Water Use 1,072 179 1794 0 3,400 3,750 8,222 Surface Water Use 278 46 464 0 3,700 14,000 17,976 Water Quality Control Sewerage T reatment and 04 Collection Facilities 4,880 320 32 0 8,050 8,900 21,830 Navigation Channels 1,465 81 105 24 9,417 2,989 13,871 Power-2 Small Boat Harbors3 (1,714)3 110913 (159)3 (50)3 (3,831)3 (3,830)3 (9,375)3 Flood Control Levee and Channels 37,800 1,983 3,150 1,167 5,800 0 43,600 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Water Management, and Protection and Rehabilitation 10,637 594 2,242 1,648 1,850 1,460 13,947 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Enhancement Facilities 35,814 2,555 3,600 1,045 42,700 71,300 149,814 Fish and Wildlife Land Acquisition, Access and Enhancement Facilities -11,799 1,420 -- 1,910 490 18,909 23,03 53,243 Total Nonstorage $109,185 $7,681 12,055 $4,374 $101,951 $136,724 $347,860 Storage Projects Upper Baker Flood Control 133 300 167 Lower Sauk Power 68,000 68,000 Flood Control 60,000 60,000 Total Projects $128,000 $128,000 Total Programs and Projects S i97,599 $7,814 $12,355 $4,541 $329,905 $246,830 $774,334 1 Includes cumulative annual program costsfor the period formanagement featuresand capital costsfor nonstorage projects. 2 Nonstorage power development not included in the Plar.. 3 General navigation facilities costs and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation. 4 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. A-1 5 SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES A AND B The projects and programs of the Comprehensive Plan are summarized in Table 4 by time period. Elements listed are the same for both Alternatives A and B unless otherwise noted. Project numbers identify features on Figure 2. TABLE 4. Future projects and programs, Skagit-Samish Basins PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 19. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Samish 1. pansion of Skagit River intake and treatment R iver. plant- Anacortes. 20. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Skagit 2. Expansion of Cultus Mountain water supply system- F lats. Skagit County PUD No. 1. 3.* Increase capacity of self-supplied industrial water Recreation system. 16. Installation of recreation facilities as part of Avon Bypass project. Irrigation 21. Development of four recreation sites along the salt 4.- tallation of individual farm irrigation pumping and water shoreline of Fidalgo Island. sprinkler systems (private). 22. Development of three recreation sites, total, on Cypress and Guemes Islands. Water Quality Control 23. Development of two recreation sites along the salt 5.* installation of adequate secondary treatment facilities water shoreline of Padilla Bay, by food processors and wood products industries. 24. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. 6. Installation of facilities to remove all settleable solids 25. Development of four recreation sites along Skagit from mill effluents prior to discharge with adequate R iver f rom mouth to conf luence with the Sauk R iver. outfall and diffuser-paper mill at Anacortes. 26. Development of two recreation sites along Sauk River 7. installation of adequate secondary treatment facilities from mouth to head waters, with disinfection by Mount Vernon, Sedro Woolley, 27. Development of 40 recreation sites in the National Concrete, LaConner, Skagit County Sanitary District Forest and National Park. No. 1, and the properties of Seattle City Light. 8. Expansion of domestic system by Burlington. Fish and Wildlife 28. Enlargement of existing fish hatcheries. Navigation 29. Construction of fish passage facilities at Cascade 9. Deepen Guemes channel. Falls. 10. Dredge deep draft navigation channel in Fidalgo Bay. 30. 11. Construction of small boat harbor development- 30.* Acquisition and development of access to eight lakes. LaConner, Indian Bay. 31. Construction of fishing piers at Samish Lake. 12. Enlargement of small boat harbor-Anacortes. 32.* Construction of two trout hatcheries. 33. * Construction of one rearing pond for summer Flood Control steelhead. 13. Construction of levee-Skagit River at Nookachamps 34. * Construction of one rearing pond for winter steel- Creek head. 14. Improvement of levee and channel-Skagit River 35. * Acquisition and development of 75 miles of stream- downstream from Burlington. bank access. 15. Purchase flood control storage in Upper Baker River. 36* Acquisition and development of six salt water access 16. Construction of Avon Bypass including levee from areas. bypass entrance upstream to Sedro Woolley (size 37. * Acquisition and development of 12,000 acres of varies with Alternatives A and B). waterfowl and fur animal habitat. 38.* Acquisiton of access to 500 acres of band-tailed Watershed Management pigeon areas. 17. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Gages 39. * Enlargement of game farm to produce 5,000 ad- Slough. ditional pheasants. 18- Small watershed multiple-purpose project-South 40. Construction of fish passage facilities on North Fork Mount Vernon. Cascade River. *Projects not shown on Figure 2 A-1 6 ITEMS NOT SHOWN ON MAP NOTE: Potential nuclear power and Rural and small community water s@pplyprojecfs pumped-storage sites are not shown. CANADA Irrigabie lands and private irrigation development, See Appendix IX, Power. RD--- A Terminal and water-fronspo,t oriented industrial lands Small watershed boundaries Scenic highway and potential recreation \R LAK river segments YJ Fish and wildlife proiects yet to be sited NAT A@ See functional appendix for location maps Mt. 11.1,@, Rosi@ RECR TIOINA@ 'A' "A NORTH CASCADES EA Di Lake Whatcom g @ ,I a k e T 'T, Gor ,Lake ,Lake 0 Diob T,.@,@ B A K E R ,@,B,bk ',YLcik6 Newhale@ i@@l "N' am, 1, "M kk WHATCOM COUNTY 31 5 5_6@ .82A Y 54,82A SKAGIT COUNT S, . NATIONAL PA 24 5 gm_, 57 77 1 54,82 yq @ per Creek Dom Site _J Z 4@, 74 s n 24 @D 71F 2A A so Hamilton 29 Conc iklejr@unt ascde'- 53,81 ied-Wooll 520 A 4Y 58 85 1 56 0 North 10 - _' :,@ @4- 84 7 49- - 51 Fork 44, 7 Cultus Mtn. 46,75 A 56 0 U t @@r N n% 87 B Lake/ C' 57( P SKAGIT COUNTY A SNOHOMISH COUN LEGEND FTY Da,rington Proposed Proposed @'N AT 1 0 early-action FEATURE long-range 5 projects projects 12""K G--m-> M & I Water Supply*--4==J0, Irrigation Water Quality Control Navigation Alb Power Scale in Miles X Flood Control 5 0 5 10 V IN (D Watershed Management W, Recreation A SKAGIT-SAMISH BASINS' <@4 Fish and Wildlife CEZ-_o, Dom and Reservoir Wild & Scenic Rivers FIGURE 2. Comprehensive Plan Elements TABLE 4. Future projects and programs, Skagit-Samish Basins (Cont'd) PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 Water Quality Control Flood Control a. Establish and operate water quality surveillance sta- 48. Flood control storage at Lower Sauk multiple-purpose tions at key salt and fresh water locations and pre- project-Sauk River (Alternative A only). pare comprehensive sewerage plan for the Basins. 49. , Construction of levee-Sedro Woolley and Hamilton. Flood Control Watershed Management 50. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-North Skagit b. blish and administer county-wide flood plain tributaries. zoning measures under flood plain management pro- 51. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-South Skagit gram. tributaries. Watershed Management 52. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Fidalgo Island C. Provide technical assistance and management for group. State and Federal lands. Recreation d. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other 53. Development of four recreation sites along the saltwater private practices. shoreline of Ficlalgo Island. Fish and Wildlife 54. Development of three recreation sites, total, on Cypress a. Develop lake fertilization techniques. and Guemes Islands. 55. Development of two recreation sites along the salt water f. Make wildlife population analysis and timberland shorelines of Padilla Bay. management practices studies, develop habitat im- 56. Development of one recreation site. provement techniques and an education program on 57. Development of two recreation sites. proper game hunting concepts, and begin a program 58. Development of five recreation sites along Skagit River with land owners for game habitat retention and from mouth to confluence with the Sauk River. hunter access. 59. Development of three recreation sites along Sauk River g. Develop fish disease controls and new toxicants. from mouth to head waters. h. Conduct cross-sectional stream surveys to determine 60. Development of 50 recreation sites on National Forest minimum and optimum strearnflows for fish. and National Park lands. i. Locate, survey, and mark boundaries of all State- owned second class tidelands in the Basins. Take steps Fish and Wildlife to reserve all such lands for public use except as 61.* Improvement of fish habitat on 38 miles of stream. required for specific circumstances. 62. * Channel clearance on 38 miles of stream. j. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and recrea- 63. * Construction of two salmon hatcheries. tional use of tidelands. 64. * Construction of 2 miles of salmon spawning channel. 65. * Develop access and parking facilities at all State-owned Projects 1980-2000 beaches. 66.* Develop one sub-tidal park for skin divers. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 67.* Improve public beaches for clam culture. 41.* Expand existing water supply systems. Programs 1980-2000 Irrigation Water Quality Control 42.* Construction of project-type irrigation supply system k. Continue water quality surveillance program. with individual farm installation or sprinkler systems. Flood Control Water Quality Control 1. Continue flood plain management program. 43.* Expansion of waste treatment and interception facilities for municipalities, industry, and recreation development. Watershed Management Navigation m. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other private 44. Deepen Guemes and Fidalgo Bay channels. practices. 45. Dredge channel for deep draft 6avigation and construct n. Provide technical assistance and management for State terminal and transfer facilities and develop waterfront and Federal lands. industrial land in Padilla Bay. Fish and Wildlife 46. Development of small boat harbor-Fidalgo Island. 0. Continue fish and wildlife programs. 47. Enlargement of small boat harbor- LaConner, Indian Bay. Power 48. Installation of power facilities at Lower Sauk multiple- purpose project-Sauk River (Alternative A only). *Projects not shown on Figure 2 A-18 TABLE 4. Future projects and programs, Skagit-Samish Basins (Cont'd) Projects 2000-2020 82. Development of four recreation sites, total, on Cypress and G uemes Islands. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 83. Development of one recreation site along the salt water 68.* Expand existing water supply systems. shoreline of Padilla Bay. 84. Development of one recreation site. Irrigation 85. Development of six recreation sites along Skagit River 69. * Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping and f rom mouth to conf luence with the Sau k R iver. sprinkler systems iprivate). 86. Development of five recreation sites along Sauk River from mouth to head waters. Water Quality Control 87. Development of 70 recreation sites on National Forest 70.* Expansion of waste treatment and interception facilities and National Park lands. for municipalities, industry and recreation. Navigation Fish and Wildlife 71. Deepen F go Bay channel. 88. * Construction of six salmon hatcheries or equivalent. 72. Deepen Padilla Bay channel. 89. * Development of 130 acres of rearing facilities. 73. Development of small boat harbor-Padilla Bay-Williams 90.* Development of 2 miles of spawning channel. Point. 74. Development of small boat harbor-Guemes Island South- Programs 2000-2020 west. 75. Expansion of small boat harbor-F idalgo Island West. Water Quality Control p. Continue water quality surveillance program. Flood Control (No further projects planned) Flood Control q. Continue flood plain management program. Watershed Management 76. Small watershed project multiple-purpose-Upper Skagit River. Watershed Management 77. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Baker River. r. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other private 78. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Cascade River. practices. 79. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Suiattle River. S. Provide technical assistance and management for State 80. Small watershed multiple-purpose project@Sauk River. and Federal lands. Recreation Fish and Wildlife 81. Development of five recreation sites along the salt water t. Continue fish and wildlife programs. shoreline of F idalgo I sland. *Projects not shown on Figure 2 A-19 would contribute significantly to the reduction of ALTERNATIVE B future flood damages and are relied upon to large measure in Alternative B to reduce future flood Alternative B is the same as Alternative A damages above Sedro Woolley. except for flood control, power and recreation About 165 miles of the Skagit River and features. Flood control features differ in both the tributaries would be classified as "Recreational early action and long-range phases of the Plan, with Rivers" in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers the Lower Sauk storage project omilted from long- sys tern. range consideration in Alternative B. Hydroelectric Table 5 summarizes all the elements of power development as a purpose of the Lower Sauk Alternative B, showing the benefits and costs for the project also is excluded. Recreation features only early action portion of the Plan, and provides a differ with regard to the inclusion in Alternative B of summary of investment costs by water resource designated portions of the Skagit River,and tribu- functions for the entire 50-year period ending in taries in a National Wild and Scenic Rivers system. 2020. The early action portion of the Plan includes Only the flood control and recreation features of programs amounting to $88,41.4,000 and projects Alternative B are discussed in the following section. costing S 117,185,000 for a total investment of S205,599,000. Program and project investment costs Early Action, 1970-1980 for the 1980-2000 period amount to $203,905,000 During this period 100,000 acre-feet of flood and for the 2000-2020 period $246,830,000. A total control storage would be obtained by changing the 50-year investment amounts to $656,334,000 for operation of the Upper Baker project. The Avon Alternative B. Bypass also would be constructed in conjunction with downstream levee and channel improvements. The Bypass would be sized for a flow of 100,000 cfs SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT under Alternative B. A levee would be constructed at Nookachamps Creek before 1980. Flood plain man- ALTERNATIVE B agement by land use zoning of lands would control The projects and programs of Alternative B are development in the flood plain consistent with the shown in Table 4 with projects identified on Figure 2. levels of flood protection. Floodproofing and warning Elements differing with Alternative A are noted. systems also would be implemented. These measures A-20 TABLE 5. Comprehensive Plan, Alternative B, Skagit-Samish Basins 1970-198n Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 1 nvestment Benefits Investment I nvestment I nvestment Feature I tems Costs Costs G ross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) Management Programs Water Quality Control Monitoring, Evaluation and Control 490 360 420 1,270 Flood Control Flood Control Management 115 168 168 451 Watershed Management Programs 87,556 99,226 109,318 296,100 Fish and Wildlife Programs 253 200 200 653 Total Programs $ 88,414 99,954 $110,106 $298,474 Nonstor@qe Projects M&I Water Supply Ground Water Use 0 0 0 0 565 905 1,470 Surface Wate Ir Use 5,440 503 5034 0 7,560 10,385 23,385 Irrigation Water Supply Ground Water Use 1,072 179 1794 0 3,400 3,750 8,222 Surface Water Use 278 46 464 0 3,700 14,000 17,978 Water Quality Control Sewerage Treatment and Collection Facilities 4,880 320 3204 0 8,050 8,900 21,830 Navigation Channels 1,465 81 105 24 9,417 2,989 13,871 > Small Boat Harbors3 (1,714)3 (109)3 (159)3 (50)3 (3,831)3 (3,830)3 (9,375)3 Power2 Flood Control Levee and Channels 45,800 2,403 3,478 1,075 7,800 0 53,600 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Water Management, and Protection and Rehabilitation 10,637 594 2,242 1,648 1,850 1,460 13,947 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Enhancement Facilities 35,814 2,555 3,600 1,045 42,700 71,300 149,814 Fish and Wildlife Land Acquisition, Access and Enhancement Facilities 11,799 1,420 1,910 490 18,909 23,035 53,243 Total Nonstorage $117,185 $8,101 $12,383 $4,282 $103,951 $136,724 $357,860 Storage Project Upper Baker Flood Control 133 300 167 Total Programs and Projects $205,59S $8,234 $12,683 $4,449 $203,905 $246,830 $656,334 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs for nonstorage projects. 2 Nonstorage power development not included in the Plan. 3 General navigation facilities costs and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation, 4 Average annual benefits assumed equal to ayerage annual costs. yz;,10 Ar COUNTaS AFFECTED: ;WWR 50 Snohomish STILLAGUAMISH BASIN SUMMARY OF PLAN are planned for implementation during this period to achieve floodwater damage reduction and install Early Action, 1970-1980 water management measures, together with protec- During this period ground water resources tion and rehabilitation of watershed lands. These would continue to supply Arlington, Stanwood, and projects contain structural measures such as stabilized rural communities. Minor use of surface waters for channels, dikes on the Stillaguarnish, and outlet rural and individual system is expected. control structures. Upgrading of existing facilities and About 4,000 acres of cropland would be placed more intensive application of recurring and nonre- under irrigation with water supplied by individual curring land treatment practices would be required farmers from both surface and ground sources. All throughout the Basin. Soil and water conservation development would be by individuals utilizing the programs which offer technical assistance and finan- most economical means available. cial participation would be continued. Compliance with Washington State water qual- Campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, and boat ity standards would be obtained through installation launching ramps would be developed on existing of adequate collection and treatment facilities by a public lands together with the acquisition of addi- number of communities and cities in the Basin. The tional land and water areas to satisfy recreational food processing industry would provide adequate needs. Additional land and water areas would be means of waste disposal either througli use of acquired along the Puget Sound shoreline to provide municipal facilities or land disposal. A water quality marine parks. About 40 recreation sites are planned surveillance program would be expanded in order to for expansion or development before 1980. provide an adequate monitoring system with sampling Land acquisition, access easements and fish and stations on marine and fresh water. wildlife enhancement projects would be undertaken No commercial navigation needs are projected to increase the opportunities for this form of outdoor for the Still agu anii sit Basin. The extensive tidelands 1*11 recreation. Additional fish hatcheries would be con- Port Susan and the shoaled condition'of the Stilla- structed for both resident and rrigratory fish together guarnish River at Stanwood make development of with rearing ponds, spawning channels and fish small boat basins within the Basin' impracticable passage improvements on the South Fork of the under present conditions. Accordingly, small boat Stillaguarnish River. Cross-sections of the streams moorage needs of the Stillaguarnish Basin would be would be surveyed during this period to determine met in the Skagit-Sarnish Basins. the minimum and optimurn strearriflows required for Power needs for the Basin would be satisfied by fish production. These cross-sectional surveys may the Northwest Regional system which is discussed show further studies of new projects to be warranted. under Power in the Area portion of this Report. A flood control project to straighten and Long-Range, 1980-2020 enlarge the Stillaguarnish-Hat Slough channel below Arlington, Stanwood and other small rural Silvana in connection with levees is planned. A levee communities within the Basin would continue to north of Stanwood is recommended to provide develop ground water to satisfy their needs to 1-020. protection from flooding in the Skagit Basin. These A limited amount of surface water would be utilized improvements would provide 100-year protection for by rural consurners. 7,300 acres of land. Flood plain management would An additional 4,000 acres of land would be provide an effective means of reducing future flood placed under irrigation with water supplied by indi- damages through land use zoning of lands in the flood vidual farmers from both ground and surface sources. plain consistent with the levels of flood protection Existing sewerage treatment and collection provided. Floodproofing and warning systems also facilities would be expanded cornmensurate with the would be implemented. These measures would con- growth in population and industrial development to tribute significantly to the reduction of future flood inSUre that the State water quality standards are damages. continually met. The water quality surveillance pro- Two small watershed multiple-purpose projects gram would be maintained. A-24 As in the early action program, no commercial nic areas, and other recreation facilities would be navigation needs have been projected for the Basin. undertaken after 1980 at nearly 100 sites throughout Shorelands are unsuitable for small boat harbors. This the Basin, on public lands as well as private lands with need would be fulfilled in the Skagit-Samish Basins. both public and private sectors participating in the Power development would probably include providing of recreational facilities. The South and pumped-storage at a number of the potential sites North Forks of the Stdlaguan-iish River may be within the Basin. Oil or gas-fueled steam electric included in a State system of scenic and recreational plants also may be located during this period to meet rivers for public use. short-time peaking requirements. Development of Further fishing opportunities would be pro- nuclear electric generating plants may occur but vided through anadromous and resident fish enhance- specific sites have not been determined and would be ment measures. A number of fish passage improve- dependent upon future studies that considered shore- ments are planned during the long-range period as line characteristics, nearness to major load centers well as additional spawning habitat development. and impacts on the environment. Wildlife preservation and enhancement programs be- The only additional flood control structures gun prior to 1980 would be continued. envisioned after 1980 would be a construction of Table 6 summarizes the Stillaguamish Basin levees to provide 25-year flood protection for 4,000 elements of the Comprehensive Plan, showing the acres of land between Arlington and Silvana. Flood benefits and costs for the early action portion of the plain management would be continued with zoning Plan, and provides a summary of investment costs by being required to guide future development and water resource functions for the entire 50-year period prevent unwarranted development in the flood plain. ending in 2020. The early action portion of the Plan Six additional multiple-purpose projects would includes programs amounting to S29,038,000 and be undertaken to satisfy watershed management projects costing $37,949,000 for a total investment needs in this time period. In addition to the structural of $66,987,000. Program and project investment measures provided by these projects, a significant costs for the 1980-2000 period amount to program of technical assistance, land treatment, and S70,526,000 and for the 2000-2020 period, water management would be continued and enlarged. S85,307,000; for a total 50-year investment of Additional development of campgrounds, pic- S222,820,000. A-25 TABLE 6. Comprehensive Plan, Stillaguamish Basin 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 Investmenti Benefits FrAvestment Tnvestment investment Feature I tems Costs Costs Gross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) Management Programs Water Quality Control Monitoring, Evaluation and Control Programs 160 300 340 800 Flood Control Flood Plain Management 25 46 46 1,117 Watershed Management Programs 28,693 29,480 28,547 86,720 Fish & Wildlife Programs 160 320 320 800 Total Programs $29,038 j3-0,146 @2 -9,2 5 3 $ 88,437 Nonstorage Projects M&I Water Supply Ground Water Use 564 75 753 0 858 1,152 2,574 Irrigation Water Supply Ground Water Use 270 45 453 0 270 0 540 > Surface Water Use 270 45 453 0 270 0 540 Water Quality Control Sewerage Treatment and Collection Facilities 1,860 127 1273 0 3,294- 3,980 9,134 Navigation2 - -- -- -- -- -- Power2 -- -- -- -- -- Flood Control Channels and Levees 7,700 454 500 46 3,700 0 11,400 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Water Management and Rehabilitation and Protection of Watershed Lands 1,645 92 288 196 5,620 1,310 8,575 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Recreation Facilities 20,420 1,256 1,484 228 20,800 40,20C 81,420 Fish& Wildlife Projects 5,220 521 1,528 1,007 5,568 9,412 20,200 Total Nonstorage $37,949 T2,615 @4-,092 T1:477 @40,380 T56,054 $134,383 Total Programs and Projects $66,987 $2,615 $4,092 $1,477 $70,526 $85,307 $222,820 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs far nonstorage projects. 2 Power and Navigation facilities not included in Basin Plan. 3 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT The projects and programs are summarized in Table 7 by time periods. The project numbers identify features on Figure 3. TABLE 7. Future projects and programs, Stillaguarnish Basin PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980 Fish and Wildlife Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 14.* Acquisition and,clevelopment of access to four lakes. 1. Increase of transmission capacity of Arlington, Stan- 15.* Acquisition of 50 miles of streambank access. %Nood, Granite Falls and rural communities. 16.* Acquisition and development of four salt water access areas. 17. Enlargement of Little and Twin Lakes. Irrigation 18.* Construction of a trout hatchery to stock lakes. 19.* Construction of addition to existing steelhead and 2.* Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping and searun cutthroat trout rearing complex. sprinkler systems (private). 20.* Construction of a game fish hatchery. 21. Acquisition and development of waterfowl habitat on Water Quality Control Hat Slough. 22.* Enlargement of existing pheasant game farm. 3. Expansion of treatment, disinfection and sewage 23. Construction of modifications to existing fish passage i nterception facilities-Stanwood, Arlington and facility at Granite Falls. Granite Falls. 24. Correction of clay slides in North and South Forks of Stillaguarnish River. Flood Control - 4. Construction of levees-Stanwood. PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 Water Quality Control Watershed Management 5. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Lower a. Establish and operate water quality surveillance Stillaguamish. stations at key salt and fresh water locations and 6. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Church prepare comprehensive sewerage plan for the Basin. Creek. Flood Control Recreation b. Establish and administer county-wide flood plain zoning measures under flood plain mana,,,ement pro- 7. Development of one recreation site at mouth of gram (county-city responsibility under State law using Stillaguamish River. . Federal flood plain information). 8. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. 9. Development of three recreation sites along Stilla- Watershed Management guamish River from mouth to Arlington. 10. Development of two recreation sites along Pilchuck C. Provide technical assistance and management for State Creek from mouth to Cavanaugh Lake. and Federal lands. 11. Development of four recreation sites along North Fork d. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other of Stillaguarnish River from Arlington to National private practices. Forest. 12. Development of four recreation sites along the South Fish and Wildlife Fork of the Stillaguamish River from Arlington to the National Forest. e. Develop fish disease controls and new toxicants. 13. Development of 20 recreation sites in the National f. Develop lake fertilization techniques. Forest. g. Perform cross-section surveys of streams. -Not shown on Figure 3 A-2 7 TABLE 7. Future projects and programs, Stillaguam ish Basin (Cont'd) h. Make wildlife population analysis and timberland 34. Development of one recreation site at Cavanaugh management practices studies, develop habitat Lake. improvement techniques and an education program on .35. Development of two recreation sites along Pilchuck proper game hunting concepts and begin a program Creek from mouth to Cavanaugh Lake. with land owners for game habitat retention and 36. Development of three recreation sites along the hunter access. Stillaguarnish River from mouth to Arlington. i. Locate, survey, and mark boundaries of all State- 37. Development of five recreation sites along the North owned second class tidelands in the Basin. Take steps Fork of the Stillaguarnish River from Arlington to to reserve all such lands for public use except as National Forest. required for specific circumstances. 38. Development of four recreation sites along the South j. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and recrea- Fork of the Stillaguarnish River from Arlington to tional use of tidelands. National Forest. 39. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. 40. Development of 25 recreation sites in the National Forest. PROJECTS 1980-2000 Fish and Wildlife Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 41. Construction of a fish passage facility on Pilchuck 25. Increase of transmission capacity of Arlington, Stan- C ree k. wood, Granite Falls and rural communities. 42. Construction of a fish passage facility on Canyon Creek.. 43.* Construction of 10 acres of rearing ponds. Irrigation 44.* Construction of a salmon hatchery. 26.* Construction of individual farm irrigation pumping 45.* Construction of one salmon spawning channel. 46.* Develop access and parking facilities to all State- and sprinkler systems (private). owned beaches. Water Quality Control 27.* Expansion of treatment, disinfection and sewage interception facilities-Stanwood, Arlington and PROGRAMS 1980-2000 Granite Falls. Water Quality Control Flood Control k. Continue water quality monitoring, evaluation and control program. 28. Improvement of levee-Silvana to Arlington. 29. Improvement of floodway-Silvana to Arlington. Flood Control Watershed Management 1. Continue flood plain management program. 30. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Pilchuck Watershed Management Creek. 31. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Lower m. Provide technical assistance to on-farm and other Stillaguamish River. private practices. 32. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Church n. Provide technical assistance and management for State Creek. and Federal lands. Recreation Fish and Wildlife 33. Development of one recreation site at mouth of 0. Continue fish and wildlife programs. Stillaguarnish River. p. Improve beaches for clam culture. -Not shown on Figure 3 A-28 NOTE: Potential nuclear power and pumped-storage sites are not shown. See Appendix IX, Power. (5011 f; HMO`, 5, Cavanaugh A 8 35, Cr &&L.k@ @0, @r U0 10 r COUNTY NI River SN bH I-UU H II'M- 32 30 49 530 5m 41 @61 All 3 43H A 3 7,5 24 9 !R D, Qla A8 C(e U@ 8 2 Yk 8 -v- A 8 A Off, E S 'a A 39, 56 A 6,5 A B, 39 "ggugn"r, lvdlklv@ ....... . . .. 051 031 X. 'k 8 24 Alz - , 'a A 39, N"re", A 38,5 !qi,@ ga; Al" (11111@ 1* s,ili.g-nnish Umnuil v VU liigg a A 1"'Inao R K@ . N f'! AM, ON,, In R ON, R '7,Z j@A 08 Granite Foils 01 W "'DrK -,vw n F ITM ,, o r Ni-g LEGEND xf Proposed Proposed early-action projects FEATURE long-range projects M & I Water Supply 0--010- Irrigation Scale in Miles Water Quality Control 5L . . . . 01 51 110 za Navigation Ah HEM5 NOT SHOWN ON MA Power P STILLAGUAMISH BASIN Rural and small community water supply projects Flood Control V Irrigable lands and private irrigotion developments's Watershed Management Terminal and water- transport oriented Recreation industrial lands's Fish & Wildlife .00@411 Small watershed boundaries 's %@:iw Dam and Reservoir ".0 Scenic highway and potential recreation river segments Fish and wildlife projects yet to be sited 0 See functional appendix for location maps FIGURE 3. Comprehensive Plan Elements A-29 TABLE 7. Future projects and programs, Stillagumaish Basin (Cont'd) PROJECTS 2000-2020 55. Development of five recreation sites along South Fork of Stillaguarnish River from Arlington to National Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Forest. 56. Development of two recreation sites in this vicinity. 47. Expansion of water supply transmission lines at 57. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. Arlington, Stanwood, Granite Falls and rural com- 58. Development of 35 recreation sites in National Forest, munities. Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Control 59.* Construction of three salmon hatcheries. 48.* Expansion of treatment, disinfection and sewage 60. * Construction of 15 acres of salmon rearing facilities. interception facilities-Stanwood, Arlington and 61.* Construction of 1 mile of salmon spawning channel. Granite Falls. PROGRAMS 2000-2020 Watershed Management Water Quality Control 49. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-North Fork Stillaguarnish River. q. Continue water quality monitoring, evaluation and 50. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-South Fork control program. Stillaguarnish River. Flood Control 51. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Jim Creek. r. Continue flood plain management program. Recreation- Watershed Management 52. Development of two recreation sites along Pilchuck Creek from mouth to Cavanaugh Lake. S. Provide technical assistance to on-farm and other 53. Development of three recreation sites along Stilla- private practices. guamish River from mouth to Arlington. t. Provide technical assistance and management for State 54. Development of seven recreation sites along North and Federal lands. Fork of Stillaguarnish River from Arlington to National Forest. Fish and Wildlife *Not shown on Figure 3 U. Continue-Iish and wildlife programs. A-30 COUNTY AFYECTED: lslmd 611.111".."I'l ME V 'il" WHIDBEY-CAMANO ISLANDS SUMMARY OF PLAN harbors with 2,300 wet moorages should be con- structed prior to 1980. These facilities would meet 1970-2020 the needs of Whidbey and Camano Islands in addition The early action program emphasizes construcm to part of the needs of the Stillaguamish and tion of water supply facilities for Whidbey Island, Cedar-Green Basins. additional treatment and sewers for both Islands, The early action plan for watershed manage- acquisition of land and construction of recreation ment includes upgrading of existing facilities and facilities, new boat harbors and moorages, and obtain- more intensive application of recurring and non- ing access to areas for fishing and hunting uses. recurring land treatment practices. Ongoing water- To meet the future water supply needs for shed management programs which provide some Whidbey Island, treated water would be purchased degree of technical assistance and financial partici- from the city of Anacortes for north Whidbey Island, pation would be continued. After 1980, four small and from the city of Everett for the southern part of watershed projects for floodwater damage prevention, the Island. The water for north Whidbey would be rehabilitation and protection of watershed lands, and obtained near Deans Corner on Fidalgo Island and water management, would be installed, while pro- conveyed by pipeline to Whidbey Island by crossing grams would be continued and in many cases accel- on Deception Pass Bridge. The water would be piped erated. to distribution centers at Oak Harbor, Coupeville, and The recreational plan envisions facilities pro- Greenbank. The water from Everett would cross vided on 365 acres of lands by 1980, 1,210 acres by Possession Sound via the new bridge and piped to 2000, and 2,580 acres by 2020. To meet the needs of distribution centers at Clinton and Bay View. the 1980 recreationists would require large invest- Individual municipal distribution systems ments of which over one-third would be for pur- would connect to the transmission line or at the chasing land, principally salt water beach areas and distribution centers. The distribution system costs are beach access. A coordinated development plan would not included in the plan for Whidbey Island. be established between Federal, State and local Camano Island's future water supply, which governmental bodies to acquire land and develop would be needed after 1980, would be diverted from facilities in an orderly arrangement to meet the the Stillaguamish River near Silvana and conveyed to demands after 1980. a distribution reservoir near Kristoferson Lake on To meet the early action objectives of fish and Camano Island. A water treatment plant would be wildlife would require acquisition of additional land included as a part of the water supply plan for locations throughout the Islands for public access. Camano Island. These lands would be in addition to those needed by To comply with the Washington State water recreation. Miller Lake would be enlarged for public quality standards, the cities of Oak Harbor, Coupe- fishing, Whidbey Island game farm would be in- viHe, Langley, and Penn Cove should provide second- creased in size, and a 5-acre controlled rearing ary treatment facilities, disinfection facilities, and impoundment would be developed for salmon pro- adequate marine discharge outfalls for optimum duction. Fish and wildlife programs to enhance dispersion. Sewer districts would need to be estab- shellfish production, develop marine water rearing lished and sewers constructed throughout the Islands areas, and acquire additional lands for waterfowl and to intercept septic 'tank effluent and prevent beach upland game habitat are included. and marine water contantination. Water quality sur- The possibilities of a nuclear power site being veillance is an essential element of the water quality located on Whidbey Island are good since it is located program. Stations should be established on Camano near the present and projected main load centers and Head, Port Susan, Gedney Island, Holmes Harbor, has an abundance of offshore cooling waters. Four Crescent Harbor, Strawberry Point and Skagit Island. potential sites on Whidbey Island, each capable of There should be nine new small boat harbors supporting several power complexes, were studied. established to 2020 providing over 14,300 wet One of the areas on Whidbey Island could support at moorages and 140 boat launching lanes. Three least three 2,000 mw nuclear-electric plants by the A-32 year 2000. Further studies are required that consider Program and project investment costs for the shoreline characteristics, nearness to major load 1980-2000 period amount to $64,810,000 and for centers and impacts on the natural environment the 2000-2020 pe riod $82,876,000 for a total before a final decision can be made on plant 50-year investment of $206,747,0 00. locations. Table 8 shows all elements and the attendant The early action plan includes programs costs. The output of the programs are complementary amounting to $16,531,000 and projects costing to the listed project facilities. $42,530,000 for a total investment of $59,061,000. A-33 TABLE 8. Comprehensive Plan, Whidbey-Camano Islands 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 Investmenti Benef its I nvestment Investment I nves*tment Feature I tem Costs Costs Gross Net Costs Costs' Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) -($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) Management Programs Water Quality Control Monitoring, Evaluation and Control Programs 250 200 240 690 Watershed Management Programs 16,266 18,412 19,642 54,320 Fish & Wildlife Programs 15 15 15 45 Total Programs $16,531 $18,627 $19,897 $ 55,055 Nonstorage Projects M&I Water Supply Ground Water Use 216 253 25 0 0 0 216 Surface Water Use 10,100 6343 634 0 2,500 0 12,600 > Water Quality Control Waste Treatment and Collection Facilities 3,187 2083 208 0 8,110 10,345 21,642 Navigation Small Boat Harbors2 (4,648) (298) (431) (133) (5,355) (18,910) (28,913) Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Water Management, Protection and Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 3,245 0 3,245 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Facilities 28,450 2,257 2,715 458 31,800 51,900 112,150 Fish & Wildlife Production Enhancement Facilites, Access and Acquisition 577 42 484 442 528 734 1,839 Total Nonstorage $42,530 $3,166 $4,066 $900 $46,183 $62,979 $151,692 Total Programs and Projects $59,061 $64,810 $82,876 $206,747 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs for nonstorage projects. 2 General Navigation facilities cost and benefits for small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities, costs and benefits included with Recreation. 3 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT The projects and programs of the Comprehensive Plan are summarized in Table 9 by time period. The project numbers identify features on Figure 4. TABLE 9. Future projects and programs, Whidbey-Camano Islands PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980 19. Development of a recreational area near Lone Lake. Project 20. Development of a recreational area near Deer Lake. No. 21. Development of a recreational area at Cultus Bay. 22. Development of a recreation area near Utsaladdy, Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Camano Island. 23. Development of a beach recreation site near Triangle 1. Construct water supply pipeline for north Whidbey Cove, Camano Island. Island from Deans Corner to Greenbank. 24. Development of a beach recreation site near Elger Bay, 2. Construct water supply pipeline for south Whidbey Camano Island. Island from the city of Everett to Bay View. 25. Development of a beach recreation site near Camano 3.* Enlarge the small and rural community municipal and Head, Camano Island. water supply transmission systems. Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Control 26. Acquire and develop saltwater access near Greenbank 4. Provide secondary treatment facilities with disinfec- Beach. tion, and an adequate outfall at Oak Harbor. 27. Acquire and develop saltwater access near Bush Point. 5. Provide secondary treatment and disinfection facilities 28. Acquire and develop saltwater access near Lagoon with adequate outfall at the Seaplane Base near Oak Point. Harbor. 29. Acquire and develop saltwater access near Land Point 6. Provide secondary treatment and disinfection facilities Manor. with adequate ourfall at Coupeville, Langley and the 30. Acquire and develop fresh water access at Silver Lake. Penn Cove Sewer District. 31. Enlarge Miller Lake. 7.* Improvement of waste collection facilities for recrea- 32.* Develop a salt water rearing area. tion developments including small boat harbors. 33.* Increase size of Whidbey Island Game Farm. Navigation PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 B. Small boat harbor development-Oak Harbor, Phase 1. Water Quality Contro 9. Small boat harbor development-Point Partridge. 9a. Small boat harbor development-Langley. a.* Establish and operate water quality surveillance stations at key salt and fresh water locations and prepare comprehensive sewerage plan for the Islands. Recreation Watershed Management 10. Development of a beach recreation site north of Dugvalla Bay. b.* Provide technical assistance and management for State 11. Development of an urban recreation area at Oak and Federal lands. Harbor. C.. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other 12. Development of two recreation areas in Penn Cove. private practices. 13. Development of a beach recreation area south of Coupeville. Fish and Wildlife 14. Development of a beach recreation area in Admiralty B ay. d.* Conduct lake fertilization studies. 15. Development of a beach recreation area near Green- e.* Educational programs on the use of wildlife resources. bank. f.* Perform ark inventory of shellfish stocks and recrea- 16. Development of a beach recreation area near Brush tional use of tidelands. Point. g.* Acquire title or easements to land for wildlife habitat 17. Development of a beach recreation area in Mutiny development and hunter access. B ay. 18. Development of two beach recreation areas near Langley. *Project or program not shown on Figure 4 A-3 5 TABLE 9. Future projects and programs, Whidbey-Camano Islands (Cont'd) PROJECTS 1980-2000 Fish and Wildlife .Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 55.* Develop additional access areas and habitat areas. 34.1 Construct the water supply pipeline from Stilla- guamish River to Camano Island. PROGRAMS 1980-2000 Water Quality Control Water Quality Control 35. Enlarge and expand waste treatment and sewer facili- h. Continue water quality monitoring, evaluation and ties at Oak'Harbor, Coupeville, Langley, Greenbank control programs. and Clinton, 36. Provide waste treatment facilities at recreation devel- Watershed Management opments and small boat harbors. i. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other Navigation private practices. j, Provide technical assistance and management for State 37. Enlargement of small boat harbor development at Oak and Federal lands. Harbor. 38. Construct small boat harbor development at Utsalady. Fish and Wildlife Watershed Management k. Continue fish and wildlife programs. 39. Small watershed multiple-purpose project -North PROJECTS 2000-2020 Whidbey Island. 40. Small watershed multiple-purpose project -Central Water Quality Control Whidbey Island. 41. Small watershed multiple-purpose project -South 56. Enlarge and expand waste treatment facilities at Oak Whidbey Island. Harbor, Coupeville, Greenbank, Langley and Clinton. 42. Small watershed multiple-purpose project -Camano 57.* Provide waste treatment facilities at recreation devel- Island. opments and small boat facilities. Recreation Navigation 43. Development of a recreation area near Silver Lake. 58. Enlargement of the small boat harbor development- 44. Development of two recreation areas near Crescent Utsalady, Harbor. 59. Development of a small boat harbor-Camanols. 45. Development of a beach recreation area near Penn 60. Development of a small boat harbor-Dugualla Bay. Cove. 61. Development of a small boat harboe-Coupeville. 46. Development of a beach recreation area near Race 62. Development of a small boat harbor-Useless Bay. Lagoon. 63. Development of a small boat harbor-Cultus Bay. 47. Development of two beach recreation areas near Greenbank. Recreation 48. Development of a beach recreation area near Bush Point. 64, Development of three beach recreation sites south of 49. Development of a beach recreation area near Mutiny Ault Field. 8 ay. 65, Development of three beach recreation sites near 50. Development of a beach recreation area near Lone Crescent Harbor. Lake. 66. Development of three beach recreation sites near Penn 51. Development of two beach recreation areas on east Cove. side Camano Island. 67. Development of three beach recreation sites near 52. Development of one beach recreation area near North Bluff. Triangle Cove-Camano Island. 68. Development of three beach recreation sites near 53. Development of one beach recreation area on Camano Lagoon Point. I sland. 69. Development of three beach recreation sites near 54. Development of two beach recreation areas on east Stanwood. side Camano Island. 70. Development of three beach recreation sites near Elger B ay. 'Project or program not shown on Figure 4 A-3 6 M V MEN 10 "'a gc n' M 525 39 UP W H1137EY ver RON 35,56 4 Lkew I 4 0110 "ol- 0 2 3 -5,11 C AN, 2 5, 34 17, ou Mi!2 IZ>LANL) A 79 X 04 n, L "N qg'T" 1'@11 A 6 18 AN In 5A 0 U _T6 re 19 6 ITEMS NOT SHOWN ON MAP _t4l A 2 N, R Miller. Rural and small community water supply projects M Lk rpra De e r MDR Irrigable lands and private irrigation developments MR, MR- Lake A Terminal and water-transport oriented industrial lands Small watershed boundaries Scenic highway and potential recreation river segments Fish and wildlife projects yet to be sited See functional appendix for location maps LEGEND Proposed Proposed early-action FEATURE long-range Scale in Miles projects projects 5 0 5 10 M & I Water Supply 4111--11111. Irrigation WHIDBEY-CAMANO ISLANDS Water Quality Control Navigation Ak Power P NOTE: Potential nuclear power and pumped-storage Flood Control sites are not shown. Sea Appendix IX, Power. Watershed Management A Recreation A 41104 Fish & Wildlife FIGURE 4. Comprehensive Plan Elements 10@ Dam and Reservoir A-37' TABLE 9. Future projects and programs, Whidbey-Camano Islands (Cont') Fish and Wildlife Watershed Management 71.* Continue developing access, marine fish facilities and M. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other habitat areas. private practices. n. Provide technical assistance and management for State PROGRAMS 2000-2020 and Federal lands. Water Quality Control Fish and Wildlife 1. Continue water quality monitoring, evaluation and 0. Continue fish and wildlife programs. control programs. *Project or program not shown-on' Figure 4 A-38 COUNTIES AFFECTED: Snohomish MW King At R 2@ Up 01H ag '251, SNOHOMISH BASIN SUMMARY OF PLAN Power facilities at a multiple-purpose storage project and downstream reregulating dam on the North Fork Early Action 1970-1980 of the Snoqualmie River would have an installed During this period municipal and industrial capacity of 60,000 kilowatts and an estimated aver- water supply needs of the city of Everett and its age annual energy output of about 32,000 kilowatts. service area would be satisfied through raising of These projects are included in the early action Culmback Dam on the Sultan River. Ground water portion of the Plan. resources would continue to supply small and rural Multiple-purpose storage projects on the North communities with industry also continuing to meet a and Middle Forks of the Snoqualmie River would portion of its water requirements by pumping from provide significant flood control for the Snoqualmie the Snohomish River or one of its sloughs. River flood plain. The projects would provide a About 6,100 acres of cropland would be placed 100-year level of flood protection along the Sno- under irrigation with water supplied by individual qualmie River from North Bond to Snoqualmie Falls, farmers from both surface and ground sources. This and approximately 25-year protection from Sno- increase would be offset somewhat by 4,100 acres of qualn-tie Falls to the confluence of the Skykomish land which would be taken out of crop production River. Flood control storage provided from second and put to higher more intensive use. stage construction of CuImback Dam on the Sultan Compliance with Washington State water River would enable a 100-year level of flood protec- quality standards would be obtained through instal- tion along the lower Sultan River. In the lower lation of adequate collection and treatment facilities Snohomish River significant contributions to flood by a number of communities and cities in the Basin. damage reduction would result from both the Sno- Pulp mills would remove settleable solids from mill qualmie and Sultan River projects. These projects, effluents prior to discharge and would install ade- together with the setting back of levees at French quate outfalls and diffusers to achieve maximum Creek and Marshland drainage districts would reduce dilution and dispersion into Puget Sound. A water the frequency of winter flooding of the districts at a quality surveillance program would be expanded in current reoccurrence interval of once every 2 to 4 order to provide an adequate monitoring system with years to once every 25 years. As the Snohomish River sampling stations on marine and fresh water. A delta is developed the existing natural floodways comprehensive sewerage plan would be developed for would be adjusted by enlarging the channel capacity the Basin. of the Snohomish River and its sloughs as it enters Navigation needs would be met through chan- into Possession Sound to insure 100-year level of nel deepening projects on the East Waterway and on flood protection for these industrial developments. the Lower Snohomish River, below the Highway 99 Flood plain management would provide an effective Bridge. These channels would be deepened to ac- means of reducing future flood damages through land commodate bulk carriers and freighters. Lands found use zoning of lands in the flood plain consistent with to be suitable for terminal or water transport-oriented the levels of protection provided and aid in the industrial development would be retained for this retention of open spaces and greenbelts. Flood- purpose to insure future availability. Development of proofing and warning systems would also be imple- the Snohomish River delta and a dredge fill in Everett mented. These measures would contribute signifi- Harbor would begin during this period in order to cantly to the reduction of future flood damages and provide a basis for future port expansion, Concurrent are relied upon to a large measure in the Skykornish with development of the delta open spaces and River Basin. recreation areas would be set aside to meet environ- Two small watershed multiple-purpose projects mental needs. Wet moorage would be provided for are planned for implementation during this period to pleasure boaters through the construction of two achieve floodwater damage reduction and water small boat harbors with 3,130 moorage slips. management. One project is located in the Patterson Power needs for the Basin would be satisfied by Creek drainage and the other in the Snohomish the Northwest Regional system which is discussed Estuary. These projects consist of stabilized channels under Power in the Area portion of this Report. and outlet control structures, Important comple- A-40 ments to the watershed management projects are the placed under irrigation, during this period with water programs of technical assistance and management and supplied primarily from the Snoqualn-fie, Skykomish, land treatment and drainage. Snohornish and Pilchuck Rivers as well as some Campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, and boat ground water development in the Snohomish sub- launching ramps would be developed on existing basin. public lands together with the acquisition of addi- Existing treatment and collection facilities tional land and water areas to satisfy recreational would be expanded commensurate with the growth in needs. Recreation sites would be developed as part of population and industrial development toinsure that the multiple-purpose storage projects on the North the State water quality standards are continually met. and Middle Forks of the Snoqualmic River. Addi- The water quiility monitoring, evaluation and control tional land and water areas would be acquired along program would be maintained. the Puget Sound shoreline to provide badly needed Further development of the Snohomish Delta is marine parks. Over 100 recreation areas would be envisioned during this period as terrninal and water expanded or developed before 1980. transport-oriented industrial sites would be required Land acquisition including public access and to meet the navigation needs of the Basin. A fish and wildlife enhancement projects would be continuous dredge operation would be undertaken to undertaken to increase the opportunities for this develop new lands through dredge fill as the ship form of outdoor recreation. Additional fish hatch- channels are maintained. Continuous dredging would eries would be constructed for both resident and be required in order to maintain these channels as the migratory fish together with rearing ponds, spawning silt load of the Snohomish River is extremely high. channels and fish passage improvements including a Before the year 2020 the ultimate development pf collection and . transportation facility to provide the Snohomish Delta would occur with a self-main- migratory fish access upstream from the 268-foot taining floodway connecting the Possession Bay and high Snoqualmie Falls. Low flow augmentation Ebey Slough where the slough leaves the Snohomish would be provided from the North and Middle Fork River at about river mile 11. At this point a control Snoqualn-lie multiple-purpose storage projects and structure would be constructed and the Snohorriish from the Sultan River project. Important cross- River channel from river mile I I to its mouth would sectional stream surveys would be undertaken during no longer have the silt load as the river would be this period in order to determine the minimum and diverted through the floodway. This channel would optimum stream flows required for fish production. be deepened to 20 feet from the Highway 99 Bridge Subsequent to these cross-sectional surveys further to river mile 10 and from the mouth of the river to studies of new projects may be required as well as the Highway 99 Bridge the channel would be deep- reconsideration of the operation of existing projects. ened to 46 feet. A large number of wet moorages would be provided through public small boat harbor Long-Range, 1980-2020 projects with over 11 of these projects planned Expansion of the transmission sys tem from between 1980 and the year 2020 to supply 19,620 moorages. During this period all lands that were Lake Chaplain to the distribution works would be indicated in the navigation study as being suitable for necessary as well as the development of an additional water supply source to satisfy the Everett service area terminal or water transport-oriented industrial de- water supply needs through the year 2020. The new velopment would be utilized for this purpose. source would be the Snohomish River with a pump- Power development would probably include ing and treatment plant located near the river pumped-storage at a number of the potential sites upstream from tidal influences. The plant together within the Basin. Oil or gas-fueled steam electric with the Sultan system would provide an adequate plants may also be located during this period to meet source of water to meet Everett's needs. The small short-time peaking requirements, Development of and rural communities would be supplied from nuclear electric generating plants may occur but Everett and the Seattle water systems with some specific sites have not been determined and would be further development of surface water in the lower dependent upon future studies that considered shore- Snohomish River by industry expected up to the year line characteristics, nearness to major load centers 2000. and impacts on the environment. An additional 5,200 acres of land would be The only additional flood control structures A-41 envisioned after 1980 would be levees to provide the providing of recreation facilities. The recreation 100-year winter flood protection for the communities facilities provided at the North and Middle Fork of Carnation, Gold Bar, Skykorr@ish, Sultan, Monroe, Snoqualmie projects would be Cxpanded com- and Snohomish. These projects, generally would be a mensurate with the growtb in recreation use of these matter of raising existing structures to heights suf- reservoirs. The tributaries of the Skykornish River ficient to provide the 100-year protection, Flood may be included in a State system of scenic and plain management would be continued with zoning recreational rivers for retention in a free-flowing state by the two counties which divide the Basin being for public use. Also, the South Fork of the Sno- required to guide future development and p revent qualmie and the Pi Ichuck Rivers could be included in unwarranted development in the flood plain. Addi- the sy s tem. tional floodway improvement would occur in the Additional fishing opportunities would be pro- Snohomish Delta which would culminate in a self- vided through anadromous and resident fish enhance- maintaining flood channel from approximately river ment measures. A number of fish passage improve- mile I I near the head of Ebey Slough to the mouth ments are planned during the long-range period as of the river. The channel would be straightened and well as additional spawning habitat development. gradually widen as it approached Puget Sound. Wildlife preservation and enhancement programs Modification of the outlet works at the South Fork begun prior to 1980 would be continued. of the Tolt River storage project would be under- Table 10 summarizes the Snohomish Basin taken to gain some incremental flood control at the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, showing the Snoqualmie system. benefits and costs for the early action portion of the Further programs and projects would be under- Plan, and provides a summary of investment costs by taken to satisfy watershed management needs. These water resource features for the entire 50-year period would include nine projects and a significant program ending in 2020. The early action portion of the Plan of technical assistance and land treatment and water includes programs amounting to S I 11,409,000 and management. projects costing $365,781,000 for a total investment Additional development of campgrounds, of $477,190,000. Program and project investment picnic areas, and other recreation facilities would be c osts for the 1980-2000 period amount to undertaken after 1980 at over 270 sites throughout $376,725,000 and for the 2000-2020 period, the Basin, on public lands as well as on private lands, $378,905,000; for a total 50-year investment of with both public and private sectors participating in $1,232,820,000. A-42 TABLE 10. Comprehensive Plan, Snohomish Basin 1970-1980 Average A rinual 198&2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 Investi-nerill Benefits Investment Investment Investment Feature Items Costs Costs G ross Net Costs Costs Costs IS1000) IS1000) (S1000) (SIGOO) ($10001 (S10001 ($10001 Management Programs Monaoring, Evalualion and Water Quality Control Control Programs 2,400 2,512 1,400 6,312 Flood Control Flood Plain Management 55 100 100 255 Watershed Management Programs 108.504 134,227 135,540 378,271 Fish& Wildlife Programs 450 -- 750 750 1,950 Total Programs $111.409 $137.589 $137,790 S 386,788 Nonstorage Projects M&I Water Supply Ground Water Use 180 20 206 0 0 0 180 Surface Water Use 28,7434 2,5124 2,5126 0 64,382 19,465 112,590 Irrigation Water Supply Ground Water Use 135 22 226 0 135 0 270 Surface Water Use 690 114 1146 0 392 175 1,257 Water Quality Control Sewerage Treatment and Colleclioun Facilities 97 390 4,588 4.588 0 32,480 43,700 173,570 Navigation Channels "200 120 172 52 7,696 0 9,896 Power2 Small Boat Harbors3 (6.306) (404)3 (58513 (181)3 (9,725)3 (29.909)3 145,940)3 Flood Control Channels and Levees 31,950 1,545 4,130 2,585 39,8705 36,255 109,075 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction. Rehabilitation and Protection, and Water Management 2,503 142 397 255 12,387 100 14,990 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Recreation Facilities 60,900 4,039 5,720 1,681 69,500 123,200 253.600 Fish & Wildlife Land Acquisition, Access and Enhancement Facilities 8,797 987 2,728 1,?41 12,294 18,220 39,311 Total Nonstorage $233,488 $T1.017 17,331 @6,314 $239,136 $241,115 $ 713,739 Storage Projects CuImback Dam (Sultan Riverl M&I Water Supply 6,798 318 350 32 0 0 6,798 Flood Control 8.b42 443 707 264 0 0 8,642 Fish Enhancement 7,604 369 500 131 0 0 7,604 Total Project $23,044 $ 1.130 $1.557 $427 $ 0 $ 0 $ 23,044 North Fork Snoqualmie Power 32,845 1,798 1,867 69 0 0 32,845 Flood Control 12,138 665 690 25 0 0 12,138 Recreation 16,959 929 964 35 0 0 16,959 Fish Enhancement 1,618 89 92 3 0 0 1,618 Total Project $63,560 $3,481 $3,613 $ 132 $ 0 $ 0 $ 63,560 Middle Fork Snoqualmie F locid Control 25,088 1,169 1,657 488 0 0 25,081 Recreation 19,683 1,184 1,296 112 0 0 19,683 Fish Enhancement 918 44 54 10 0 0 918 Total Project $45,689 $2,397 $3.007 $610 $ 0 $ 0 $ 45,689 Total Storage $132,293 $ 7,008 $ 8,177 $1,169 $ 0 $ 0 $ 132,293 Total Program and Projects $477.190 $18,025 $25,508 $7,483 $376,725 $378,905 $1,232,820 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs for nonstorage and storage projects. 2 Power facilities not included in basin plan. 3 General Navigation facilities cost and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation. 4 Includes costs for additions to Everett's Sultan River transmission system. 5 Includes cost of modifying existing South Fork Tolt River project. 6 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. A-43 SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT The proj ects and programs of the Comprehensive Plan are summarized in Table 11 by period. The project numbers identify features on Figure 5. TABLE 11. Future projects and programs, Snohomish Basin Projects Prior to 1980 Project Project No. No. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 17. Dredge-fill of Tract Q and portions of Smith Island 1. Water supply storage for Everett-second stage of for terminal and water-transport-oriented industrial Sultan River multiple-purpose project (CuImback 18. development. Dam). Small boat harbor development-Tract 0. 2. improvement of water supply transmission system 19. Small boat harbor clevelopment-Meadowdale. by constructing second tunnel between Sultan Power River and Lake Chaplain and installing additional 22. Hydroelectric power instal lation-North Fork Sno- pipelines-Everett. 3.' Expansion of small and rural community municipal qualmie multiple-purpose project. and industrial water supply and transmission Sys- temS. Flood Control 4.* Increase capacity of self-supplied industrial surface 1. Flood control storage-second stage of Sultan water system. River multiple-purpose project. 5. Construction of diversion dam and transmission 20. Modification of Snohomish River floodway at facilities on North Fork Tolt River-Seattle (for mouth of river. Cedar-Green Basins). 21. Setting back existing levees from River Mile 10.0 to River Mile 18.5 of Marsh Land and French Irrigation Creek Drainage Districts. 6.* Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping 22. Flood control storage-North Fork Snoqualmie multiple-purpose project. and sprinkler systems (private). 23. Flood control storage-Middle Fork Snoqualmie Water Quality Control multiple-purpose project. 7. installation of facilities to remove all settleable Watershed Management solids from mill effluents prior to discharge with 24. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Snoho- adequate outfall and diffuser-pulp mills at mish River Estuary. Evprptt. 25. Small watershed multiple-purpose oroject-Patter- 8. Expansion of secondary treatment, disinfection, son Creek. and sewage interception facilities at Everett. 9. Expansion of disinfection facilities at Marysville. Recreation 10. Installation of collection and treatment facilities at 22. Installation of recreation facilities as part of North Lake Stevens. Fork Snoqualmie multiple-purpose project. 11. Expansion of secondary treatment and disinfection 23. Installation of recreation facilities as part of Middle facilities at Snohomish. Fork Snoqualrnie multiple-purpose project. 12. Installation of sewage interception at Snoqualmie. 26. Development of two recreation sites along salt- 13. Installation of secondary treatment facilities; Mon- water shoreline from northern boundary of Basin roe, Sultan, Index, North Bend, Snoqualmie Falls, to mouth of Snohomish River. and Granite Falls. 27. Development of four recreation sites along salt- 14.0 improvement of waste collection facilities for water shoreline from southern boundary of Basin recreation developments including small boat har- to mouth of Snohomish River. bom 28. Development of three recreation sites. 29. Development of one recreation site. Navigation 30. Development of two recreation sites. 15. Channel improvement-East Waterway. 31. Development of three recreation sites along Snoho- 16. Channel improvement-Snohomish River Mile 0.0 mish River from mouth to confluence of Skyko- to Highway 99 bridge crossing. mish and Snoqualmie Rivers. *Projects not shown on Fiqure 5 A44 LEGEND 00-Y Proposed Proposed FEATURE long-range projects ylll@ 91 early-action projects 4 M & I Water Supply 0-> '4e 0 672 (18 Irrigation C-1 62 Water Quality Control 0 Navigation 7 D Povrer 88 20 29 X Flood Control X5A73 (3) Watershed Management 0 XMarysville A Recreation A 6I'llY -=>4 <=>4 Fish and Wildlife 29 r_'_ Dom and Reservoir 43 15 Etf 63 a, nit. Fcil@, l;.gl Gr. 3 44 VDMONDS 61, 13 NOTE: Potential nuclear 64 74 39 power and pumped. A73,97 0o5 30 A 73 storage sites are 066 N not shown. See 121 A Appendix IX, Power. A20 1.4,9X 51, 0 8,83 73,96 30 2 'e.. 74 70Man,. 2 13 3,99 47 0V.n 94 29 f, N@'_ 74,99 60 068 C- l4w, 'T rg@ S.It.nA 32 7 30 13 uv.11 A 73,97 pl@ A7@@' 60 9 74,;,, 7,4@9 Gold Bar @5-@ 069 C" 'q@ C.-flon 5 3 Ti 0 so@+ 73,97 @4 7 0. 3,9' WR 33A ga g ;1111'@N 77,102 .11 City '111 gc' "34gL F 6 d' ` N, g ...... h" A 30 61 A-1-11W_ 1, @ "I @!'; ZA, e-1 'y"" "R 72,96 A% ell 9 8l 35 74,98 i.49 22 S oqual. 72 96 Fall R Inc. 12 2 Z' ualmie @i ?,i r,& S..q.'.1 ."J'3 0 k N P22Nq,@\ 1;10, 1@ I., P I' m , P' @ N "N' Nort Bend 13 0 '04 ."4'1 '"" 29 4 ';V' h' @FM V. M M'ddi F k 101-V,- "'MIP Al, 73,78 3 Q'&, lil, Xhfi- @Z' @F 'R '@J p'A a k M H Qk ITEMS NOT SHOWN ON MAP P lo, R-1 ..d -I/ c.-rify w.f., t,,pply p,.i.ct@ I"ig.ble lords nd pri-te ir,ig ction developments 50Scale in Miles5 10 Ter.irol nd:,t-Jr,nsPo,t oriented ,"Just'i'l I" , 4 SNOHOMISH BASIN S.ofl w.t.r,h.d @ ... d-jes 0. Scenic high.,y nd P,tenfi,l river segments FIGURE 5. Comprehensive Plan Elements Fish and wildlife projects yet to be sited See f,ndio,,i pp,rdi, for locotion -ps A-45 TABLE 11. Future projects and programs, Snohomish Basin (Cont'd) Project Project No. No. Recreation (Cont'd) 32. Development of three recreation sites along Skyko- d. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other mish River from mouth to National Forest. private practices. 33. Development of four recreation sites along Sno- Fish and Wildlife qualmie River from mouth to National Forest. 34. Development of 60 recreation sites in the National e. Develop lake fertilization techniques. Forest. f. Make wildlife population analysis and timberland management practices studies, develop habitat im- Fish and Wildlife provement techniques and an education program 1. Low flow augmentation and flood control-second on proper game hunting concepts, and begin a stage construction of Sultan River multiple- program with land owners for game habitat reten- purpose project. tion and hunter access. 9* Develop f ish disease controls and new toxicants. 22. Low flow augmentation and flood control-North h. Conduct cross-sectional stream surveys to deter- Fork Snoqualmie multiple-purpose storage project. m ,ine minimum and optimum strearnflows for fish. 23. Low flow augmentation and flood control-Middle i. Locate, survey, and mark boundaries of all State- Fork Snoqualmie multiple-purpose storage project. owned second class tidelands in the Basin. Take 35. Construction of fish trapping facilities to collect and haul salmon above Snoqualmie Falls. Steps to reserve all such lands for public use except as required for specific circumstances. 36.* Construction of two spawning channels, each 1 j. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and mile in length. recreational use of tidelands. 37.* Acquisition of 50 miles of streambank access, development of boat access at 13 lakes and enlargement of one lake. Projects 1980 to 2000 38.* Construction ot trout hatchery for stocking lakes. 39.* Correction of gravel compaction problems in Municipal and Industrial Water Supply streams. 47. Increase of transmission capacity of Everett water 40.* Construction of steelhead trout rearing ponds. system. 41. Correction of clay slides in Taylor and Snoqualmie 48. Construction of water supply pumping and treat- R ivers. ment plant off Snohomish River-Everett. 42.* Construction of trout hatchery for stocking 49. Increase storage cat)acity of North Fork Snoqual- streams. mie River project and install transmission lines- 43. Acquisition and development of 600 acres of Seattle (for Cedar-Green Basins). - estuarine habitat on Ebey Island. 50.* Installation of small and rural community munici- 44. Acquisition and development of 640 acres of pal and industrial water supply transmission lines band-tailed pigeon habitat in Pilchuck River drain- from Everett and Seattle systems. 51.* Increase of capacity of self-supolied industrial age. surface water system. 45.* Acquisition and development of upland bird habi- tat. 46.* Construction of addition to existing game farm to Irrigation rear 8,000 pheasants annually. 52. Construction of individual farm irrigation pumping and sprinkler systems (private). PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 Water Quality Control 53.* Expansion of waste treatment and interception Water Quality Control facilities for municipalities, industry, and recrea- 8. Establish and operate water quality surveillance tion development. stations at key salt and fresh water locations and prepare comprehensive sewerage plan for the Basin. Navigation 54. Improvement of shallow draft channel-Highway Flood Control 99 bridge to R iver Mile 10.0. b. Establish and administer county-wide flood plain 55. Small boat harbor expansion-Tract Q. zoning measures under flood plain management 56. Small boat harbor development-Big Gulch. program. 57. Small boat harbor development-Edmonds North. Watershed Management 58.* Development of additional water transport- C. Provide technical assistance and management for oriented industrial lands in the Snohomish River State and Federal lands. Delta. *Projects not shown on Figure 5 A-46 TABLE 11. Future projects and programs, Snohomish Basin (Cont'd) Project Project No. No. Flood Control PROGRAMS 1980 to 2000 59. Improvement of , floodway-Snohomish River, River Mile 3 to River Mile 6.3. Water Quality Control 60. Improvement of. levee; Carnation, Gold Bar, k. Continue water quality, Imonitoring, evaluation and Skykomish, Sultan and Monroe. control programs. 61. Modification of outlet works for flood control Flood Control storage-South Fork Tolt River. 1. Continue flood plain management program. Watershed Managemen Watershed Management 62. Small watershed multiple-purpose project- M. Provide technical assistance.for on-farm and other Tulalip-Warm Beach. private practices. 63. Small watershed multiple-purpose project- n. Provide technical assistance and management for Snohomish Estuary. State and Federal lands. 64. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Lake Stevens. Fish and Wildlife 65. Small watershed multiple-purpose project- Pilchuck River. P. Continue fish and wildlife prograrfis. 66. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Woods Creek. 67. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Catheart area. PROJECTS 2000 to 2020 68. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Skyko- m ish A iver. 69. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Sno- Municipal and Industrial Water Supply qualmie River. 83. Expansion of Snohomish River water supply pumping and treatment plant-Everett. Recreation 84.* Installation of small and rural community munici- 70. Development of three recreation sites along salt- pal and industrial water supply transmission lines water shoreline from the northern boundary of the from Everett. Basin to the mouth of the Snohomish River. Irrigation 71. Development of three recreation sites along salt- 85.* Construc n and expansion of individual farm water shoreline from southern boundary to the Basin to the mouth of the Snohomish River. irrigation pumping and sprinkler systems. 72. Development of three recreation sites in this Water Quality Control 73. vicinity. 86.* Expansion of waste treatment 9nd interception Development of two recreation sites in this vici- nity. facilities for municipalities, industry, and recrea- 74. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. tion. 75. Development of three recreation sites along S noho- Navigation mish River from mouth to confluence of Skyko- 87. Small boat harbor development-Tulalip Bay, First mish and Snoqualmie Rivers. Phase and Second Phase. 76. Development of four recreation sites along Skyko- 88. Small boat harbor development-Priest Point West. mish River from mouth to National Forest. 89. Small boat harbor clevelopment-Mukilteo and 77. Development of five recreation sites along Snoqual- Mukilteo South. mie River from mouth to National Forest. 90. Small boat harbor development-Picnic Point 78. Development of 70 recreation sites in the National North and Norma Beach North. Forest. 91. Small boat harbor development-Port Susan-Warm Beach. Fish and Wildlife. 92.* Development of additional water transport- 79. Construction of a fish passage facility on Olney oriented industrial lands inSnohomish RiverDelta. Creek. 80.* Construction of fish passage facilities or removal of obstructions on four tributaries. Flood Control 81.* Improvement of fish habitat on 24 streams. 93. Improvement of floodway-Snohomish River, 82.* Construction of two salmon hatcheries. River Mile 6.3 to River Mile 10.0. *Projects not shown on Figure 5 A-41 TABLE 11. Future projects and programs, Snohomish Basin (Cont'd) Project Project No. No. Watershed Management Fish and Wildlife 94. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Sultan 104.* Construction of four hatchery equivalent stations River. and development of 80 acres of rearing facilities Recreation and I mile of spawning channel. 95. Development of one recreation site along saltwater shoreline from the southern boundary of the basin PROGRAMS 2000 to 2020 to the mouth of the Snohomish River. 96. Development of four recreation sites in this vici- Water Quality Control nity. q. Continue water quality monitoring, evaluation and 97, Development of three recreation sites in this control programs. vicinity. 98. Development of two recreation sites in this vici- Flood Control nity. r. Continue flood plain management program. 99. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. 100. Development of one recreation site along Snoho- Watershed Management mish River from mouth to confluence of Skyko- S. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other mish and Snoqualmie Rivers. private practices. 101. Development of five recreation sites along Skyko- t. Provide technical assistance and management for mish River from mouth to National Forest. State and Federal lands. 102. Development of six recreation sites along Snoqual- mie River from mouth to National Forest. Fish and Wildlife 103. Development of 100 recreation sites in the Na- U. Continue fish and wildlife programs. tional Forest. *Projects not shown on Figure 5 A-48 COUNTIES AFFECTED: illnut j,@@ff Snohomish s5R King 'A 'Rj tz" U=vll n lR2 CEDAR-GREEN BASINS SUMMARY OF PLAN A multiple -purpose storage project on the Early Action 1970-1980 Cedar River at Chester Morse Lake would provide During this period municipal and industrial 50,000 acre-feet of flood control storage which, water supply needs of the city of Seattle and its together with additional levees and channel work service area, which includes Bellevue, would be planned after 1980, would provide the Cedar River satisfied through construction of a diversion facility flood plain with protection against floods with an on the North Fork of the Tolt River in the qccurrence interval in excess of 100 years. In the Snohomish River Basin. Ground water resources Green River flood plain sixteen miles of levees and would continue to supply small and @ural com- channel work along the Green River below Auburn munities with industry meeting a portion of its future are planned to provide a channel capacity capable of growth in water supply requirements by pumping accommodating the 12,000 cfs of controlled flow from nearby surface waters. release by Howard A. Hanson Dam at Auburn and the No new crop land is expected to be placed additional water pumped into the river by the valley under irrigation during this period with a continual drainage projects located on either side of the river. decrease of irrigated land anticipated due to expan- These projects provide for removal of valley drainage sion of residential housing and industry into farming through pumping plants and collection channels. The areas. flood plain of the Green River Valley would have Compliance with Washington State water protection in excess of 100 years as a result of this quality standards would be obtained through instal- project. Flood plain management is relied upon to lation of adequate collection and treatment facilities retain the open space and green belts remaining in the by a number of communities and cities in the Basins. Sammamish River drainage and to guide future use of Continued expansion of the Metro waste collection the Cedar and Green River flood plains consistent and treatment system is planned. Several outfall with the degree of flood protection provided. facilities located along the Puget Sound shoreline Two small watershed flood prevention and would be improved to assure adequate disposal of water management projects are planned for instal- treated wastes. Further monitoring, evaluation and lation prior to 1980 to achieve damage reduction and information collection for control purposes would be drainage improvement. One project is located in the undertaken to insure compliance with the State Swamp, Bear, North Creek watershed and the other standards. A comprehensive sewerage plan would be in the Evans Creek watershed, both tributary to the developed for the Basins, and a comprehensive Sammarnish River. These structural improvements investigation would be made of the Cedar River-Lake would be complemented by ongoing and accelerated Washington system to insure maintenance of water land treatment measures. quality. Campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, and boat Navigation needs would be met through chan- launching ramps would be developed on existing nel deepening projects on the Duwan-iish River public lands together with the acquisition of addi- waterways and through retention of lands found to tional land and water areas to satisfy recreational be suitable for terminal or water transport-oriented needs. Additional land and water areas would be industrial development. Pleasure boating needs would acquired along the Puget Sound shoreline to provide be met through full development of potential sites for badly needed marine parks. Over 50 recreation sites small boat harbors in the Basins. Moorages would be are planned for improvement or development before provided for pleasure boaters through the construc- 1980 with many sites located within the urban areas. tion of three small boat harbors with 2,100 moorage The plan calls for the preservation and the public slips. accessibility of the many natural attractions in the Power needs for the Basins would be satisfied Basins including the shoreline of Puget Sound, Lake by a Northwest Regional System which is discussed Washington, Lake Sammani-ish and a 12-n-dle section under Power in the Area portion of this Report. of the Green River Gorge from the town of Kanasket Additional hydro-electric power production may be to the Kummer Bridge. possible as part of the multiple -purpose storage Land acquisition including access and fish and project planned on the Cedar River at Chester Morse wildlife enhancement projects would be undertaken Lake. A-5 0 to increase the opportunities for this form of outdoor Provisions have been made for the small. water recreation. Additional trout hatcheries, artificial purveyors to be supplied from Tacoma and Seattle propagation for salmon and steelhead, including water systems when needed. Industry currently using rearing ponds and spawning channels, would be nearby surface waters are expected to continue doing constructed. Low flow augmentation would be pro- so primarily for washing purposes. These flows are vided through additional conservation storage from normally returned to the river a short distance from Howard Hanson Dam on the Green River and through the point from which they were diverted. releases from the proposed Chester Morse Lake An additional 800 acres is expected to be multiple-purpose project on the Cedar River. Modifi- placed under irrigation during this period with water cation of the salt water drain outlet and the fish supplied primarily frorn the, Green River as these ladder at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks, at the lands are located in the upper Green River Valley entrance to the Lake Washington Ship Canal, would above Auburn. A net decrease in the total number of provide improvements in fish passage at that facility. acres irrigated in the Cedar-Green Basins is expected Important cross-sectional stream surveys would be from the 2,600 acres irrigated in., 1966 to a projected taken during this*period in order to determine the 1,100 acres by the year 2020. minimum and optimum stream flows required to fish Existing treatment in collection facilities would production. Subsequent to these cross-sectional be expanded commensurate with the growth of surveys further studies of the new projects may be populatio 'n and industrial development to insure the required as -well as reconsideration of the operation State water quality standards are continually com- procedures of existing projects. plied with. A water quality monitoring evaluation.and control program would be maintained. Significant increases in small boat harbor de- Long-Range, 1980-2020 vetopment are forecast for this period with over Expansion of the Seattle water system to 10,000 wet moorages,to be provided by the develop- partially satisfy the 2000 level demand may require ment of five small boat harbors. All lands that have construction of additional storage in the Cedar River been designated as having a favorable potential for watershed on the Rex River or on the main stem terminal water transport-oriented industrial develop- upstream from Chester Morse Lake. Some of this ment in the Cedar-Green Basins are expected to have water could be provided from the conservation pool been developed by this period. Joint development of made possible by increased storage at Chester Morse navigation facilities may occur with authorities in Lake, proposed as an early action project to meet adjacent basins. The Snohomish Basin is viewed as flood control and low flow augmentation needs of having an excellent potential for a large port develop- fish. A third pipeline would be constructed from the ment. Cedar River during this period. Additional water No power development is anticipated in these supply would be needed to meet the 2000 level of Basins in a long-range period with importation of demand generated by the Seattle service area. This power viewed as being the means for satisfying power water would be obtained from the North Fork of the needs. The Northwest Regional Power System has Snoqualmie River with releases from water stored by been planned with consideration given to the load the North Fork multiple-purpose project planned for requirements of the highly populated Cedar-Green implementation prior to 1980. Ultimate water supply Basins. needs of the city of Seattle could be met through The only additional flood control structures development of the North Fork of the Skykomish visioned after 1980 would be construction of levees River although this source is considered to be and channel improvements along the Cedar River tentative due to the technological changes that are from River Mile 4.5 to about 17.5 near Maple Valley. expected prior to the time when this project would This work in conjunction with the storage from the be needed. Recycling of water by industry and other Chester Morse Lake project would provide protection innovations would probably preclude the necessity of in excess of 100 years for the Cedar River flood plain this project allowing the retention of the North Fork downstream frorn Maple Valley. Remaining portions in a free flowing state. The small communities would of the Cedar flood plain are recommended for flood continue to be supplied from their existing sources of plain management, namely, zoning to insure that ground water until such time as these resources developments are consistent with the degree of become exhausted or are used to their ultimate limit. protection provided. I A-S I Further programs and projects wbuld be under- structed on the Green River to provide passage up taken to satisfy watershed management needs, These and downstream from Howard Hanson Dam. Details include six projects and a program of technical and actual feasibility of this project would be assistance, land treatment and w-ater management. determined in studies undertaken prior to 1980. Additional development of campgrounds, Clearance improvement of 2 miles of Burns and Crisp picnic areas and additional recreational facilities Creeks and six n-dles of channel on three other would be undertaken after 1980, on public lands as streams would be undertaken during this period well as on private lands with both public and private together with construction of spawning channels to sectors providing recreation facilities. In the long- provide opportunities for enhancement of anadrom- range period development of recreation facilities in ous fish runs. Artificial propagation measures includ- the municipal watersheds may be required to satisfy ing hatcheries or their equivalent also would be recreation needs. Detailed studies are required which provided to meet growth in both the sport and adequately demonstrate this need as well as evaluate commercial fisheries. the economic feasibility of recreation use, taking into Table 12 summarizes the Cedar-Green Basins account treatment. plant construction costs, if elements of the Comprehensive Plan, showing bene- warranted. About 70 recreation sites are planned for fits and costs for the early action of the Plan, and improvement or development during the long-range provides a summary of investment costs by water period. Portions of the Cedar and Green Rivers and resource features for the entire 50-year period ending tributaries may be included in a State system of in 2020. The early action of the plan includes scenic and recreation rivers for retention in a free- programs amounting to $229,941,000 and projects flowing state for pubfic use. costing $218,615,000 for a total investment of Additional fish and wildlife opportunities $448,556,000. Program and project investment cost would be provided through anadromous and resident for the 1980-2000 period amount to $671,084,000 fish enhancement measures. A facility may be con- and for the 2000-2020 period $682,599,000, for a total 50-year investment of $1,802,239,000. A-52 TABLE 12. Comprehensive Plan, Cedar-G reen Basins 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 Investment 1 - Benefits Investment 7n-vestment Investment Feature I tern costs Costs G ross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($10001 ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) i$1DOO) Management Programs Water Quality Control Monitoring, Evaluation 3,400 4,840 5,320 13,560 and Control Flood Contro I Flood Plain 147 240 240 627 Management Watershed Programs 225,954 230,301 230,044 686,299 Management Fish & Wildlife Programs 440 602 776 1,818 Total Programs $ T29,941 $ 235,983 $ 236,380 $702,304 Non-storage Projects M&I Water Supply Ground Water Use 2,400 362 3627 0 3,780 5,760 111,940 Surface Water Use 19,304 2,973 2,9737 0 10,140 22,087 51,531 Irrigation Water Ground Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 Supply Surface Water Use 0 0 0 0 55 55 110 Water Quality Control Sewerage Treatment & Collection Fac. 113,850 6,770 6.7707 0 275,800 237,000 626,650 Navigation Channels 3,779 191 339 148 0 0 3,779 Small Boat (4,139)3 (280)3 (391)3 (111)3 (20,196)3 (0) (24,335) Harborsi PovYer2 Flood Control Channel and Levees 12,000 601 723 122 1,300 0 13,300 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Water Management and Rehabilitation and Protection of Watershed Lands 2,180 119 242 123 5,510 200 7,890 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access& Rec- reation Fac. 54,425 3,792 4,560 768 70,000 104,600 229,025 F i.sh & Wildlife Land Acquisition, Access& Enhance- ment Facilities 5,067 438 1,026 588 7,916 16,517 29;500 Total Non-Storage $213,005 $15,246 $16,995 $1,749 $374,501 $386,219 $973,725 Storage Projects Chester Morse Lake4 Flood Control 4,740 263 298 35 4,740 Fish & Wildlife 870 49 55 6 870 Total Project 5,610 312 353 41 5,610 Howard Hanson Water Quality Control (Not evaluated) F ish & Wildlife (Not evaluated) M& I Water Supply N. Fork Snoqualmie6 47,6005 47,6005 M& I Water Supply Cedar R iver 13,0005 13,0005 M& I Water Supply N. Fork Skykomish6 60,0005 60,0005 Total Storage $ 610 $ 3-12 $ 3-53 $ 41 $ 60,600 $ 60,000 $ 126,210 Total Program and Projects $@48_,556 $ F5-,5 5-8 $T7-,348 $ i-,790 $E7-1-,084 $@8_2,599 $i'@02,239 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capita( costs for non-storage and storage projects. 2 Power facilities not included in basin plan. 3 General Navigation facilities costs and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation. 4. Power and municipal, and industrial water supply benefits from increased storage a! Chester Morse Lake not evaluated. 5 Includes total costs for municipal and industrial water supply and transmission lines. 6 Located in Snohomish Basin. 7 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average ann ual co sts. A-5 3 SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT The projects and programs of the Comprehensive Plan are surnmarized in Table 13 by period. The project numbers idendy features on Figure 6. TABLE 13. Future projects and programs, Cedar-Green Basins 24. Development of one recreation site. PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980. 25. Development of two recreation sites. 26. Development of four recreation sites. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 27. Development of three recreation sites along Lake 1.* Small and rural community ground water development. Union and Lake Washington Ship Canal, 2.* Self-supplied industry surface water development. 28. Development of three recreation sites along 3. Construction of diversion and transmission facilities at Sammamish River. North Fork Tolt River-Seattle. 29, Development of seven recreation sites along shoreline 4 of Lake Washington. - Expansion of existing system-Renton. 30. Development of three recreation sites along Cedar 5. Expansion of existing system-Kent. River from mouth to Landsburg Dam. 6. Expansion of existing system-Auburn. 31. Development of five recreation sites along Green River Be. Expansion of transmission facilities from Green from mouth to city of Tacoma water supply diversion River-Tacoma (for Puyallup Basin). dam. Water Quality Control Fish and Wildlife 7.* Expansion of Metro waste collection and treatment 32. * Lease and development of 10 sites for pheasant system. releases and hunting. 8. Improvement of outfall at Alki sewerage treatment 33.* Acquisition of band-tailed pigeon concentration areas. plant. 34.* Expansion of existing game farm facilities to produce 9. Improvement of outfall at Southwest Suburban Sewer 5,000 more pheasants. District, Salmon Creek plant. 35.* Acquisition and development of public access to 21 10. Improvement of outfall at Sylvia Pines Sewer District. lakes. 36. * Construction of trout hatchery. Navigation 37. * Construction of spawning channel-Cedar River, 11. Channel improvement-West Waterway. 38.* Construction of steelhead rearing pond-Green River. 12. Channel improvement-East Waterway. 39.* Acquisition and development of access on 50 miles of 13. Channel improvement-Duvvamish Channel to Ist main river and 10 miles of tributaries-Green River. Avenue South. 40. * Acquisition and development of five saltwater access 14. Channel improvement- Duwarn ish 1st Avenue South areas. to Sth Avenue South. 41. Operate Howard Hanson project to provide additional 15. Channel improvement-Duwamish 8th Avenue South low f low augmentation for f ish-G reen R iver. to head of navigation. 19. Low flow augmentation and flood control from 16. Small boat harbor development-Elliott-Pier 54. Chester Morse Lake multiple-purpose project-Cedar 17. Small boat harbor development-Des Moines. R iver. 18. Small boat harbor expansion-Seacrest Marina addition. 42. Modification of salt water drain and construction of fish ladder at H.M. Chittenden Locks-Lake Wash- Flood Control ington Ship Canal. 19. Flood control storage at Chester Morse Lake multiple- PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 purpose project-Cedar River. 20. Levee and channel improvements downstream from Water Quality Co9trol Auburn-Green River. a. Expand water quality surveillance stations at salt and fresh 'water locations monitor, and control treat- Watershed Management ment, evaluate and prepare comprehensive sewerage 21. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Swamp, plan for the Basins. Bear, and North Creeks. b. Perform in-depth comprehensive investigation of 22. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Evans Cedar River-Lake Washington system to analyze Creek. interrelationships of hydrology, nutrient concen- trations, salinity concentrations, and diversion from Recreation the system for water supply to determine the basis 23. Development of six recreation sites along saltwater for management of the system for maintenance of shoreline. water quality. Flood Control *Project not shown on Figure 6 C. Establish and administer county-wide flood plain zoning measures under flood plain management program. A-54 Irkilver Lake ."h. LAN 5 3VII A 0"" ;"' 21 e LEGEND f 2 49 Proposed FEATURE Proposed long-range SNO 0ml NTY early-action projects projects B. dmonds e COUNTY k 25A M & I Water Supply IR "a Af60 Irrigation chni-I gg'@@p m- 65 A 28 Water Oual@iity Control 64 Aft Navigation daL Redmond Power "li Flood Control 0 22 rJ .21 Watershed Management 0 52 I "E A Recreation A 53 Fish and WildliFe .40104 a 404 IINIX'rm 1-111@' A Dam and Reservoir 96.0 Beaver Lak;, At' If A - 625 "g-, 10 L - pin. 'k60\ 5 NOTE: Potential nuclear power and ;Washington 0 6 pumped-storage sites are not, shown. 2A 4A A 61 See Appendix IX, Power. Renton 5`1 54 2 A -23 q A 61,80 57 4, JS N, -ted.N V s Main Kent Lake Fail, Is &lley A Youngs 25t6l 176 60,80 ... ng I C 0 MoZ L.rdsourg A 25 20 24 45 R; 5 62,il -A: Black biamond A % - MIN uln 26 IV. Inier a - 69 5 U 60 67, 31 41 e011 G I... Rive ITEMS NOT SHOWN ON Rai., A Rural and small community water supply projects J:4 A e@ n 1. Irrigable land and private irrigation developmentse, J, Terminal and woter-transport oriented industrial lands st Small watershed boundaries Scenic highway and potential recreation river segments Scott in Miles Fish and wildlife projects yet to be siled 5 0 5 10 See functional appendix for location mops CEDAR-GREEN BASINS FIGURE 6. Comprehensive Plan Elements A-55 TABLE 13. Future projects and programs, Cedar-Green Basins (Cont'd) Flood Control 54. Construction of levees and improvement of channel Watershed Management from R.M. 4.5- to R.M. 17.5-Cedar River. d. Provide technical assistance and management for State and Federal lands. Watershed Management e. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other 55. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Lake Wash- practices. ington. 56. Small watershed multiple-,purpose project-Sarn- Fish and Wildlife mamish River. f. Develop lake fertilization techniques. 57. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Cedar River. g. Make wildlife population analysis and timberland 58. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Upper management practices studies, Adevelop habitat Green R iver. improvement techniques and an educa@16n program on proper game 'hunting concepts, and begin a program Recreation with land owners for game habitat- retention and 59. Development of four recreation sites along saltwater hunter access. shoreline. h. Develop fish disease controls and new toxicants. 60. Development of one recreation site. i. Conduct cross-sectional stream surveys to determine 61. Development of two recreation sites. minimum and optimum strearnflows for fish. 62. Development of four recreation sites. j. Locate, survey, and mark boundaries of all State- 63. Development of one recreation site along Lake Union owned second class tidelands in the Ba sins. Take steps or Lake Washington Ship Canal. to reserve all such lands for public use except as 64. Development of one recreation site along Sam'mamish required for specific circumstances. R iver. k. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and recrea- 65. Development of two recreation sites along shoreline of tional use of tidelands. Lake Washington. Development of four recreation slies along Cedar River from mouth to. Lanclsburg Dam. PROJECTS 1980-2000 67. Development of five'recreation sites along Green River from mouth to city of Tacor,ia water supply diversion Municipal and Industrial Water Supply dam. 43.* Seif-supplied industry surface water development. 44.* Water system expansion- Renton, kent and Auburn Fish and Wildlife 45. Construction of additional storage in Cedar River 68. 1 mprove 51 miles of habitat on 22 streams. watershed and install third pipeline-Seattle. 69. Clear and improve two miles of channel, Burns and 46. Increase storage capacity of North Fork Snoqualmie Crisp Creeks. River project and install transmission lines-Seattle. 70.* Clear six miles of channel on three streams. 71.* Construct one mile of spawning channel. Irrigation 47,.- Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping and PROGRAMS 1980-2000 sprinkler system (private)-Green R iver.- . Water Quality Control Water Quality Control 1. Continue water quality surveillance progra ms. 48.* Expansion of waste treatment and interception facili- ties for municipalities, industry and recreation devel- Flood Control opment. m. Continue flood plain management programs. Navigation Watershed Management 49. Small boat harbor development-Well's Point- n. Continue technical assistance and management for Edmonds. State and Federal lands. 50. Small boat harbor development-Golden Gardens- 0. Continue technical assistance for on-farm and other North. practices. 51. Small boat harbor development-Fort Lawton-North. Fish and Wildlife 52. Small boat harbor development-Fort Lawton-South. P. Continue fish and wildlife programs. 53. Small boat harbor development-Elliott Bay-Magnolia Bluff. PROJECTS 2000-2020 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply *Project not shown on Figure 6 72.* Self-supplied industry surface water development. A-5 6 TABLE 13. Future projects and programs, Cedar-Green Basins (Cont'd) 73, Water system expansion-Renton, Kent and Auburn. 84. Development of five recreation sites along Green River 74. Development of North Fork Skykomish River for from mouth to city of Tacoma water supply diversion water supply-Seattle. dam. Irrigation Fish and Wildlife 75.* Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping and 85.* Construct 4 hatcheries or the equivalent. sprinkler system (private)-Green River. 86.* Develop 35 acres of rearing facilities. 87.* Develop one mile of spawning channel. Water Quali 88.* Other projects for fish and wildlife. 76.* Expansion of waste treatment and interception facili- ties for municipalities, industry and recreation devel- PROGRAMS 2000-2020 opment. Water Quality Control Watershed Management q. Continue water quality surveillance programs. 77. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-West Slope Seattle. Flood Control 78. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Lakota- r. Continue flood plain management programs. Des Moines. Watershed Managemen Recreation S. Continue technical assistance and management for 79. Development of two recreation sites along salt water State and Federal lands. shoreline. t. Continue technical assistance for on-farm and other 80. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. practices. 81. Development of two recreation sites in this vicinity. 82. Development of three recreation sites in this vicinity. Fish and Wildlife 83. Development of five recreation sites along Cedar River u . Continuation of fish and wildlife programs. from mouth to Lanclsburg Dam. *Pr.oject not shown on Figure 6 A-57 COUNTIES AFFECTED: REN" unv,, ,Ta Pierce King "PS-H M& PUYALLUP BASIN SUMMARY OF PLAN Five small watershed multiple -purpose projects are planned for implementation during this period to Early Action 1970-1980 achieve floodwater damage reduction, protection and During this period municipal and industrial rehabilitation, and water management. These are water supply needs of the city of Tacoma would be located in the following areas: Algona-Pacific, Clear satisfied by utilizing storage provided by the Howard Creek, Hylebos Creek, Wapato Creek, and Clover A. Hanson project on the Green River. Tacoma would Creek. The structural measures in these projects also utilize ground water sources to meet peak consist of stabilized channels and outlet control demands and during periods when turbidity makes structures. Important complements to the watershed the Green River water unuseable. Ground water structural projects are the programs of technical resources would continue to supply the preponder- assistance and improved management with instal- ance of small and rural communities and industry. lation of land treatment and water management About 2,500 acres of cropland would be placed measures. under irrigation with water supplied by individual Campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, and boat farmers from both surface and ground sources. launching ramps would be developed on existing Compliance with State water quality standards public lands together with the acquisition of addi- would be obtained through installation of adequate tional land and water areas, to satisfy recreational collection and treatment facilities. Industrial plants needs. Additional land and water areas would be would provide adequate treatment prior to discharge acquired along the Puget Sound shoreline to provide and would install outfalls and diffusers to achieve needed marine parks. About 60 recreation sites are maximum dilution and dispersion into Puget Sound. planned for expansion or development before 1980. A water quality surveillance program would be Land acquisition including access and fish and expanded in order to provide an adequate monitoring wildlife enhancement projects would be undertaken system with sampling stations on marine and fresh to increase the opportunities for this form of outdoor water. A comprehensive sewerage plan would be recreation. Additional fish hatcheries would be con- developed for the Basin. structed for both resident and migratory fish together Navigation needs would be met through deep- with rearing ponds, spawning channels and fish ening of Hylebos, Blair (Port Industrial) and Sitcurn passage facilities at Electron Dam. Cross-sectional waterways to accommodate bulk cargo vessels and stream surveys would be undertaken during this freighters. Lands found to be suitable for tern-doal or period in order to determine the minimum and water transport-oriented industrial development optimum strearnflows required for fish production. would be retained for this purpose to insure future availability. Wet moorage would be provided for pleasure boaters through the construction of two small boat harbors with 1,550 moorage slips. Long-Range, 1980-2020 Power needs for the Basin would be satisfied by Expansion of the existing water supply systems the Northwest Regional system. Future development and development of new sources would take place for the satisfaction of Area power needs is discussed commensurate with population and industrial growth under Power in the Area portion of this Report. to satisfy projected needs of municipalities, small and During this period the community of Orting rural communities and industry. would be protected by a levee. Flood plain manage- An additional 7,500 acres of land would be ment would provide an effective means of reducing placed under irrigation during this period with water future flood damages through land use zoning of supplied from surface and ground water by individual lands in the flood plain consistent with the levels of users. flood protection. Floodproofing and warning systems Existing treatment and collection facilities also would be implemented. These measures would would be expanded commensurate with the growth in contribute significantly to the reduction of future population and industrial development to insure that flood damages. the State water quality standards are continually A-60 complied with. The water quality surveillance pro- suitable for mor 'e efficient agricultural use. Upgrading gram would be maintained. of existing facilities and more intensive application of Further terminal and water transport-oriented recurring and nonLrecurring land treatment practices industrial development is envisioned during this would be required throughout the Basin. On-going period as facilities would be required to meet the watershed management programs which provide some navigation needs of the Basins. Hylebos and the Port degree of technical assistance and financial partici- Industrial waterway would be deepened to accom- pation would be continued. modate increased vessel drafts. The last site in the Additional development of campgrounds, pic- Basin suitable for a small boat harbor would be nic areas, and other recreation facilities would be developed by the year 2000. undertaken after 1980 at about 90 sites throughout Power development may include purnped- the Basin, on public lands as well as on private lands, storage at a number of the potential sites within.the with both public and private sectors participating in Basin. Oil or gas-fueled steam electric plants also may the providing of recreational facilities. Studies would be located during this period to meet short-time be made of the Carbon, White and Puyallup rivers for peaking requirements. Development of nuclear elec- possible inclusion of portions within a State tric generating plants may occur but definite schedul- recreation river system. ing of facilities and exact siting have not been Additional fish and wildlife opportunities completed and would be dependent upon future would be provided through anadromous and resident studies that considered shoreline characteristics near- fish enhancement measures. A fish passage improve- ness to major load centers and impacts on the ment is planned on Chambers Creek during the environment. long-range period as well as additional spawning During this period a storage project on the habitat development and construction of salmon upper Puyallup Fiver in connection with the levee at hatcheries. Orting, would provide 100-year protection in the Table 14 summarizes the Puyallup Basin ele- flood plain from the dam site down to Sumner. A ments of the Comprehensive Plan, showing the levee near South Prairie Creek would provide pro- benefits and costs for the early action portion of the tection to agricultural lands near the community of Plan, and provides a .summary of investment costs by South Prairie Creek. Flood plain management would water resource functions for the entire 50-year period be continued with zoning being required to guide ending in 2020. The early action portion of the Plan future development and prevent unwarranted de- includes programs amounting to $138,860,000 and velopment in the flood plain. projects costing $127,100,000 for a total investment Other watershed management needs in the of $265,960,000 Program and project investment Basin would be satisfied by the progressive develop- c osts for the 1980-2000 period amount to ment of four small watershed projects for floodwater $287,243,000 and for the 2000-2020 2020 period, damage prevention, rehabilitation and protection, and $383,545,000; for a total 50-year investment of water management to make areas of the flood plains $936,748,000. A-61 TABLE 14. Comprehensive Plan, Pu,yallup Basin 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 Investmenti - Benefits investment Investment Investment Feature I tem Costs Costs G ross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) 1$1000) 1$1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) Management Programs Monitoring, Evaluation and Water Quality Control Control Programs 2,600 - 4,200 5,100 11,900 Flood Control Flood Plain Management 185 100 100 385 Watershed Management Programs 135,672 94,11-4 138,264 368,059 Fish & Wildlife Programs 403 630 630 -7,663 -99 $:%-2 Total Programs $138,860 $M3 $ T44,094 .007 Nonstorage Projects M&I WaterSupply Ground Water Use 13,154 1,239 l' 2395 0 7,584 7,400 28.138 Surface Water Use 28,9094 2,818 21 8185 0 28,932 52,207 110,048 Irrigation Watei Supply Ground Water Use 136 17 175 0 231 109 476 Surface Water Use 204 26 265 0 449 231 884 Water Quality Control Sewerage Treatment and Collection Facilities 34,000 1,964 1,9645 0 51,200 79,600 164,800 Navigation Channels 5,430 318 389 71 4,488 0 9,918 Small Boat Harbors3 13,120)3 (200)3 1290)3 jgO)3 (5,492)3 0 1 8,61Z 3 Power2 Flood Control Channels and Levees 1,600 86 103 17 1,0005 0 2,600 Watershed Management Flood Water Damage Reduction Rehabilitation and Protection, and Water Management 4,972 271 382 ill 4,167 0 9,139 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Recreation Facilities 35,389 2,339 3,255 916 55,600 88,040 179,029 Fish& Wildlife Land Acquirition, Access and Enhancement Facilities 3,306 366 849 483 8,039 11,864 23,209 -27, fl 100 T 9,-4 Total Nonstorage Ti 1,042 1,598 il6l,090 !F239,451 i528,241 Storage Projects Puyallup (Puyallup River) Flood Control 0 0 0 0 26,500 0 26,500 Total Storage $ -0 -!F-O $ 0 $ 26,500 $ 0 $26,500 Total Program and Projects $265,960 $16,567 $24,695 $8,128 $287,243 $383,545 $936,748 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs for nonstorage and storage projects. 2 Power facilities not included in Basin plan. 3 General Navigation facilities cost and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation. 4 Includes costs for modifying Howard A. Hanson project. 5 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. A-62 SEQUENCE -OF DEVELOPMENT The projects and programs are summarized in Table 15 by time periods. The project numbers identify features on Figure 7. TABLE 15. Future projects and programs, Puyallup Basin PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 17. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Wapato Creek. 1. Expansion of Green River supply and transmission 18. Small watershed, multiple-purpose project-Clover system-Tacoma. Creek. 2. Expansion of water supply systems-Puyallup, Buckley, Fort Lewis, Orting and other communities. Recreation 3.* Increase capacity of self-supplied industrial water systems. 19. Development of six recreation sites along saltwater shoreline. Irrigation 20. Development of four recreation sites. 21. Development of one recreation site. 4.* Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping and 22. Development of five recreation sites. sprinkler systems (private). 23. Development of three recreation sites along Puyallup R iver. Water Quality Control 24. Development of four recreation sites. 25. Development of three recreation sites. 5.* Installation of sewerage systems with secondary treat- 26. Development of five recreation sites along White ment and disinfection-Orting, Wilkeson, Bonney R iver. Lake, Algona, Pacific and Carbonado. 27. Development of one recreation site. 6. Installation of secondary treatment and disinfection- 28. Development of 30 recreation sites on National Park Buckley, Sumner and Puyallup. and Forest lands. 7. Installation of secondary treatment, disinfection, adequate outfall and collection facilities-Tacoma. Fish and Wildlife 8. Installation of adequate treatment and adequate outfall-I nclustry. 29.* Acquisit 'ion and development of public access to 9. Secondary treatment, disinfection and adequate eight lakes. .outfall-Fort Lewis. 30. Expansion of Puyallup River trout hatchery. 31. Construction of steelhead rearing facilities. Navigation 32. Fish passage improvements at Electron Dam and Powerhouse. 10. Deepen Hylebos, Blair (Port Industrial) and Sitcum 33. * Construction of trout hatchery. Waterways. 34. * Development and acquisition of 40 miles of strearn@ 11. Small boat harbor clevelopment-Hylebos Waterway. bank access. 12. Small boat harbor development-Titlow-Day Island. 35. * Acquisition and development of access to five salt- wate@ areas. Flood Control 36. * Channel and lake clearance. 37. * Acquisition and development of 600 acres of upland 13. Construction of levee at Orting@ bird habitat and hunting area. 38. Expansion of pheasant game farm. Watershed Management 39. Fish passage improvements at White River diversion dam and increased salmon production on White River 14. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Algona through artificial propagation facilities. Pacif ic. 15. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Clear Creek. 16. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Hylebos *Projects not shown on Figure 7 C ree k. A-63 TABLE 15. Future projects and programs, Puyallup Basin (Contd) PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 Flood Control Water Quality Control 45. Construction of levee at South Prairie. 67. Puyallup River storage. & Establish and operate water quality surveillance stations at key salt and fresh water locations and Watershed Management prepare comprehensive sewerage plan for the Basin. 46. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-White Flood Control R iver. 47. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Carbon b. Establish and administer county-wide flood plain R iver. zoning measures under flood plain management pro- 48. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Puyallup gram. R iver. 49. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-South Watershed Management Prairie Creek. C. Provide technical assistance and management for State Recreation and Federal lands. d. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other 50. Development of three recreation sites along saltwater private practices. shoreline. 51. Development of four recreation sites: Fish and Wildlife 52. Development of three recreation sites. 53. Development of six recreation sites along the White a. Develop lake and stream fertilization techniques, R iver. f. Make wildlife population analysis and timberland 54. Development of one recreation site. management practices studies, develop habitat 55. Development of three recreation sites. improvement techniques and an education program on 56. Development of one recreation site. proper game hunting concepts, and begin a program 57. Development of three recreation sites along Puyallup with land owners for game habitat retention and R iver. hunter access. 58. Development of one recreation site in this vicinity. g. Conduct cross-sectional stream surveys to determine 59. Development of 20 recreation sites on National Forest minimum and optimum strearnflows for fish. and Park lands. h. Locate, survey, and mark boundaries of all State- owned second class tidelands in the Basin. Take steps Fish and Wildlife to reserve all such lands for public use except as required for specific circumstances. 60. Improvement of salmon passage at Chambers Creek. i. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and recrea- 61. Clear channel, Greenwater River. tional use of tidelands. 62.* Improvement of salmon habitat on eight streams. PROJECTS 1980-2000 63.* Construction of a salmon hatchery. 64.* Construction of 1 mile of salmon spawning channel. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 65.* Game fish and wildlife improvements. 66.* Lake and channel clearance and habitat improvement on national forest lands. 40.* Expansion of existing water supply systems. PROGRAMS 1980-2000 Irrigation 41.* Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping anu Water Quality Control sprinkler systems (private). j. Continue water quality surveillance program. Water Quality Control . Flood Control 42.* Expansion of waste treatment and interception facili- k. Continue flood plain management program. ties for municipalities, industry and recreation devel- opment. Watershed Management Navigation 1. Provide technical assistance for onfarm and other 43. Deepen Hylebos and Blair (Port Industrial) Water- private practices. ways seaward of 11 th Street Bridge. m. Provide technical assistance and management for State 44. Small boat harbor development-Dumas Bay. and Federal lands., *Projects not shown on Figure 7 A-64 'h d! ITEMS NOT SHOWN ON MAP n7@i,@13",%i" WE" T", 4 Rural and small community water supply projects 'Ali 010 'Wi, "!M - @ , Irrigable land. and private irrigation developments 02 22 OEM 60 AM, Terminal and water-transport oriented i, "T" IMF 38,@ 1 8 "20 ", @ 3" z industrial lands @04. "@Q@ 1,7 Small watershed boundaries 0 Scenic highway and potential recreation 2 river segments 5 30 1110 146ia 0 39 Fish and wildlife projects yet to be sited .FJ, See functional appendix for location maps Tll@ Irk 6 2" 5 No & 2 5 A A@ 74 op, IN, 5 0,,-A 24 A & 13 2 6 5 2 IQ, 1. /"2 7 48 f 04 5 a 6,7 5 67 2 6" 5 3, 7 32 L 23 A, 57,77 0 445, NOTE: Potential nuclear power and pumped- � storage sites are a not shown. See Appendix IX, Power. R 4f Proposed LEGEND Proposed early-action FEATURE long-range projects projects M & I Water Supply 0-01111" scale in miles Irrigation E 5 0 5 10 Water Q.ality Control ta Navigation M6 PUYALLUP BASIN Power P Flood Control VA C) Watershed Management 6 Recreation A <=A Fish & Wildlife 4W4 FIGURE 7. Comprehensive Plan Elements Dam & Reservoir Vol A-65 TABLE 15. Future projects and programs, Puyallup Basin (Cont'd) Fish and Wildlife 78. Develop 25 recreation sites on National Forest and n. Continue fish and wildlife programs. Park lands. Fish and Wildlife PROJECTS 2000-2020 79.* Construction of four salmon hatcheries. Municipat and Industrial Water Supply 80. Development of 16 acres of salmon rearing facilities. 81.* Development of 1 mile of salmon spawning channel. 68. Develop Puyallup River supply for Tacoma. 82.* Game fish and wildlife improvements. 69.* Expand existing water supply systems. 83.* Channel and lake clearance on National Forest lands. Irrigation PROGRAMS 2000-2020 70.* Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping and Water Quality Control sprinkler systems (private). Water Quality Control o. Continue water quality surveillance program. 70a.* Expand waste treatment and interception facilities for Flood Control municipalities, industry and recreation development. p. Continue flood plain management program. Recreation Watershed Management 71. Develop one recreation site along the saltwater shore- line. q. Provide technical assistance for onfarm and other 72. Develop two recreation sites. private practices. 73. Develop eight recreation sites along White River. r. Provide technical assistance and management for State 74. Develop four recreation sites. and Federal lands. 75. Develop one recreation site. Fish and Wildlife 76. Develop one recreation site. 77. Develop four recreation sites along Puyallup River. Continue fish and wildlife programs. *Projects not shown on Figure 7 A-66 gig COUNTIES AFFECTED: I @AX,1, 'R @iP OF . m llm ,R'; qk,@,m@ ERIE NTT Pierce Lewis ig im"N '4Mg,"I"INM@ io"n, WR 91,11'' @MX, Thurdon U@fi Rl NISQUALLY-DESCHUTES BASINS SUMMARY OF PLAN would be installed by the various industries for In developing the plan for the Nisqually- treating industrial wastes prior to discharge into the Deschutes Basins, conflicting uses for the Nisqually offshore waters. Delta arose which could not be readily resolved Water treatment needs can be met with the without further detailed study. Development of the construction of secondary waste facilities with ade- Nisqually Delta as a port facility and water-oriented quate sanitary sewers at Paradise, Longmire, Olympia, industrial location could conflict with the present and and Lacey. Water quality surveillance stations would projected use of this resource as a natural biotic, be established at three new locations in the Basins to recreational, and wildlife area. Since this is an area of regularly measure the water characteristics. A com- high priority for both uses, alternative plans for use prehensive water pollution con 'trol and abatement of the Nisqually Delta are presented. plan would be developed for the basins. Alternative A is a plan for a projected recre- The Nisqually and Deschutes Rivers flow for ational-wildlife biotic research use of the delta. the greater part of their length through a natural Alternative B provides for the utilization of a portion sanctuary where outdoor recreation and forestry are of the delta for a navigation port and related primary uses. Hence, wasteloading is expected to be industrial development. light and minimum flows for other purposes such as fish would be sufficient to maintain a desirable water quality. A continuing program of expanding waste ALTERNATIVE A treatment and sanitary sewers in all municipalities and small community systems would be necessary to Early Action, 1970-1980 keep pace with an expanding population. A study The present municipal and industrial water would be made of the Nisqually River for possible supply needs for the greater Olympia area can be met inclusion of portions within State recreation river from ground water. The present sources of supply are system. considered adequate, and enlargement of existing To meet the rapidly increasing demand of supply systems would meet the projected needs. boating enthusiasts, a small boat harbor with 230 wet Detailed studies should be undertaken during this moorages would be built. An additional 420 wet time period to determine the capability of the local moorages would be provided by the private sector ground water supply. prior to 1980. Approximately half of these moorages The water supply system for the Olympia area could be built in the Olympia Harbor area. and the small rural community water systems should To meet the navigational shipping needs, the be enlarged to provide the peak flow and fire terminal facilities at the Port of Olympia would have protection delivery capability outlined in the State's to be expanded to its maximum physical boundaries. water supply system standards. Dredging the shipping channel to a depth of 40 feet Irrigation water supplies, including about 2,200 would be necessary to handle the increasing deep acres of new lands projected to be irrigated by 1980, draft of the modern fleets. can be met from both surface and ground water Flood plain regulations would be established to sources. In the Deschutes Basin, the irrigable lands are reduce existing and future flood damages on both the in an area with an excellent ground water resource Nisqually and Deschutes River flood plains. One- and these lands can be expected to be irrigated from hundred year flood protection would be provided for this source through private farm development. in the the 8,000-acre Nisqually flood plain below Alder Nisqually River Basin, the irrigation water supply Dam with the assignment of 55,000 acre-feet of would be obtained from both surface and ground storage in Alder Reservoir for flood control regula- water sources. Irrigation systems would be con- tion. structed by the individual farmer. Other water resource needs would be met by To comply with Washington State water quality the progressive development and implementation of standards, waste treatment and sewer outfall facilities watershed management programs; particularly agri- A-68 cultural and urban water management and forest storage would be necessary for the development of management measures. the Deschutes River as a municipal and industrial The recreational plan includes land and facility source. developments interspersed throughout the Basins and A , continuing planning and implementation along the shoreline of Puget Sound. With no addi- program expansion of waste treatment and sanitary, tional upstream storage or similar upstream structural sewer facilities commensurate with a water quality development, the Nisqually River, Mashel River, and surveillance program would be necessary to meet and tributary streams would be preserved in their present maintain Washington State water quality standards. natural environment for use by future generations. , Irrigation expansion would continue with an A minimum strearnflow of 150 cfs for fish additional 13,00 acres of new lands projected to be could be maintained in the 13-mile reach of the irrigated. These lands are expected to be in scattered Nisqually River downstream from the Centralia City parcels throughout the Basins. The irrigation water Power diversion canal and upstream from the power- supplies are expected to be obtained primarily from house through agreement with the city of Tacoma ground water. Irrigation development would be by and the city of Centralia. Strearnflow records indicate private investment. that only a few times during the surnmer months has Additional wet moorages would be provided a flow this low occurred. The agreement would with construction of small boat harbors at Budd provide that this flow is maintained in the @:iver. The Inlet, Nisqually Delta, and Henderson Inlet. With streamflov s for fish would be attained in the remain- these developments, an additional 3,610 wet moor- ing Nisqu illy River due to the normal operation of ages would be provided by 2020. These facilities Alder aild LaGrande power facilities. Over 90 percent would include moorages to handle a deficit need in of the natural streamflow of the Deschutes River the Puyallup Basin. would be available for fish use. Other early action The Hawks Prairie area would be developed as a enhancement features for fish include spawning and water-oriented industrial area. Minimum port facili- rearing ponds and channels, an additional hatchery, ties would be developed adjacent to the industrial stream channel clearance projects, acquisition and area and a minimum amount of waterfront land development of access to 7 lakes, and obtaining 50 would be taken for the actual port development. The miles of streambank greenbelt on the major river development plan to be provided for the area should systems to insure public access to fishing areas. become a component part of the navigation plan for The Nisqually Delta would be retained as a Puget Sound. This plan should include a compilation natural estuarine area. Public access would be pro- of related industrial and recreational uses with mini- vided to the delta, and facilities developed to permit mum environmental quality impacts. recreational use, wildfowl hunting, and biotic re- Flood control storage of 15,000 acre-feet search. The Department of Game has presently would be provided by development of a dam and acquired 627 acres for development of the area into reservoir at the Shellrock Ridge site on the Deschutes such a multiple-purpose plan. Its on-going program River by year 2020. This would provide 100-year includes the acquisition of 3,000 acres in the delta. protection to the long, narrow 2,700-acre Deschutes The delta is being studied for inclusion into the River flood plain. The use of levees to provide Nation's system of natural estuarine areas. protection in this narrow flood plain are not econom- ical and would be undesirable from an aesthetic, fish, Long-Range, 1980-2020 and recreational standpoint. The flood plain manage- During this period, the municipal and domestic ment program would be continued. water supply systems would need to be enlarged and Prior to the year 2020, land treatment facilities expanded to keep pace with the population expan- and small watershed multiple-purpose projects would sion. Should it be found from the quantitative ground be provided at specified locations along the Deschutes water studies to be conducted during the early action and Nisqually Rivers, Henderson and Budd Inlets, and period that ground wa`ters are not available in tributary streams to the Nisqually River. These sufficient quantities to satisfy projected needs, utiliz- projects would provide adequate water management, ation of surface waters of the Deschutes River and/or small watershed flood protection, and soil stabiliza- the Nisqually River could satisfy the additional tion for approximately 636,000 acres. Watershed municipal and industrial requirements. Upstream management programs which offer technical assist- A-69 ance and financial participation in local land and the attendant costs. The output of the programs are water-related projects and programs would be con- complementary to the listed project facilities. The tinued. early action plan for Alternative A includes programs An additional 5,793 acres of land with ap- amounting to $41,269,000 and projects costing propriate facilities would be acquired and developed $35,820,000 for a total investment of $77,089,000. for recreational use. The fish and wildlife plan Program and project investment costs for the emphasizes additional spawning and rearing areas, 1980-2000 period amount to $120,703,000 and for channel clearance, educational programs, and acqui- the 2000-2020 period $112,560,000 for a total sition of key wildlife ecological and hunting areas. 50-year investment of $310,352,000. Table 16 shows all elements of Alternative A and A-70 TABLE 16. Comprehensive Plan, Alternative A, Nisqually-Deschutes Basinc 1970-1980 Average Annual .1990-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 1 nvestmenti -14-enefits Fnvestment investment Investment Feature Item Costs Costs G ross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) Management Programs Monitoring, Evaluation and Water Quality Control Control Programs 350 240 286 876 Flood Control Flood Plain Management 82 114 114 310 Watershed Management Programs 40,710 68,131 34,506 143,347 Fish & Wildlife Programs 127 478 470 1,075 Total Programs t41,269 $ 68,963 $ 35,376 $145,608 Nonstorage Projects M&I Water Supply Ground Water Use 1,290 168 1683 0 435 1,167 2,892 Surface Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Irrigation Ground Water Use 273 32 323 0 545 850 1,668 Surface Water Use 27 3 33 0 135 230 392 Water Quality Control Waste Treatment and Collection Facilities 5,375 289 2893 0 6,760 10,200 22,335 Navigation Channel Improvements 1,853 92 138 46 3,713 0 5,566 > Small Boat Harbors (459)2 (29)2 (43)2 (14) (4,387)2 (2,435)2 (7,281)2 Flood Control Levees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction Water Management, Protection and Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 4,340 100 4,440 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Facilities 21,951 1,697 2,590 893 30,200 53,700 105,851 Fish & Wildlife Production Enhancement Facilities, Access and Acquisition 5,051 494 1,456 962 5,612 7,437 18,10 Total Nonstorage $35,820 $2,775 $4,676 $1,901 $ 51,740 $ 73,684 $161,244 Storage Projects Flood Control Alder Dam and Reservoir 39 39 0 0 0 Shellrock Ridge Dam and Reservoir 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 3,500 Fish and Wildlife Alder Dam and Reservoir 0 0 43 43 0 0 0 Total Storage $ 0 $ 0 $ 82 $ 82 $ 0 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Total Programs and Projects $77,089 $2,775 $4,758 $1,983 $120,703 $112,560 $310,352 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs fot nonstorage and storage projects. 2 General navigation facilities costs and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation. 3 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES A AND B The projects and programs of the Comprehensive Plan for the Nisqually-Deschutes Basins are summarized in Table 17 by time periods. The project numbers identify features on Figure 8, and are the same for both Alternatives A and B unless otherwise noted. TABLE 17. Future projects and programs, Nisqually-Deschutes Basins PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 18. Develop a recreation site near Flander Lake. 19. Develop two recreation sites near Lake Lawrence. 1. Increase delivery capability of McCallister Springs to 20. Develop six salt water shoreline recreation sites 21 mgd capacity. between Nisqually Delta and Eld Inlet. 2. Increase delivery capability of water supply system for 21. Develop two recreation sites near Harts Lake. Turnwater. 22. Develop two recreation sites near Tanawax Lake. 3. Increase delivery capability of water supply system for 23. Develop one recreation site near Eatonville, Lacey. 24. Develop three recreation sites near Alder Lake. 4.* Increase delivery capability of water supply systems of 25. Develop one recreation site between Alder Lake and the small and rural communities. Rainier National Park. 26. Develop one recreation site near Mineral Lake. Irrigation 27. Develop 15 recreation sites in the Snoqualmie National Forest and Rainier National Park. 5.* Installation of individual farm irrigation pumping and 28. Develop three recreation sites on Nisqually River sprinkler systems (private) to irrigate 2,700 acres. between Alder Dam and Puget Sound. I Water Quality Control Fish and Wildlife- 6. Install secondary treatment facilities at Paradise and 29. Acquire public fishing access on Roy (Muck), Upper Longmire. Twin, Lower Twin, Bald Hills, Southwick, Hewitt, and 7. Provide facilities for adequate treatment of wastes, Elbow Lakes. disinfection and an adequate outfall-Olympia. 30. * Construct a stream fish hatchery. 8. Provide sewering in Lacey and interception to 31.* Develop steelhead and cutthroat rearing ponds. Olympia treatment plant. 32. Acquire and develop saltwater access -N isqual ly 9.* Improvement of waste collection facilities for recrea- Flats (Alternative A only). tion developments including small boat harbors. 33. Acquire and develop saltwater access-Henderson I nlet. 34. Acquire and develop 50 miles of streambank access. Navigation 35. Acquire and develop the 3,000-acre Nisqually Delta for a natural recreation, waterfowl aed biotic research 10.- Deepen West Waterway to 40 feet in Budd I nlet. area (Alternative A only). 11. Development of a small boat harbor-Olympia. PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 Flood Control Water Quality Control 12. Obtain flood control storage in Alder Lake. a. Establish and operate water quality surveillance Recreation stations at key salt and fresh water locations. Complete and implement a comprehensive sewerage 13. Development of two urban recreation sites north of drainage basin program to provide waste treatment Olympia. and collection facilities necessary to accommodate 14. Development of three urban recreation sites near expanding population and industrial development Turnwater. 15. Development of four recreation sites near Long Lake. Flood Control 16. Development of two recreation sites in Offutt Lake. 17. Development of two recreation sites along Deschutes b. Establish and administer county@wide flood plain River between Lake Lawrence and Caoitol Lake. zoning measures under flood plain management *Projects not shown on Figure 8 program. A-72 INSERT A RN NISQUALLY DELTA H", ALTERNATIVE A 53 ,5 42 4 2 7 2 3 50 , mpil < 41 V 28 cc SY (Ong 3A 3 Putte,son 58, An?"Nos", take 5 4A r. A A 11 American Lake ZEMRNR IN 1@1 55 /20 A Is 59 41 FORT 28 AWIS 58 R 46 k %N 17 507 34 </ 110A 45 Lake 89 L-eo- )9 Hart, 58 0 lok 28 A57 & 76 21 INSERT 6 61 N)SQUALLY DELTA NOTE Polenfial vvcloar (0/ if 2 Ton,- a;/ Ac'e-A. ALTERNATIVE 8 .power and pumped- storage sites are A- not shown. See 65 Oh 0 L ke Appendix K Pow@ef. 0 Eat @ille 7M 3 79 JTEMS NOT SHOWN ON MAP ct@ Ror.1 and small c-oo;@y -I., s.pply proi. VA@, A J I,r;gAle land, and P,[email protected]. iig.ti.n de-lapm.nir V Terminal cod water-tranSporr oriented 6A ird-Wcl lands Small b-8.60, 5-nic high..y cod pateWir;) rec,..tion A 25 6,e, -grnenh 64 FiA cod 0dfif. p,.j.,t, y@t fo be. @;tad 87 see 1-di-ol pp-P, 1-boo maps ZE Proposed LEGEND Proposed eorly-action FEATURE long-rarige "I n, P projects projects M & I Water Supply Irrigation water Q..,i;ty C..t,o) dft Navigation 9, Power Sral. in mil- Flood Control $1-.. 0, - . . 1 10 Watershed Management NISQUALLY -DESCHU7ES BASINS A Recreation A <W4 Fish and Wildlife -ft4 C=:@e Dom and Reservoir V*-, FIGURE 8. Comprehensive Plan Elements A-73 TABLE 17. Future projects and programs, Nisqually-Deschutes Basins (Cont'd) Watershed Management Watershed Management c_ Provide technical assistance and management for State 46, Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Muck ind Federal lands. Creek. d. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other 47. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Horn- private practices. Establish zoning requirements to Tanawax Creek. guide the build-up of intensive land use, changing land 48. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Ohop use and combinations of land and water use. Creek. 49. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Nisqually Fish and Wildlife R iver. 50. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Henderson a. Conduct stream cross-section measurements. I nlet. f. Develop fish toxicants and lake fertilization techniques. 51. Small watershed multiple-p6rpose project-West Budd g. Develop fish management for large reservoirs. I nlet. h. Develop fish disease control program for lakes. 62. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Deschutes i. Develop local coop program for habitat development R iver. and access. j. Develop public educational program for utilization of Recreation resources. k. Conduct program studies to determine specific forest- 53. DiFvelop seven recreational sites along salt water wildlife management. shoreline. 1. Develop eductional program to stress value of spiny- 54. Develop two recreational sites near Lake St. Clair. ray fish. 55. Develop one recreational site East Olympia. m. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and potential 56. Develop three recreational sites along Deschutes River recreational use by tidelands. below Lake Lawrence. 57. Develop two recreational sites near Lake Lawrence. PROJECTS 198G-2000 58. Develop four recreational sites along Nisqually River between Alder Dam and Nisqually Delta. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 59. Develop one recreational site near Nisqually Lake. 60. Develop one recreational site near headwaters of Muck 36. Enlarge the water supply systems at Turnwater. Creek. 37. Enlarge the water supply systems at Lacey. 61. Develop two recreational sites near Seven Lake. 38. Enlarge the small and rural community systems. 62. Develop two recreational shes near Tanawax Lake. 63. Develop two recreational sites at Alder Lake. Irrigation 64. Develop two, recreational sites upstream of Alder Lake. 39.* Installation of individual farm irrigation systems for 65. Develop 20 recreational sites in the National Forest irrigating 5,000 acres of new lands. and Mt. Rainier National Park. Water Quality Control Fish and Wildlife 40. Enlarge and expand waste treatment, sewer facilities 66. * Construct fish passage, on five streams, 60 stream and adequate outfall at Olympia, Lacey and miles. Turnwater. 67.* 1 mprqve habitat on 16 streams, 38 stream miles. 68.* Clear channels on 10 streams, 54 stream miles. Navigation 69.* Construct 10 acres of rearing ponds and 1 mile of spawning channel. 41. Acquisition of 3,000 acres for water-oriented indus- 70.* Construct salmon hatchery and other fish and trial clevelooment on Hawks Prairie. wildlife facilities. 41 a. Acquisitiun and development of port facility at Nisqually Delta (Alternative B only). PROGRAMS 1980-2000 42. Deepen East Waterway and West Waterway in -Olympia Harbor to 46 feet. Water Quality Control 43. Small boat harbor development-Nisqually Delta. n. Continue water quality surveillance program and the 44. Smal I boat harbor development-Budd Inlet. periodic revision and implementation of the compre- Flood Control hensive sewage drainage basin plans. 45. Construct levees in Nisqually Delt-a (Alternative B *Projects not shown on Figure 8 only), A-74 TABLE 17. Future projects and programs, Nisqually-Deschutes Basins (Cont'd) Flood Control Recreation 0. Continue flood plain management program. 80. Develop two recreation sites along salt water shoreline. 81. Develop two recreation sites along Deschutes River Watershed Management between Lake Lawrence and Capitol Lake. 82. Develop one recreation site near East Olympia. p. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other 83. Develop three recreation sites along Muck Creek. private practices. 84. Develop one recreation site along Tanawax.Creek. q. Provide technical assistance and management for Staw 85. Develop one recreation site near Clear Lake. and Federal lands. 86. Develop two recreation sites at Alder Lake. 87. Develop three recreation sites upstream from Alder Fish and Wildlife Lake. 88. Develop 30 recreation sites in National Forest and r. Complete stream cross-section measurements. Rainier National Park. S. Continue fish and wildlife programs. 89. Develop five recreation sites along Nisqually River between Alder Dam and Nisqually Delta. PROJECTS 2000-2020 Fish and Wildlife Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 90.* Construct two salmon hatcheries. 71. Enlarge McCallister Springs to its ultimate capability. 91.* Develop 45 acres of salmon rearing facilities. 72.* Increase delivery capability of supply systems at Lacey 92.* Develop 1 mile of spawning channel. and Turnwater. 93.* Additional game fish facilities-facilities unknown. 73.* Increase delivery capability of small rural and com- 94.* Additional wildlife facilities-facilities unknown. munity systems. PROGRAMS 2000-2020 Irrigation Water Quality Control 74.* Install the individual farm irrigation facilities for irrigating 8,000 acres of new lands. t. Continue water quality surveillance program and review of the comprehensive sewage drainage basin Water Quality Control plan. 75.* Construct the municipal, industrial and recreation Flood Control waste treatment facilities as contained in the plan. U. Continue flood plain management program. Navigation Watershed Management 76. Construct a small boat harbor-Henderson Inlet. 77. Enlarge small boat harbor at Budd Inlet. V. Provide technical assistance for or-farm and other private practices. Flood Control w. Provide technical assistance and management for State and Federal lands, 78. Construct Shellrock Ridge Dam and reservoir on Deschutes River. Fish and Wildlife Watershed Management X. Continuation of fish and wildlife programs including shel If ish enhancement. 79. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Mashel R iver. *Projects not shown on Fi_qure 8 A-7 5 SUMMARY OF PLAN begin prior to 1980 as significant lead time is ALTERNATIVE B ordinarily required to prepare sites for terminal and industrial use where extensive dredging is required as in the case of Nisqually Delta. Alternative B is the same as Alternative A The port development would require flood except for the projected use of the Nisqually Delta. protection in excess of the 100-year flood. Flood Alternative A projects development of the area for control storage in Alder Reservoir, as discussed in recreational and fish and wildlife uses. Alternative B Alternative A, would provide the 100-year protection discusses the development of a portion of the delta and levees and channelization in the delta would for a navigation port with corresponding terminal and provide protection in excess of 100 years. water-oriented industrial land facilities. Based on The fish and wildlife and recreation features current and projected trends of land use by the would remain the same as Alternative A except for Navigation Appendix, the port facility would be that portion relating to the Nisqually Delta. needed after 1980. There would be some reduction of projected Long Range 1980-2620-The projected port recreation visitation but this has yet to be evaluated. development covers approximately 1,300 acres and Table 17 shows all elements of Alternative B would be located on Pierce County side of the and Table 18 the attendant costs. The output of the Nisqually River. programs are complementary to the listed project The port, terminal and industrial facilities facilities. would be constructed by 1985 when projected navigation related land use of the Puyallup River delta would equal available land at that location. SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT A deep draft terminal would be provided ALTERNATIVE B through dredging of a waterway east and separate The schedule of development of the projects from the main river channel. The tenninal would and programs would be the same as Alternative A accommodate 12 berths 1,000 feet long at depths with the exception of navigat Iion,_ flood control and from 55 to 85 feet. The interior waterway channel fish and wildlife. These additions and deletions to extending from deep water to 3,000. feet inland Alternative A are shown in the inset on Figure and would be approximately 800 feet wide and 55 feet discussed as follows. deep with the outer berths able to serve super-bulk cargo vessels of 71 foot draft. 1970-1980 A unit-train loop would connect with the main lines of the Northern Pacific and Union Pacific Fish and Wildlife Railroads and encircle the bulk and general cargo Delete the acquisition and development of the terminal areas. Although projections of future com- Nisqually Delta for fish and wildlife purposes. merce in terms of specific commodities have not been made beyond 1980, expectations are that bulk cargo 1980-2000 including coal, metal ores and some general cargo would be handled at the Nisqually Delta facility. Navigation Water transport-oriented industrial use would primarily occur at the Hawks Prairie and Olympia Acquisition and development of the port Harbor sites. facility at the Nisqually Delta. The east bank of the Nisqually River would be stabilized through a distance of 16,000 feet, to Flood Control preserve water quality by isolating the terminal area Construct flood control levees, straighten and from the river. The west side of the river would deepen channels in the Nisqually Delta. remain in an undisturbed natural state which can be developed for other uses such as recreation, hunting 2000-2020 and waterfowl resting area. None Partial development of the 1,300 acres could A-76 TABLE 18. Comprehensive Plan, Alternative B, Nisqually-Deschutes Basins 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 1 nvestment 1 -6-e-nefits Fn-vestment -In-vestment investment Feature I tem Costs Costs G ross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) Management Programs Monitoring, Evaluation and Water Quality Control Control Programs 350 240 286 876 Flood Control Flood Plain Management 82 114 114 310 Watershed Management Programs 40,710 68,131 34,506 143,347 Fish & Wildlife Programs 127 478 470 1,075 Total Programs $41,269 $ 68,963 $ 35,376 $145,608 Nonstorage Projects M&I Water Supply Ground Water Use 1,290 168 1683 0 435 1,167 2,892 Surface Water Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation Ground Water Use 273 32 323 0 545 850 1,668 Surface Water Use 27 3- 33 0 135 230 392 Water Quality Control Waste Treatment and Collection Facilities 5,375 289 2893 0 6,76C 10,200 22,335 > Navigation Channel I mproveme 1nts 1,853 92 138 46 6,113 0 7,966 Small Boat Harbors (459)2 (29)2 (43)2 (14)2 (4,387)2 (2,435)2 (7,281)2 Flood Control Levees 0 0 0 0 3,000 0 3,000 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Water Management, Protection and Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 4,340 100 4,440 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Facilities 21,951 1,697 2,590 893 30,200 53,700 105,851 Fish & Wildlife Production Enhancement Facilities, Access and Acquisition 2,551 347 1,313 966 5,612 7,437 15,600 Total Nonstorage $33,320 i-2-,628 @4-,533 $1,905 $ -9-7--,140 $ 73,684 $164,144 Storage Projects Flood Control Alder Dam and Reservoir 0 39 39 0 0 0 Shellrock Ridge Dam and Reservoir 0 0 0 0 0 3,500 3,500 Fish & Wildlife Alder Dam and Reservoir 0 0 43 43 0 0 0 Total Storage $ 0 $ 0 $ 82 $ 82 $ 0 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Total Programs and Projects $74,589 $2,628 $4,615 $1,987 $126,103 $112,560 $313,252 1Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs for nonstorage and storage projects. 2General navigation facilities cost and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total costs and benefits included with Recreation. 3Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. COUNTIES AFFECTED: Jefferson King Xkjap Mason Pierce 2W Ull Thurston WEST SOUND BASINS SUMMARY OF PLAN achieve floodwater damage reduction, rehabilitation Early Action, 1970-1980 and protection of watershed lands andwater manage- ment. One project is located in the Goldsborough During this period, municipal and industrial Creek drainage and the other on Chimacurn Creek. water supply needs of Bremerton and Port Townsend These projects consist of stabilized channels and would be satisfied through further utilization of outlet control structures. Important complements to surface water sources. Shelton, Port Orchard, the watershed management projects are the programs Poulsbo, and other rural communities would utilize of technical assistance and management and land ground water sources. Self-supplied industrial water treatment and drainage. would come from both surface and ground water Campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches, and boat sources. launching ramps would be developed on existing About 400 acres of cropland would be placed public lands, together with the acquisition of addi- under irrigation, with water supplied by individual tional land and water areas to satisfy recreational farmers from both surface and ground sources. This needs. Additional land and water areas would be increase would make a total of 1,600 acres of land in acquired along the Puget Sound shoreline to provide crop production. badly needed marine parks. Approximately 100 Compliance with Washington State water recreation sites are planned for expansion or de- quality standards would be obtained through instal- velopment prior to 1980. lation of adequate collection and treatment facilities Land acquisition, including access and fish and by a number of communities and cities in the Basins. widlife enhancement projects, would be undertaken Pulp mills would remove settleable solids from mill to increase the opportunities for this form of outdoor effluents prior to discharge and would install ade- recreation. Additional fish hatcheries would be con- quate outfalls and diffusers to achieve maximum structed for both resident and ri-tigratory fish together dilution and dispersion into marine waters. A water with rearing ponds, spawning channels and fish quality surveillance program would be expanded in passage improvements. Cross-sectional stream surveys order to provide an adequate monitoring system with would be undertaken during this period in order to sampling stations on marine and fresh water. A determine the minimum and optimum strearnflows comprehensive sewerage plan would be developed for required for fish production. Subsequent to these the Basins. - cross-sectional surveys further studies of new projects Navigation needs of the Basins consist of may be required, as well as reconsideration of the meeting the needs of pleasure boat harbors. Six small operation of existing projects. boat harbors with over 4,300 wet moorages would be provided for pleasure boaters. Long Range, 1980-2020 Power needs for the Basins would be satisfied by the Northwest Regional sys tem which is dis- A storage project is proposed on the Duckabush cussed under Power in the Area portion of this River to supply anticipated regional municipal and Report. industrial water needs of the Kitsap Peninsula. Dis- A levee project on the Dosewallips River to tribution would be accomplished using the. existing protect Dosewallips State Park is planned for early Bremerton system. Other water users within the action. Flood plain management would provide an Basins would continue to develop both ground and effective means of reducing future flood damages surface sources. through land use zoning of lands in the flood plain, An additional 1,000 acres of land would be consistent with the levels of protection provided. placed under irrigation during this period with water Floodproofing and warning systems also would be supplied from ground and surface sources by indi- implemented. These measures could contribute sig- viduals. nificantly to the reduction of future flood damages in Treatment and collection facilities would be the various drainages. expanded commensurate with the growth in popula- Two small watershed multiple-purpose projects tion and industrial development to insure that the are planned for implementation during this period to State water quality standards are continually met. A-80 The water quality monitoring, evaluation, and control picnic areas, and other recreation facilities would be program would be maintained. undertaken after 1980 at over 170 sites throughout Navigation development would be limited to the Basins, on public lands as well as on private lands, satisfying the needs of pleasure boaters. Wet moor- with both public and private sectors participating in ages would be provided at 17 small boat harbor the providing of recreation facilities. Portions of the projects, with over 21,000 wet moorages between Skokornish River and its North and South Forks may 1980 and 2020. be included in a State system of scenic'and recTe- Power development would probably include ational rivers for retention in a free-flowing state fo r pumped-storage at a number of the potential sites public use. Also, the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, within the Basin. Oil or gas-fueled steam electric Dosewallips, and Big Quileene Rivers could be in- plants may also be located during this period to meet cluded in the system. short-time peaking requirements. Development of Additional fishing opportunities would be pro- nuclear electric generating plants may occur but vided through anadromous and resident fish resource specific sites have not been determined and would be enhancement measures. A number of fish passage dependent upon future, studies that considered shore- improvements are planned during the long-range line characteristics nearness to major load centers and period, as well as additional spawning habitat de- impacts on the environment. velopment. Wildlife conservation and enhancement Flood control structures envisioned, during this programs begun prior to 1980 would be continued. period consist of a levee on the Skokon-fish River to Table 19, summarizes the West Sound Basins' provide protection to agricultural lands and one on elements of the Comprehensive Plan, showing the the Big Quilcene River to provide protection to the benefits and costs for the early action portion of the community of Quilcene. Flood plain management Plan, and provides a summary of investment costs by would be continued with zorii@tg by the counties to water resource features for the entire 50-year period guide future development and prevent unwarranted ending in 2020. The early action portion of the Plan development in the flood plain. includes programs amounting to $98,744,000 and Further programs and projects would be under- projects costing $88,995,000, for a total investment taken to satisfy watershed management needs. These of $187,739,000. Program and- project investment would include 19 multiple-purpose projects and a costs for the @ 1980-2000 , period amount to significant program of technical assistance, land treat- $271,206,000 and for the 2000-2020 period, ment, and water management. $314,250,000, for a total 50-year investment of Additional development of campgrounds, $773,195,000. A-81 TABLE 19. Com.prehensive Plan, West Sound Basins 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 Investmenti - Benefits Tn-vestment i;@vestment Investment Feature I tent Costs Costs Gross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($10001 1$10001 ($1000) ($10001 Management Programs Water Quality Control Monitoring, Evaluation and Control Programs 750 - 360 480 1,590 Flood Control Flood Plain Management 125 - 100 100 325 Watershed Management Programs 97,404 121,702 120,616 339,722 Fish & Wildlife Programs - 465. 800 Boo 2,065 Total Management $ 98,744 $122,962 $121,996 $343,702 Nonstorage Projects M&I WaterSupply Surface Water 5,850 688 6884 4,420 2,210 12,480 Ground Water 2,470 279 2794 1,770 3,150 7,390 Irrigation Private Development 50 7 74 70 70 190 Water Quality Control Collection and Treatment 10,900 676 6764 25,300 37,300 73.500 Navigation Small Boat Harbors 8,685)2 (556)2 1806)2 (250)2 (17,539)2 (26,65912 (52,883)2 Power3 Flood Control Levees 150 11 12 1 1,140 0 1,290 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Rehabilitation and Protection, and Water Management 1,079 59 150 91 8,055 970 10,104 Recreation Land AcqLkisition, Access and Recreation Facilities 62,212 5,405 6,000 595 82,11GO 133,700 278,012 Fish & Wildlife Land Acquisition, Access and Enhancement Facilities 6,284 583 1,571 988 13,389 14,854 34,527 Total Nonstorage $7,708 $9,383 $1,675 $136,244 $192,254 $417,493 Storage Projects Dam and Reservoir, Duckabu sh River M& I Water Supply 12,000 12,000 Total Storage $ 12,000 $ 12,000 Total Programs and Projects $187,739 $7,787 $9,283 $1,675 $271,206 $314,250 $773,195 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management measures and capital costs for nonstorage and storage features. 2 General Navigation facilities costs and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation. 3 Power facilities were not included in basins plan. 4 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. A-82 SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT The projects and programs are summarized in Table 20 by time periods, The project numbers identify features on Figure 9. TABLE 20. Future projects and programs, West Sound Basins PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980 Recreation Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 17. Enlargement or new development of two recreation I sites. 1. Expansion and updating of existing sources and 18. Enlargement or new development of one recreation systems to supply Shelton, Bremerton, Port Orchard, site. Gig Harbor and Port Townsend. 19. Enlargement or new development of six recreation 2. Development of contiguous ground water systems to sites. supply Bainbridge Island and the northern Kitsap 20. Enlargement or new development of three recreation Peninsula. sites. 21. Enlargement or new development of two recreation Irrigation sites. 22. Enlargement or new development of one recreation 3.* Construction of individual farm irrigation pumping site. and sprinkler systems (private). 23. Enlargement or new development of 15 recreation sites in OlVmpic National Forest and Park. Water Quality Control Fish and Wildlife 4. Construction of treatment and outfall facilities at Port Townsend, Fort Warden and industrial water at Port 24. Construction of fish passage facilities over barriers on Townsend. the Hamma Hamma River and Kennedy Creek. 5. Interception to Bremerton of industrial shipboard 25. Enlarge Bay Lake. wastes from naval shipyard. 26.* Construct new Hood Canal salmon hatchery. 6. Modification of log storage practices in Shelton 27. * Construct new trout hatcheries. Harbor. 28. Enlarge George Adams salmon hatchery. 7.* Systematic waste collection, treatment and discharge 29. Enlarge Hood Canal salmon hatchery. for newly developed areas including small boat 30. * Increase capacity of game farm by 5,000 pheasants. harbors. 31.* Develop steelhead and searun cutthroat rearing ponds. 32. * Clear stream channel and lakes. Navigation 33. * Improve big game habitat. 34.* Acquire and cleyelop access to 13 lakes. 8. Small boat harbor development-Port Discovery. 35.* Acquire and develop 10 saltwater access areas. 9. Small boat harbor clevelopment-Sequirn Bay. 36.* Acquire and develop 100 miles of streambank access. 10. Small boat harbor development-Sinclair Inlet. 37. * Acquire and develop estuarine waterfowl and fur 11. Small boat harbor development-Mats Mats Say. animal environment-1,400 acres. 12. Small boat harbor development-Brownsville. 38. * Acquire and develop upland game habitat. 13. Small boat harbor development-Dyes Inlet. 39.* Acquire and develop elk habitat. Flood Control 14. Construct levee on the right bank of the Dosewallips PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 R iver. Watershed Management Water Quality Control a. Establish and maintain water quality surveillance 15. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Chimacurn stations and prepare comprehensive sewerage plan for Creek. Basins. 16. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Golds- borough Creek. *Projects not shown on Figure 9 A-83 TABLE 20. Future projects and programs, West Sound Basins (Cont'd) Flood Control Navigation b. Establish and maintain flood plain zoning on the 46. Small boat harbor development-Port Townsend. Skokomish, Hamma Harnma, Duckabush, Dosewallips, 47. Small boat harbor development-Oak Bay. Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers. 48. Small boat harbor development-Hoodsport. 49. Small boat harbor development -Manchester. Watershed Management 50. Small boat harbor d eve lopme nt-Bai nb ridge Island- Murden Cove. C. Provide technical assistance and management for State 51. Small boat harbor development-Bainbridge Island- and Federal lands. Lynwood Center. d. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other 5 2'. Small boat harbor development-Hood Canal-Coon private practices. B ay. 53. Small boat harbor development-Hood Canal-Ducka- Fish and Wildlife bush. 54. -Small boat harbor development-Hood Canal-Union. e. Conduct cross-sectional measurements to determine minimum strearnflows to maintain existing levels of Flood Control fish production. f. Locate, survey and mark boundaries of all State- 55. Construct 6,000-foot levee, right bank, ELig Quilcene owned second class tidelands. Take steps to reserve all R iver. such lands for public use except as required by specific 56. Construct levee on Skokomish River. circumstances. g. Develop lake and stream fertilization techniques. Watershed Management h. Develop new fish toxicants. i. Develop a cooperative program with land owners to 57. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Skookum maintain wildlife habitat and allow hunter access. Creek. j. Devel6p an educational program to stress habitat 58. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Northwest utilization and retention for the wildlife resource. Shelton. Ilk. Develop compatible forest-wildlife management prac- 59. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-South Fork tices and conduct wildlife population analyses. Skokomish. 60. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-North Hood Canal. 61. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Carr Inlet. PROJECTS 1980-2000 62. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Vashon I sland. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 63. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-West Kitsap area. 40. Construct facilities to develop a regional water system 64. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-East Kitsap for the Bremerton area in the Duckabush River. area. 41.* Expansion of existing water supply systems at 65. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Quilcene. Shelton, Port Orchard, Gig Harbor, Port Townsend, 66. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-East Jeffer- Bainbridge Island, Vashon Island, Pouslbo and rural son. system and self-supplied industrial. 67. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Sequim B ay. irrigation 68. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Johnson Creek. 42.* Construction of individual farm irrigation pumping and sprinkler systems (private). Recreation Water Quality Control 69. Enlargement or development of two recreation sites. 70. Enlargement or development of four recreation sites- 43.* Expansion of existing waste treatment facilities. Discovery Bay. 44. *Construction of new waste collection and treatment 71. Enlargement or development of one recreation site- facilities to accommodate newly locating develop- Indian Island. ments. 72. Enlargement or development of four recreation sites. 45.* Provide for collection and treatment of pleasure 73. Enlargement or developfirient of 13 recreation sites- boating related waster. Hood Canal. *Projects not shown on Figure 9 A-84 LEGEND 7 Proposed Proposed ecirly-tion FEATURE long-range Rg, projects Project. U@ 0 0--imsp, M & I Water Supply gg Irrigation N OR, qg, Water Quality Control 58, 311,31 AD Navigation T R, - ffi 68 69,103 :R0,; s Power Whidbey Jq A MR /1) 04 Flood Control V 0 Watershed Management ugp 34 and pg I 17 qp fix Recreation AL to�,@ H, A 72,106 Fish and Wildlife 52 fe@ View, Do. & Reservoir 66 A Ap"INT, [101 f,ffi,11gy '1 0, MM �21 @gg P, J2 NOTE: Potential nuclear power and p...pd. 063 19 J#N 0 06 storage sites are pa R11a, not shown. See ) a u Appendix IX, Power. @K@ 74.18 M, u -'A2 4 A Ah94 EATTLE 73,107 36 55 A BREMER 21 1 97 0- E I or n.rd P DAR Ng 1%, RE 22 21 Rr 102 A 20 0117- 22A k 6040 0 ,V,shon PS 0 061 -J KITS 2 PIERCE C 21 100 g" M-n L.k. ;S 21 u MR, 156 i@ 28 -1-1 22 058 A 9 22A,,._ NTE 0 5 21 2 21 f 2f ITEMS NOT SHOWN ON MAP TACOMA and -H --rity ,t,r Fly %1PI, P. i. 0, 9 1,,ig,bl@ 1-d and pri-le irrig,tiln 9,41 ff i A22 @Vo Terminal and ,i,,t,d 2TT industrial land, 4 X,@11,401 97 Fort Lewis %N Small ..1-1h.cl b ... dc,i., Scenic highway and potential recreation 1-4 -9..nt, ON CO 7:1,115 Fish and and wildlife p-i-1, y., to be ,t,d HURS' COUNTY zz Scale in Miles )0 24 5 0 5 057 See functional Ppendi, for locoti.n map, lJ0 S-- OLYMPIA WEST SOUND BASINS FIGURE 9. Comprehensive Plan Elements A-85 TABLE 20. Future projects and programs, West Sound Basins (Cont'd) 74. Enlargement or development of 23 recreation sites- Kitsap Peninsula. Water Quality Control 75. Enlargement or development of four recreation sites. 85.* Expansion of existing waste collection and treatment 76. Enlargement or development of two recreation sites. facilities. 77. Enlargement or development of 18 recreation sites- 86. * Construction of new waste collection and treatment Southern Puget Sound. facilities to accommodate newly loQating and expand- 78. Enlargement or development of 15 recreation sites- ing development. Olympic National Forest and Park. 87.* Provide for collection and treatment of pleasure Fish and Wildlife boating related wastes. 79. * Conduct habitat improvement on 19 streams for 31 Navigation miles. 80. * Provide channel clearance on eight streams for 14 88. Small boat harbor development-Kingston. miles. 89. Small boat harbor development-Quilcene Say-East 81.* Improve fish passage on six streams for 52 miles. Side. 90. Small boat harbor developme n t-B ai nb ridge Island- 82.* Construct four hatcheries, 40 acres of rearing ponds Fletcher Bay. and 3 miles of spawning channel. 91. S.mail boat harbor development-Marrowstone Island-East Side. 92. Small boat harbor development-Hood Canal- PROGRAMS 1980-2000 Bywater Bay. 93. Small boat harbor development-Hood Canal- Water Quality Conirol Thorndyke Say. 94. Small boat harbor development-Hood Canal-Warren- 1. Continue monitoring, evaluation and control programs. ville. 95. Small boat harbor development-Hood Canal- Flood Control Anderson Cove. m. Continue flood plain zoning program. Watershed Management Watershed Management 96. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Isabella. 97. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Anderson n. Provide technical assistance and management for State Island. and Federal lands. 98. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-McNeil 0. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other Island. private practices. 99. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Hartstene I sland. Fish and Wildlife 100. Small watershed multiple-purpose projecv!North Fork Skokomish. p. Continue management and educational programs initi- 101. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Dose- ated in the early action period. wall ips-Duckabush. 102. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-East Hood Canal. Recreation PROJECTS 2000-2020 103. Enlargement or development of one recreation site. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 104. Enlargement or development of five recreation sites- Discovery Bay. 83.* Expansion of systems to meet demands. 105. Enlargement or development of one recreation site- Indian Island. Irrigation 106. Enlargement or development of four recreation sites- - 'Port Ludlow. 84.* Construction of individual farm irrigation pumping 107. Enlargement or development of 15 recreation sites- and sprinkler systems (private). Hood Canal. *Projects not shown on Figure 9 A-8 6 TABLE20. Future projects and programs, West Sound Basins (Cont'd) 108. Enlargement or development of 11 recreation sites- Flood Control Kitsap Peninsula. 109. Enlargement or development of four recreation sites- r. Continue flood plain zoning. Southern Puget Sound. 110. Enlargement or development of two recreation sites. Watershed Management 111. Enlargement or development of 20 recreation sites- Olympic National Forest and Park. S. Provide technical assistance and management for State and Federal lands. Fish and Wildlife t. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other private practices. 112.* Construct five hatchery equivalent stations. 113.* Develop 150 acres of rearing facilities. Fish and Wildlife 114.* Develop 1 mile of spawning channel. U. Continue management and educational programs initi- PROGRAMS 2000-2020 ated in the early action period. Water Quality Control q. Continue monitoring, evaluation and control programs. Trojects not shown on Figure 9 A-8 7 1=41.7l.f"'M @VW@ '4,2 0 Or. AM , COUNTIES AFFECTED: "I R" RT,,a@ Jefferson Clauam mum 43 ELWHA-DUNGENESS BASINS SUMMARY OF PLAN be part of the early action program. Ten miles of streambank access and 250 acres of waterfowl habitat Early Action 1970-1980 would be acquired to enhance angler and hunter The sources of water supply for the Elwha success. Cooperative landowner-hunter programs River Basin are adequate through year 1980. To meet would be developed to insure access to prime hunting the projected increase of production at the Port grounds. Angeles pulp mills prior to 1980, the self-supplied To comply with Washington State water quality industrial water diversion and conveyance facilities standards, waste treatment and sewer outfall facilities from the Elwha River will require enlarging. would be installed by the various industries for To circumvent the spring turbidity problem on treating industrial wastes prior to discharge into the Morse Creek, Port Angeles is expected to provide a off-shore waters. Water quality surveillance is an Ranney Well near the Elwha River to an approximate essential element of the water quality program. capacity of 5 mgd prior to 1980. The Ranney Well Stations should be maintained at Ediz Hook, Pilot water supply would supplement the Morse Creek Station, the pulp mills outfalls, the ferry dock, Morse supplies. Creek and Dungeness Spit to regularly measure the The city of Port Angeles must enlarge their water quality characteristics. The Elwha and system delivery capability to meet the peak day Dungeness Rivers flow for the greater part of their demands and fire control needs. The system delivery length through a natural sanctuary, Olympic National capability is projected to be 14.7 mgd by year 1980. Park, where outdoor recreation is the primary use. The water supply system for Sequirn and the Hence, wasteloading would be light and minimum small rural community water systems should be flows for other Purposes such as fish will be sufficient enlarged to provide the peak flow and fire protection to maintain a desirable water quality. A continuing delivery capability outlined' in the State's water program of expanding waste treatment and sanitary supply system standards. sewers in all municipalities and small community The projected water supply and streamflow systems would be necessary to keep pace with an needs in the Dungeness River Basin can be met by expanding population. modernizing or updating the existing irrigation sys- To meet the rapidly increasing demand of tem. The updated irrigation system would consist of a boating enthusiasts and satisfy part of the existing closed pipe conveyance and distribution system cap- unmet needs, 7 10 wet moorages would be provided at able of supplying water by gravity at sprinkler new boat harbors located near the Elwha and pressure to an irrigable area of 22,000 acres. This Dungeness Rivers. To meet the projected commercial includes 6,100 acres of lands which are not now navigation needs, a continuing program of land irrigated. acquisition and facility development would be neces- Strearnflow in the Dungeness River would be saTy by the Port Of Port Angeles. increased during the critical summer months. Under Flood plain regulations would be established to present day diversions, this would leave in the river an reduce existing and potential flood damages and additional 31,000 acre-feet during the summer permit optimum agricultural use of the 750-acre months over that which presently exists. This volume Elwha River flood plain and the 2,900-acre is nearly equal to the entire present combined mean Dungeness River flood plain. Levees would be pro- monthly flow of August, September, and October. vided as they are needed and are economically The additional strearnflow would provide an adequate justified. transportation flow for fish along the entire reach of Other water resource needs would be met by the river and increase the rearing potential for both the progressive development and implementation of resident and anadromous fish. watershed management programs; particularly agri- With the irrigation system in pipe, certain cultural and urban water management, with agri- sections of the present open irrigation ditches could cultural and forest rehabilitation and protection be utilized for additional spawning and rearing area measures. No specific projects are planned for the for anadromous fish. A steelhead rearing pond would early action time period. A-90 The plan for recreation would provicle for land The present electric power generation facilities and facility developments interspersed throughout in Elwha Dam would be retained. A maximum annual the Basin and along the shoreline bordering the Strait power benefit foregone of $130,000 would be at- of Juan de Fuca. The base of Dungeness Spit would tributed to the project if the power facilities were be obtained for limited recreational use commensur- totally removed. ate with the spit's present use as a natural wildlife The municipal water diversion facilities on refuge. Morse Creek would be enlarged, to the ultimate Fish passage facilities would be constructed at capacity of 14 mgd. The conveyance facilities from Elwha Dam which would permit the introduction of the diversion to Port Angeles would be enlarged to various salmon species to the hitherto inaccessible meet peak requirements necessary. area of the Elwha River upstream from Elwha and During this period the municipal@and domestic Glines Canyon Dams. Both the upstream and down- water supply systems should be expanded to keep stream migrants would be transported around Elwha pace with the population growth.-The Dungeness Dam and Lake Aldwell. River water supplies are adequate to rueet:Sequim's Other early action measures which would be year 2020 needs. undertaken to increase production of fish and wild- A continuing program of expanding existing life, would be to provide a spawning channel, develop and constructing new municipal and industrial waste a fish hatchery capable of being expanded, rehabili- treatment and sanitary sewer facilities commensurate tate and fertilize Lake Sutherland, acquire 25 miles of with a water quality surveillance program would be streambank access along the Elwha and independent necessary to meet and maintain Washington State drainages to insure public access to these areas, water quality standards. develop 250 acres of waterfowl habitat and imple- Prior to year 2000, an additional 350 wet ment programs to stress value of the fish and wildlife moorages would be provided at the small boat harbor resources. Cross-sectional stream surveys would be near the Elwha River, 150 wet moorages at the undertaken during this period in order to determine existing small boat harbor in Port Angeles and an the minimum and optimum strearnflows required for additional 1,000 salt water wet moorages at a new fish production. Subsequently further studies of new small boat harbor located near the mouth of the projects may be required, as well as the reconsider- Dungeness River. ation of the operation of existing projects. A continuing program of land acquisition for water oriented industry and terminal facility de- velopment would be necessary by the Port of Port Long-Range 1980-2020 Angeles. During the period 1980-2020, 1,170 acres of Additional water supplies for industry and additional land would be needed to meet the pro- strearnflow for fish in the Elwha River would be jected commercial navigation business volume. obtained by modifying the use of the 30,000 acre- A flood plain management program would be foot Lake Aldwell formed by Elwha Dam. Outlet continued. Twenty-five year flood protection would works would be placed in the left abutment with be provided to 2,200 acres of the 2,900-acre flood adequate capacity to meet the projected downstream plain after year 2000 with the construction of levees fish flows and industrial water demands. The full along the lower 8 miles of the Dungeness River. water requirements can be met most of the time A 7,000-foot levee along the right bank of the under the proposed operation, but not fully during Elwha River would provide 25-year protection to the critical period of record (1935-1946). Even with 750-acre flood plain. Incidental flood protection in reduced fish flows, the total projected water require- excess of the 25-year flood would be obtained with ments cannot be met with upstream storage 100 the modified operation of Lake Aldwell reservoir. percent of the time. Prior to year 2000 small watershed projects The 1,600 cfs outlet facilities would permit the would be provided near Port Angeles, along the present 3,000 acre-foot active pool to be increased to Dungeness River, McDonald, Morse and Siebert 29,500 acre-feet. The modified operation would alter Creeks. Upgrading of existing facilities and more the existing average summer recreation pool by less intensive application of recurring and nonrecurring than 20 acres. It is not expected to change th,- land treatment practices would be required through- projected recreation or angler-day use of the reser- out the Basins. Watershed management programs voir. which offer technical assistance and financial partici- A-91 pation in local land and water related projects and barriers, and improvement of waterfowl habitat. programs would be continued. After year 2000 small Table 21 summarizes the elements of the watershed protection projects would be provided Comprehensive Plan for the Elwha-Dungeness Basins, along Ennis Creek and the Lower Elwha River. showing the benefits and costs for the early action An additional 1,280 acres of land with program (projects and programs required by 1980), appropriate facilities would be acquired and de- and provides a summary of investment costs by water veloped for recreational use. The upper reaches of the resource functions for the entire 50-year period Elwha, Dungeness, and Grey Wolf Rivers, and the ending in 2020. The early action plan includes Tyler Peak scenic area would be retained in their programs amounting to $18,409,000 and projects natural state. costing $41,447,000 for a total investment of Additional fish and wildlife objectives would be $59,856,000. Program and project investment costs satisfied with salmon and steelhead rearing im- for the 1980-2000 period amount to $58,572,000 poundments, stream channel clearance, channel and for the 2000-2020 period $72,273,000 for a total cross-section improvements, fish passage over natural 50-year investment of $190,701,000. TABLE 21. Comprehensive Plan, Elwha-Dungeness Basins 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-20DO 2000-2020 1970-2020 1 nvestment' Benefits Investment Investment I rivestment Feature Item Costs Costs G ross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) 1$1000) Management Programs Monitoring, Evaluation and Water Quality Control Control Programs 350 440 520 1,310 Flood Control Flood Plain Management 31 20 20 71 Watershed Management Programs 17,852 23,229 24,437 65,517 Fish & Wildlife Programs 176 309 300 785 Total Programs $18,409 $23,998 $@75,27 7 $ 670684 Nonstorage Projects M& I Water Supply Ground Water Use 24 6 64 0 18 18 60 Surface Water Use 1,440 1,673 1,6734 0 2,660 830 4,930 Irrigation Surface Water Use 15,380 897 1,4674 570 0 0 15,380 Water Quality Control Waste Treatment and Collection Facilities 13,595 713 7134 0 9,760 2 1 300 44,655 Navigation Small Boat Harbors (1,434)3 (92)3 (133)3 (41)3 (1,61.313 (1:411) 3 (4,458)3 Power2 Flood Control Levees 0 0 0 0 0 2,750 2,750 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Protection and Rehabilitation, and Water Management 0 0 0 0 2,962 300 3,262 Recreation Land Acquisition, Access and Facilities 8,259 698 1,125 427 12,700 19,800 40,759 Fish& Wildlife Production Enhancement Facilities, Access and Acquisition 2,749 282 1,758 1,476 3,474 1,998 8,221 Total Nonstorage !@411,447 i4,269 $6,742 $2,473 $31,574 $46,996 $120,017 Storage Projects Elwha Dam and Reservoir Industrial Water Supply 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 Fish & Wildlife 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 1,500 0j- 0 $3,000 0 $ 3,000 Total Storage 0 $ 0 Total Programs and Projects $59,856 $4,269 $6,742 $2,473 $58,572 $72,273 $190,701 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs for nonstorage and storage projects. 2 Power facilities not included in basin plan. 3 General Navigation facilities cost and benefits for public small boat harbors only. Total pleasure boat facilities costs and benefits included with Recreation. 4 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. A-92 SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT The projects and programs are summarized in Table 22 by time periods. The project numbers identify features on Figure 10. TABLE 22. Future projects and programs, Elwha-Dungeness Basins PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980 Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 16. Develop recreational area at Dungeness Spit. 17. Development of one recreation site on Morse Creek 1. Construct Ranney well and conveyance system to Port and one on Siebert Creek. Angeles. 18. Development of two recreation sites along Dungeness 2. Enlarge the industrial water supply diversion facilities River below Sequim. and transmission pipeline and tunnel from Elwha 19. Development of one recreation site along Dungeness River to Port Angeles. River above Canyon Creek. 3. Enlarge the transmission system for Sequim. Fish and Wildlife 4.* Expand the small and rural community municipal water supply and transmission systems. 20. Fish passage facilities around Elwha' and Glines Irrigation Canyon Dams. 21.* Development of a kokanee spawning channel and 6. Construct new irrigation diversion, pipeline convey- steelhead rearing pond. ance and lateral distribution system for 22,000 acres 22. Rehabilitation of Lake Sutherland. on Dungeness River plain. 23.* Construction of an expandable fish hatchery. 6.* Install the individual farm irrigation systems required 24.* Acquisition of 5 miles of streambank access along to irrigate 6,100 acres of new lands on Dungeness Eivvha River, 10 miles along Dungeness River, and 20 River plain. miles along independent drainages below Olympic National Park boundary. Water Quality Control 25. Update present irrigation system for low flow augmen- tation Dungeness River. 7. Install in-plant waste treatment facilities at the speci- 26. Rehabilitate 15 miles of irrigation ditches for supple- fied industries in Port Angeles and Port Angeles mental salmon spawning and rearing area. Harbor. 27.* Acquire and develop 250 acres of waterfowl and fur 8. Construct waste treatment facilities and sanitary animal habitat for hunting and other nature associ- sewers at Sequim, Sequim Bay, Port Angeles, and ated recreation. small municipalities. PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 9. Improvement of waste collection facilities for recrea- tion developments including small boat harbors. Water Quality Control Navigation a. Establish and operate water quality surveillance stations at key salt and fresh water locations and 10. Acquire additional waterfront land around Port implementation of a comprehensive sewerage Basin Angeles for water related navigational development. plan. 11. Construction of a small boat harbor development at Elwha River and Dungeness River. Flood Control Recreation b. Establish and administer county-wide flood plain zoning measures under flood plain management 1Z Development of three recreation sites below Elwha program. Dam on E lwha River. 13. Development of two recreation sites between Lake Watershed Management Sutherland and Lake A Idwell. 14. Develop two urban recreation areas along waterfront C. Provide technical assistance and management for State near Port Angeles. and Federal lands. 15. Develop two salt water beach recreation areas between d. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and bther Port Angeles and McDonald Creek. private practices. *Projects not shown on Figure 10 A-93 TABLE 22. Future projects and programs, Elwha-Dungeness Basins (Cont'd) Fish and Wildlife - 40. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Dungeness e. Develop lake fertilization techniques. R iver. f. Make wildlife population analysis and timberland 41. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-McDonald management practices studies, develop habitat Creek. improvement techniques and an education program on 42. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Siebert proper game hunting concepts, and begin a program Creek. with land owners for game habitat retention and Recreation hunter access. 9. Develop fish disease controls and new toxicants. 43. Development of two recreation sites near Lake h. Conduct cross-sectional stream surveys to determine Aldwell. minimum and optimum strearnflows for fish. 44. Development of a salt water recreation site west of i. Locate, survey, and mark boundaries of all State- Port Angeles, owned second class tidelands in the Basins. Take steps 45. Development of two additional urban recreation sites to reserve all such lands for public use except as near Port Angeles. required for specific circumstances. 46. Development of recreational site on Morse Creek. j. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and recrea- 47. Development of two recreation sites between Siebert tional use of tidelands. and Morse Creeks. k. Fertilization of Lake Sutherland. 48. Development of recreation site in McDonald Creek PROJECTS 1980-2000 drainage. 49. Development of two recreation sites in Lower Dunge- Municipal and Industrial Water Supply ness River. Fish and Wildlife 28. Enlarge the municipal water supply storage and transmission facilities from Morse Creek. 50. 1 mprove stream and streambed cross-sections, six 29. Enlarge the industrial water supply transmission streams-18 miles. system from Elwha River to Port Angeles. 51. Channel clearance, Dungeness River-8 miles. 30. Construct outlet works in Elwha Dam. 52. Fish passage over major barriers on Dungeness 3V Increase capacity and enlarge the small and rural R iver-6 miles. community systems. 53. Construct 10 acres of salmon rearing ponds. 54. Construct a new salmon hatchery. Water Ouality Control PROGRAMS 1980-2000 32. Install additional in-plant industrial waste treatment facilities at Port Angeles. Water Quality Control 33.* Expansion of waste treatment and sanitary sewer facilities for municipalities and recreation develop- 1. Continue water quality surveillance program. ments. Flood Control Navigation m. Continue flood plain management program. .34. Expand Port Angeles small boat harbor. 35. Expand Elwha River-East small boat harbor. Watershed Management 36. Construct a new small boat harbor-Jamestown. 37. Development of additional water transport-oriented n. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other lands in Port Angeles. private practices. 0. Provide technical assistance and management for State Watershed Management and Federal lands. 38. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Morse Fish and Wildlife Creek. 39. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Port p. Continue fish and wildlife programs. Angeles. *Projects not shown on Figure 10 A-94 'Jqaf@ -Mhfil R, R I'm, AN 001' e,* c m _01 lip, N I'll ���' gwj 63 P Y@W_T"' In '4 '. _ ;ngm R 'g% WAR 12,& 9 611 2 Lake 55 40 DIE 11 6 6 Z@,- 42 Crescent 20 N 3 0 @.L@ 47 Lake Aldwell 38 3 7& 6 W, 3 5 ut erlan 2 46 Z;@ 17 67 6 `8 8 65 MW AM r'@' A Mor 0 '0@ 8 ul- 5i 51 "a "), """T '76 @,M PJ",",.C@ ,1"N:,,,k'Tq_0 "7Nb 015, mt. C.L; LLA C nrrie IEFFtRSO' N' N ME MR Q 0 XON @p V- '.W '4 0 mt. Olympus (M ITEMS NOT SHOWN ON MAP NOTE: Potential nuclear 21,i@"-@-'@." A power and pumped- Rural and small community water supply projects storage sites are not shown. See Irrigable lands and private irrigation developments Appendix IX, Power. Anderson Terminal and water-transport oriented LEGEND industrial lands * Proposed Proposed Small watershed boundaries* early-action projects FEATURE long-range projects Scenic highway and potential recreation river segments 0-> M & I Water Supply 0_c@ Fish and wildlife projects yet to be sfted Irrigation E See functional appendix for location maps Water Quality Control 1@ CIA Navigation Power Scale in, Miles Flood Control 5 0 5 10 0 Watershed Management 0 A Recreation A Fish and Wildlife ELWHA-DUNGENESS BASINS Dam and Reservoir FIGURE 10. Comprehensive Plan Elements A-95 TABLE 22. Future projects and programs, Elwha-Dungeness Basins (Cont'd) PROJECTS 2000-2020 Recreation Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 64. Development of one recreation site-Elwha R iver. 65. Development of one recreation site-Morse Creek 55. Enlarge the industrial diversion and transmission Watershed. facilities from Elwha River to Port Angeles. 66. Development of two recreation tites-Siebert Creek 56.* Increase capacity of transmission and storage facilities Watershed. at Port Angeles, Sequirn and the small rural and 67. Development of one recreation site-McDonald Creek. community systems. 68. Development of one recreation site-Dungeness River near Sequim. Water Quality Control Fish and Wildlife 57. Install additional in-plant industrial waste treatment facilities at industries located in Port Angeles. 69.* Develop 30 acres of salmon rearing facilities. 58.0 Expansion of waste treatment and sanitary sewer 70.* Obtain land acquisition including habitat areas. facilities for municipalities and recreation develop- ments. PROGRAMS 2000-2020 Navigation Water Quality Contr8l 59. Enlarge small boat harbor-Jamestown. q. Continue water quality surveillance program. Flood Control Flood Control 60. Construct 1.5 miles of levee along right bank Elwha r. Continue flood plain management program. R iver. 61. Construct 8.0 miles of set back levees along left bank Watershed Management Dungeness River. S. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other Watershed Management private practices. t. Provide technical assistance and management for State 62. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Ennis and Federal lands. Creek. 63. Small watershed multiple-purpose project-Elwha Fish and Wildlife R iver. U. Continue fish and wildlife programs. *Projects not shown on Figure 10 A-96 WD COUNTY AFFECTED: 'E"W, ""jig @jg aj Mi Sava Jaaam "61 50li MAU 0 -gu Rgm I .... . ............. 1: 24 mH SAN JUAN ISLANDS SUMMARY OF PLAN marine water rearing areas are proposed. Wildlife development would include acquisition of additional Early Action, 1970-1980 lands for waterfowl and upland game habitat. The early action program emphasizes expansion Nuclear power generation was investigated for and analysis of present surface and ground-Water the Islands. The possibilities of a nuclear power site supplies and facilities, additional waste treatment and being located on any of the Islands are indefinite sewers, acquisition of land and construction of since they are located away from the present and recreational facilities, new boat harbors and moor- projected main load centers; however, there are many ages, and obtaining access to areas for fishing and factors to be considered in a site selection which have hunting uses. not been evaluated to date. Therefore, the actual site Present water supplies are adequate to to 1980, selection for nuclear power generation has not been although some systems would require new distri- included as a part of this plan. bution facilities such as meters and larger pipelines. New installations for watershed management, To comply with the Washington State water upgrading of existing facilities, and more intense quality standards, the city of Friday Harbor would application of recurring and non-recurring land treat- require primary treatment facilities, disinfection ment practices, are required. These measures are part facilities and adequate marine discharge throughout of the watershed management program to meet needs the Islands to intercept septic tank effluent and for floodwater and sediment damage reduction, water prevent beach and marine-water contamination. management, and watershed rehabilitation and pro- Water quality management, planning and surveillance tection. The cost of this work causes a continuing are essential elements of the water quality program. requirement of public and private funds to protect Stations should be established at Lawrence Point, and develop water and related land resources in the Waldron Island, and Friday Harbor for water quality Islands. Watershed management programs that offer surveillance. technical assistance and financial participation in There would be four new small boat harbors local land and water related projects and programs established throughout the Islands prior to 1980 would be continued. providing about 1,464 wet moorages. Twelve harbors with 6,300 wet moorages would be constructed between 1980 and 2020. Long-Range 1980-2020 The recreation plan proposes facilities on 400 To meet future water supply needs for the acres of lands by 1980. Nearly a third of the early islands of Orcas, Shaw, San Juan and Lopez, water investment would be for purchasing land, principally would be obtained from Mountain Lake on Orcas salt water beach areas and beach access. A co- Island. The western arm of Orcas Island would receive ordinated development plan would be established its water from this diversion. However, the com- between Federal and state and local governmental munity in and around the East Sound area would bodies to acquire land and develop facilities in an continue to obtain its water supply from present orderly arrangement. The plan should include under- sources. Water for the other islands would be con- water and shoreland recreation areas, park and veyed by an inter-island pipeline to distribution recreation areas, aquacultural sites. centers at specified locations throughout the Islands. Early action objectives involving fish and Individual municipal distribution systems would con- widlife would require acquisition of additional land at nect to the pipeline or the distribution centers. The numerous locations throughout the Islands for public distribution system costs are not included in the plan. access. These lands would be in addition to those A continuing program of expanding existing needed for outdoor recreation. A controlled rearing and constructing new municipal and industrial waste impoundment would be developed for salmon pro- treatment and sanitary sewer facilities commensurate duction at False Bay in addition to development of a with a water quality surveillance program would be fresh water lake for trout fishing. Fish programs to necessary to meet and maintain Washington State enhance shellfish production and development of water quality standards. A-98 By the year 2020, an additional twelve harbors - impoundments- would be developed for salmon pro- with 6,300 wet moorages would be constructed. duction in addition to development of fresh water Three small water shed projects for floodwater lakes for . trout fishing. Fish programs to enhance damage reduction, rehabilitation and protection, and shellfish production and develop marine-water rearing water management, should be provided -in these areas and wildlife programs to acquire additional Islands prior to 2020. Upgrading of existing facilities lands for: waterfowl and upland game habitat are a and more intensive application of recurring and part of the plan. non-recurring land treatment practices would also be Table 23 summarizes the San Juan Islands in required. Ongoing watershed management programs elements of the Comprehensive Plan, showing the which provide some degree of technical assistance and benefits andcosts for the early action portion of the financial participation would be continued. Plan, and provides a summary of investment costs by An additional 2,310 acres of land with water resource functions for the entire 50-year period appropriate facilities would be acquired and de- ending in 2020. The early action portion of the Plan veloped for recreational use. includes programs amounting to $12,252,000 and To meet the continuing needs for fish and projects costing $18,303,000 for a total investment wildlife would require acquisition of additional and at of $30,555,000. Program and . project investment numerous locations throughout the Islands for public costs for the 1980-2000 period amount to access. These lands would be in addition to those $46,833,000 and for the 2000-2620 period, needed for outdoor recreation. Controlled rearing $46,396,000; for a total 50-year investment of $123,784,000. TABLE 23. Comprehensive Plan, San Juan Islands 1970-1980 Average Annual 1980-2000 2000-2020 1970-2020 I nvestmenti Benef its I nvestment investment investment Feature Items Cost Cost& G ross Net Costs Costs Costs ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($1000) ($ 10001 Management Programs Water QualitV Monitoring, Evaluation .& Control Programs 340 160 200 700 Watershed Management Programs 11,897 13,989 13,720 39,606 Fish & Wildlife Programs 15, 0 0 15 Total Programs $12,252 $14,149 $13,920 $40,321 Non-Storage Projects M&I Wat.erSuppIV Ground Water Use 670 21 212 0 670 Surface Water Use 10,200 10,200 Water QualitV Control Waste Treatment & Collection Facilities 1,824 44 442 0 2,968 3,600 8,392 Navigation Small Boat Ha rbors (2,951) (189), (274) (85) (3,625) (6,100) (12,676) Power3 Watershed Management Floodwater Damage Reduction, Protection and Rehabilitation, and Water Management 0 0 0 0 2,736 0 2,736 Recreation Land Acquisition, access 15,224 1,112 2,700 1,588 16,200 28,200 59,624 and facilities Fish & Wildlife Production Enhancement Facilities, access, & Acquisition 585 47 103 56 580 676 -1,841 Total Non-Storage $18,303 $1,224 $2,868 $1,644 $32,684 $32,476 $ 83,463 Total Programs and Projects $30,555 $1,224 $2,997 $1,769 $46,833 $46,396 $123,784 1 Includes cumulative annual program costs for the period for management features and capital costs for projects. 2 Average annual benefits assumed equal to average annual costs. 3 Power facilities not included in Island plan. A-99 SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPMENT The projects and programs of the Comprehensive Plan are summarized in Table 24 by period. The project numbers identify features on Figure 11. TABLE 24. Future projects and programs, San Juan Islands PROJECTS PRIOR TO 1980 Municipal and industrial Water Supply Fish and Wildlife 1.* Update present municipal and industrial water storage 21.* Develop three estuarine rearing ponds. and distribution system for San Juan and Orcas 22.* Develop fresh water lake for trout fishing. Islands. 23. Acquisition and development of six salt water access areas. Water Quality Control 24.* Acquisition for wildlife habitat improvement and hunting access. 2. Construct waste treatment and sewerage facilities at 25. Acquisition and development of salt water access for F riday H arbor and Camp 0 rki Ia. waterfowl hunting and observation. Navigation PROGRAMS PRIOR TO 1980 3. Construct small boat harbor at Friday Harbor, San Water Quality Control Juan Island. 4. Construct small boat harbor at East Sound, Orcas a. Establish and operate water quality surveillance sta. Island. tions at key salt and fresh water locations. 5. Construct small boat harbor at Armitage Island. 6. Construct small boat harbor at Mackaye Harbor, Recreation Lopez Island. b. Provide for the effective recreation use and public Recreation access to State-owned tidelands. 7. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, San Juan Watershed Management Island. S. Acquire and/or develop two recreation sites, San Juan C. Provide technical assistance and management for State Island. and Federal lands. 9. Acquire and/or develop three recreation sites, San d. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other Juan Island. private practices. 10. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Lopez Island. Fish and Wildlife 11. Acquire and/or develop three recreation sites, Lopez Island. a. Develop lake fertilization techniques. 12. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Decatur f. Make wildlife population analysis and timberland Island. management practices studies, develop habitat 13. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Blakely improvement techniques and an education program on I stand. proper game hunting concepts, and begin a program 14. Acquire and/or develop two recreation sites, Shaw with landowners for game habitat retention and Island. hunter access. 15. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Orcas g. Develop fish disease controls and new toxicants. I stand. h. Conduct cross-sectional stream surveys to determine 16. Acquire and/or develop two recreation sites, Orcas minimum and optimum strearnflows for fish. I stand. i. Locate, survey, and mark boundaries of all State- 17. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Clark owned second class tidelands in the Islands. Take steps I stand. to reserve all such lands for public use except as 18. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Platos required for specific circumstances. I stand. Perform an inventory of shellfish stocks and recrea- 19. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Waldron tional use of tidelands. Island. 20. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Stuart Island. *Projects not shown on Figure 11 A-100 ORCAS U 32 26 3 IM, M-1,11 5 Ira, 3 Amomp" al UR'Lg IR @. I 47,56A F,iq s I 44 19 OR 330 2 SLANU 0 wg', 9 E Z A U4 ISLANL @66@0 5 ff 1BUR AP ITEMS NOT SHOWN ON M Rural and small community water supply projects 7- aH Irrigable lands and private irrigation development Ila I'll Y "I ,I-,', 0 0,11 L .11 a- Terminal and water-transporf oriented industrial lands Small watershed boundaries Scenic highway and potential recreation NOTE: Potential nuclear power and pumped-storage river segments sites are not shown. See Appendix IX, Power. Fish and wildlife projects yet to be sited See functional appendix for location maps LEGEND Proposed Proposed eorly-action FEATURE long-range projects projects 0--mmoI M & I Water Supply Scale in Miles Irrigation 5 0 5 10 Water Quality Control Navigation Aft SAN JUAN ISLANDS Power Flood Control Watershed Management Recreation FIGURE 11. Comprehensive Plan Elements Fish and Wildlife V!@ Dam & Reservoir A-101 TABLE 24. Future projects and programs, San Juan Islands (Cont'd) PROJECTS 1980-2000 45. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Stuart . I sland. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply 46. Acquire and/or develop two recreation sites, San Juan Island. 26. Construct municipal and industrial water supply pipe- 47. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, San Juan line and storage areas from Mountain Lake on Orcas Island. Island to West Sound of that island and to the other 48. Acquire and/or develop three recreation sites, San islands of Shaw, Lopez and San Juan. Juan Island. Water Quality Control Fish and Wildlife 27. Continue construction of waste treatment and sewer- 49. Develop and construct an additional 20 acres of age facilities. rearing impoundments for salmon. Navigation PROGRAMS 1980-2000 28. Develop new small boat harbor at Fossil Bay, Sucia I sl and. VVater Quality Control 29. Develop new small boat harbor at Cowlitz Bay, Waldron Island. k. Continue water quality surveillance program. 30. Develop new small boat harbor at Roche Harbor, San Juan Island. Watershed Management 31. Develop new small boat harbor at False Bay, San Juan Island. 1. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other Watershed Management private, practices. m. Provide technical assistance and management for State 32. Provide small watershed multiple-purpose project for and Federal lands. Orcas-Waldron Islands. 33. Provide small watershed multiple-purpose project for Fish and Wildlife San Juan Island. 34. Provide small watershed multiple-purpose project for n. Continue fish and wildlife programs. Lopez-B lakely-Decatur Islands. PROJECTS 2000-2020 Recreation 35. Acquire and/or develop three recreation sites, Lopez Navigation i Island. 36. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Lopez 50. Construct small boat harbor at Reid Harbor, Stuart Island. I sland. 37. Acquire a'nd?or clev'dlbp@ two recreation @siteil--Lopez 51. Construct small boat harbor at Nelson Bay, Henry Island. Island. 38. Acquire and/or develop two recreation sites, Shaw 52. Construct small boat harbor at Griffin Bay, San Juan I sl and. I sland. 39. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Shaw 53. Construct small boat harbor at Fauntleroy Point, Island. Decatur Island. 40. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Blakely Island. 54. Construct small boat harbor at False Say-Stage 11, 41. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Decatur San Juan Island. Island. 42. Acquire and/or develop two recreation sites, Orcas Recreation I sland. 43. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Orcas 55. Acquire and/or develop three recreation sites on Island. Henry Island. 44. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site, Waldron 56. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site near Island. Sportsman Lake, San Juan Island. A-102 TABLE24. Future projects and programs, San Juan Islands (Contd) 57. Acquire and/or develop two recreation sites near Low Point, San Juan Island. PROGRAMS 2000-2020 58. Acquire and/or develop three recreation sites near Mud Bay, Lopez Island. Water Quality Control 59. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site near Flat Point, Lopez Island. 0. Continue water quality surveillance program. 60. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site on Decatur I sland. Watershed Management 61. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site near Doebay, Orcas Island. p. Provide technical assistance for on-farm and other 62. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site near private practices. Dolphin, 0 rcas Island. q. Provide technical assistance and management for State 63. Acquire and/or develop one recreation site on Waldron and Federal lands. Island. Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife r. Continuation of fish and wildlife programs including 64.* Provide additional fish and wildlife facilities including shellfish enhancement. access and habitat areas. *Projects not shown on Figure 11 A-103 11 I ,.1 I a a N GENERAL Exhibit D, Appendix IV, Economic Environ- industry in the Area; (2) local consumers, local ment, projects economic activity in terms of output, investors and local governments; and (3) sales to the value added (gross regional product), employment Federal Government, other areas of the United States and population from a 1963 base to 1980,2000 and and to world markets. The sales to other industries in 2020, the major forecast effort aimed at the year the Area represented purchases by these industries. 1980 with a projection method involving input- These relationships indicated the influence of output output analysis. This relatively new technique in changes in one industry on its suppliers and, in turn, regional analysis not only examined the present, but on their suppliers. provided a tool for viewing the future "'The 2000 and Changes and demands of local consumers, 2020 projections utilized different forecasting investors and government by and large depend upon methods. changes in their incomes. As the model showed the The 1963 analysis of the Puget Sound Eco- total effects of changes in output in any one industry nomic Area was highly dependent upon the recently on the various parts of the local economy, the completed interindustry study of the State of Wash- estimation and demand arising outside the local ington. For that year, a 54-sector purchase and sales economy (e.g., exports by local producers) allowed flow model of the State's economy was developed by the detern-driation of local economic development. a group of researchers from the University of Wash- In the projection process, account was taken ington. Both the final product and many of the of: changes in technology, expected local production unpublished working papers were made available for of goods now imported into the Area; productivity generating the model for the Puget Sound Economic increase; labor force participation rates; the changing Area. pattern of consumer behavior as per capita incomes Each and every industry in the Area was increase; and the emergence of new industries. aggregated into 56 sectors-from agriculture through Further care was taken not to protect output greater manufacturers, services and the like-tables were than available supply conditions warrant, such as in developed showing sales output to: (1) every other forest products. B-3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPACTS FROM OBERS PROJECTIONS The economic projections made for the Puget indicates 37 percent more employment and 53 Sound and Adjacent Waters Comprehensive Study percent more population. The difference can be (PS&AW) provided the basis for estimating future attributable to the difference in assumptions, water and related land resource needs and develop- methodology, and judgment that were utilized in the ment of the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative pro- projection process. These projections and a compari- jections have been made for the Area by the Regional son of assumptions and methodology used in their Economics Division, Office of Business Economics, derivation are discussed in Appendix IV, Economic and the Economic Research Service (OBE-ERS). The Environment. latter projections are contained in a report entitled, The Comprehensive Plan was reexamined on "Preliminary Report on Economic Projections for the basis of OBERS projections to determine its Selected Geographic Areas, 1929 to 2020, Volume sensitivity in terms of time scale and investment I,- published by the United States Water Resources impacts. This comparison is discussed by each major Council, Washington, D. C., March 1968 and were plan feature. prepared for use in the Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study as well as other similar regional "Type I" studies. These pro- MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL (M&I) jections are compared in Tables B-1 and B-2. WATER SUPPLY TABLE B-1. Total employment-Puget Sound Eco- Forecasts of future M&I use were based upon nomic Area (comparison of OBERS and PS&AW population and value-added projections. M&I use is projections) 1980-2000-2020 projected to increase approximately 133 percent between 1980 and 2020 as compared to a 150 Difference percent increase in population (PS&AW) over this PS&AVV same period. Assuming a direct correlation with Over OBERS population the following forecasts of M&I needs Year OBERS PS&AW Number Percent would result from employing OBERS population projections: 1980 978,681 973,100 -5,581 -0.6 2000 1,338,231 1,535,400 197,169 15 Projected Water Use - Puget Sound Area 2020 1,773,299 2,434,400 661,101 37 (MGD) TABLE B-2. Population-Puget Sound Economic Year OBERS PS&AW Area (comparison of OBERS and PS&AW projec- tions) 1980-2000-2020 1980 1,150 1,278 Difference PS&AW 2000 1,578 2,023 Over OBERS 2020 2,OS3 3,159 Percent Percent of of Year OBERS PS&AW Number OBERS PS&AW The effects on the long-range portion of the Comprehensive Plan would be to shift some M&I 1980 2,449,700 .2,726,900 277,200 11 10 projects scheduled for construction before the year 2000 3,345,300 4,300,500 955,200 29 22 2000 to after that year. As shown in the tabulation 2020 4,448,100 6,809,400 2,361,300 53 35 above the 2020 M&I use under OBERS is slightly less than the 2000 M&I use under PS&AW. Consequently, The above Tables B-1 and B-2 show that the projects planned for construction between 2000 and projections are fairly similar for the period up to 2020 would not be included in the Comprehensive 1980. However, as they extend forward in time to the Plan. Accordingly the overall M&I investment costs year 2000 and 2020 the PS&AW projection increases could be reduced by about $190,000,000. at a faster rate. By 2020 the PS&AW projection B-4 IRRIGATION Year OBERS PS&AW Irrigation projections were based upon esti- 1980 18,524,000 18,524,000 mated needs for food and fiber, location and extent 2000 20,561,000 23,587,000 of potentially irrigable lands, urban encroachment, 2020 22,193,000 28,943,000 historical trends, and the availability of adequate water supplies. These factors limit the acreage which The effects on the long-range portion of the could economically be irrigated. Comprehensive Plan would be to shift expenditures Population projections, only in their relation- of some funds required for treatment and collection ship to land use encroachment, were a consideration facilities from the 1980-2000 period to the in the irrigation projections. As less urban land would 2000-2020 period. As shown in the tabulation above, be required under OBERS projections, the amount of the 2020 wasteloads under OBERS are slightly less irrigated land could be somewhat greater than than the 2000 wasteloads under PS&AW. Conse- presently projected. However, the incremental dif- quently, Water Quality Control investments could be ference would be minimal since the principal poten- reduced by approximately $508,000,000 the amount tial irrigated areas near urban centers would have scheduled for 2000-2020. The impact translates into been taken out of production by 1980 under either the 1980-2000 investment being spread over base study. Consequently, the forecasts developed in 1980-2020. the PS&AW Study are considered to be reflective of the needs as would be contained if the OBERS projections were employed. NAVIGATION Future waterborne commerce tonnages for the Puget Sound Area were projected by employing a linear regression model based on correlations between WATER QUALITY CONTROL commerce and gross national product. The gross national product projections for 1980, 2000 and Projections of municipal and industrial wastes 2020 used in the PS&AW Economic Study were were based upon population and value-added, with employed in the regression model to develop esti- the assumptions made that additional pulp pro- mates of future levels of waterborne commerce in the duction required for paper and allied products would Area. IA comparison of the GNP projections used in be of the Kraft process. Raw wastes from the paper the PS&AW Study, converted to 1958 dollars, with and allied products industry account for about 90 those used in the OBERS studies, indicates that the percent of the total current wasteload in the Puget OBERS projections are about 5 percent higher in Sound Area. Total raw (before treatment) wastes are 1980 than the PS&AW projections, with the dif- projected to increase approximately 53 percent be- ference diminishing to approximately half of I tween 1980 and 2020 as compared to a 150 percent percent for the year 2020. As a result of the small increase in population. Projected unit wasteloads of difference in GNP projections, the projections of the Kraft process pulp production are assumed to waterborne commerce under the OBERS criteria decrease from 30 lbs. BOD/ton in 1980 to 20 lbs. would be expected to be essentially the same as that BOD/ton by 2020. Assuming the 1980 level of developed in the PS&AW Study. wasteloading would be the same under the OBERS The requirements for deep and shallow draft projections and allowing for 11,000,000 PE waste- navigation channels and land area for terminal and load from continuation of existing sulfate process water transport-oriented industries were based on pulp and paper plants and a direct correlation with national trends in vessels and trends in land use. The population on the balance of the wasteloads gen- Navigation Study assumed that a representative erated in the Area the following wasteloads are cross-section of the world's fleet would be sailing into torecast on the, basis of OBERS projections: the Puget Sound waters over the 50-year study period. Consequently, the schedule of harbors and Projected Municipal and Industrial channel projects and associated costs contained in the Wasteloads - Puget Sound Area Comprehensive Plan, would not be affected by the (Population Equivalents) OBERS projections. B-5 Small boat harbor needs as developed from the 728 percent between 1980 and 2020 as compared to Navigation Study were related to projections of wet the 150 percent increase in population. The projected moorages. The wet moorage needs were projected electric power requirements of the Area under the from a 1966 base derived from a questionnaire survey OBERS criteria would be the same as that developed of Puget Sound pleasure boaters. The PS&AW popu- in the PS&AW Study. lation growth rates, with the.addition of a I percent Satisfaction of future Puget Sound Area power allowance for accelerated interest in pleasure boating requirements is dependent upon additional importa- and other factors, were used to arrive at the pleasure tion of power from outside the Area as well as power boat ownership growth rate. This in turn was assumed production that can be generated within the Area. to equal the wet moorage needs growth rate. Tabu- Consequently, there would be no impact on power lated below is a comparison of wet moorage needs as development as scheduled in the Comprehensive Plan derived under the PS&AW Study with that derived from employment of the OBERS projections in any from the OBERS population projections: case. Projected Wet Moorage Needs Puget Sound Area FLOOD CONTROL (Wet Moorages) Future flood damages projected for the 1980 Year OBERS PS&AW development level were derived from a 1966 base and employment of annual growth rates from various 1980 42,200 43,800 economic parameters. The growth rates of the four 2000 70,000 70,900 components of future annual damages, agriculture, 2020 113,400 143,400 building and equipment, transportation facilities, and other were correlated with population, value-added An examination of the above wet moorage for select industries, and trends in agricultural pro- needs indicates the relatively rninor reduction in the duction. The % long-range levels of flood damage projected wet moorage needs for the Puget Sound projected for 2000 and 2020 are primarily based on Area of about I I percent for the year 2000 and of extension of trends developed in projecting the 1980 about 20 percent for the year 2020. The effects on level of flood damages with allowances made for the long-range portion of the Comprehensive Plan urban encroachment on agricultural lands. Future would tend to be minimal. The wet moorage needs flood damages are projected to increase approxi- for the populous Cedar-Green and Puyallup Basins mately 227 percent between 1980 and 2020. were not satisfied by the Comprehensive Plan with a As a number of factors were considered in residual need of about 17,000 wet moorages pro- projecting the future flood damages, a comparison of jected by 2020. Consequently, little or no impact on damages under the OBERS criteria can only be small boat harbors contained in the Comprehensive considered approximate. However, the forecasts Plan would be expected from use of the OBERS shown below, which are derived by reducing the projections. PS&AW projected flood damage levels for 2000 and 2020 by the percent differences in population pro- jection, are considered to be reasonable estimates of the future levels of flood damages that would result POWER from using OBERS projectior s. Electric power requirements in the long-range Projected Average Annual period were forecast on the basis of Pacific Northwest Flood Damages regional power study growth rates as forecast by the Puget Sound Area ($ 1,000) Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee. Consequently, the population projections for the Year OBERS PS&AW Area do not enter directly into the development of the future power requirements in the long-range 1980 10,560 10,560 period for the Puget Sound Area. The electric power 2000 14,320 18,360 requirements are projected to increase approximately 2020 22,451 34,530 B-6 Employment of the OBERS projections would projected to grow at the rate developed from PS&AW have limited effects on flood control features of the population projections for .1980, 2000 and 2020. Comprehensive Plan. Most flood control projects Future recreation demand is projected to increase contained in the Plan are scheduled for construction approximately 257 percent between 1980 and 2020 prior to the year 2000. A reduction in the average as compared with 150 percent increase in population. annual benefits of the early action projects could The difference in percent increase is a result of occur as the incremental benefits derived from projected increases in participation rates in the property and land value growth would be less under various outdoor recreation activities. Since future the OBERS projections. However, the benefit reduc- recreation demand is directly correlated with popula- tions would probably be relatively minor. tion, the impact from OBERS projections on recre- ation demand can be easily demonstrated, as shown WATERSHED MANAGEMENT below. The future needs for watershed management Projected Recreation Demand were related to the PS&AW population projections. Puget Sound Area The needs for food and fiber were based on national (1000 Recreation Days) projections. Therefore, employment of the OBERS projections would not have affected acreage require- Year OBERS PS&AW ments for food and fiber. .Using the OBERS population projection for 1980 45,500 50,100 2020 would result in a reduction of urban water 2000 75,200 96,400 management improvement needs from 1,040,300 2020 116,200 178,700 acres to 773,000 acres as shown in the tabulation below: As shown in the tabulation above, the recre- ation demand as projected under OBERS would have Projected Urban Water Management a 22 and 35 percent reduction over the demand Puget Sound Area forecast in the PS&AW, Study for the years 2000 and (Acres) 2020, respectively. Although the investment costs for the various time periods would not be reduced Year OBERS PS&AW exactly by the same percentage difference in popula- 1980 711,700 731,400 tion projection, this approximation will suffice for 2000 719,500 799,500 purposes of comparison. Accordingly, t 'he Compre- 2020 773,000 1,040.300 hensive Plan costs for campgrounds, picnic areas, beach, swimming pools and boating facility develop- The reduction of 267,000 acres of land requir- ments would be reduced by about S 10 1,000,000 and ing urban water management improvement by 2020 $267,000,000 for the 1980-2000 and 2000-2020 would not affect cropland reduction projections but periods, respectively. rather that acreage of forest now projected to be lost to urban development would be reduced. The cost of urban water management under the OBERS pro- FISH AND WILDLIFE jection would be approximately $26 million less for 1980, $108 million less for 2000, and $361 million Future, demands for fish and wildlife (user less for 2020 than shown for the Comprehensive Plan -days) were projected on the basis of population RECREATION FISH AND WILDLIFE Future recreation demand was forecast from a Future demands for fish and wildlife (user- 1960 base. An estimate was made of the population days) were projected on the basis of population seeking outdoor recreation opportunities in the Puget forecasts. The fish and wildlife demands were pro- Sound Area. The 1969 participating population was jected in three categories: hunting, sport fishing, B-7 ana commercial fishing. The hunting demand is jections 22 and 35 percent over those shown for projected to increase approximately 100 percent PS&AW for the years 2000 and 2020, respectively. between 1980 and 2020, the sport fishing demand As shown in the tabulation above the 2020 fish 260 percent, and the commercial fishing demand and wildlife activity under OBERS is nearly the 79 percent. As these projections for sport hunting same as the 2000 activity under PS&AW. Conse- and fishing were, directly correlated with popula- quently, fish and wildlife investments could be tion forecasts for the Puget Sound Area a fairly reduced by approximately $123,000,000, the accurate measure is possible of future fish and amount scheduled for 2000-2020. The impact trans- wildlife demands under OBERS, as shown below: lates into the 1980-2000 investment being spread over 1980-2020. Projected Sport Hnting Puget Sound Area SUMMARY (1000 User-Days) The methodology employed in making the Year OBERS PS&AW OBERS projections is a function of what happens in the Nation with a disaggregation of national 1980 1,471 1,635 totals into over 200 subregions; whereas the 2000 2,068 2,651 PS&AW Study concentrated on only one region. 2020 2,126 3,271 The PS&AW Study with an intense investigation of the Area has the capability of taking more eco- Projected Sport Fishing nomic growth factors into consideration. The role Puget Sound Area of different statistical methods and the substantial (1000 User-Days) judgments employed in each of the two separate economic studies both contributed to the divergent Year OBERS PS&AW projections. Consequently, the periodic and system- 1980 81,540 9,489 atic updating of the Comprehensive Plan should 2000 11,891 15,245 consider the economic growth that has occurred in 2020 15,955 24,546 the interim period. The next review study would have the benefit of data developed from the 1970 census and therefore, a more accurate indication Projected Commercial Fishing of the true direction of the local economy would Puget Sound Area be available for use in updating studies. 10.00 lbs.) The overall impact of OBERS economic pro- jections on the Comprehensive Plan would be Year OBERS PS&AW primarily on those functions where future needs were closely related to population growth. These 1980 47,308 52,565 were municipal and industrial water supply, water 2000 56,299 72,178 quality control, watershed management, recreation, 2020 61,085 93,977 and fish and wildlife. The approximate reduction in investment costs over the 50-year study period Projected fish and wildlife demands as shown would be about $1,684,000,000 with most of this above would be reduced under the OBERS pro- reduction occurring in the 2000-2920 period. B-8 ,I'; g@ fi [16 Op,3 o- go 00 T Y'. 69 6 VI@A J rl,! IJ M6 Ti i54 i@- W1, Ll Contents Page County Summaries C-5 Issues Raised During Public Review of Study Findings and Responses C-17 Supplement to Issues Raised During Public Review of Study Findings and Responses C-25 Evaluation by Workshop Coordinator C-28 Suggested Guidelines for Public Participation C-30 C-2 COUNTY WORKSHOPS INTRODUCTION A summary of workshop activity is shown as follows: The preliminary findings of the Puget Sound PUGET SOUND STUDY.WORKSHOPS Study were announced by publication of Information *(Does not include committee meetings) Bulletin No. 3 early in 1970 (see Appendix 1, Digest FIRSTWORKSHOP TOTAL of Public Hearings, Volume 11). These bulletins were ATTEND- WOR K- widely distributed and became the basis for public COUNTY DATE ANCE SHOPS testimony at Puget Sound Task Force hearings during May and June of 1970. Testimony presented during Jefferson (Port Townsend) Nov. 9 40 4 these hearings demonstrated the need for greater Mason (Shelton) Nov. 30 25 3 public involvement and review of the Task Force Kitsap (Port Orchard) Dec. 3 33 5 King (Seattle) Dec. 17 50 6 Report and Appendices. Accordingly, a series of San Juan (Friday Harbor) Dec. 19 23 3 workshops was proposed for' each of the counties of Skagit (Mount Vernon) Dec. 21 40 1 the study area. A representative of the State Depart- Clallarn (Port Angeles) Jan. 19 21 4 ment of Ecology and the Formulation Team of the Whatcom (Bellingham) Jan. 10 108 9 Puget Sound Study was named as Workshop COOTdi- Thurston (Olympia) Jan. 22 30. 5 island (Coupeville) Jan. 26 22 3 nator. After county officials set the first meeting Snohomish (Everett) Feb. 2 50 3 date, the Coordinator opened the workshop series in Pierce (Tacoma) Feb. 3 20 4 each of the twelve Puget Sound counties; provided *Committees were formed in some counties to provide for assistance to the workshop groups and attended 33 of additional review and discussion. The number of these the 50 of the workshop meetings. meetings was not recorded. The broad purpose of the workshops was to provide for grassroots review and comment on the Before the workshops began in each county, preliminary findings of the Puget Sound Study. the program was submitted for public an- Specific objectives were to explain the origin, nouncement in daily and weekly newspapers and in purpose, and procedure of the study; to obtain some cases over local radio stations. comments on desired and necessary local and regional At the first meeting in each county the group projects and programs; to identify any regional and of workshop participants was encouraged to es- local needs which might have been overlooked and to tablish its own organization and use a 60-day review encourage discussions and communications about the and discussion period. The period of time ultimately study. The workshop program was equally intended used was often in excess of 60 days. to provide a basis for county and municipal positions The Workshop Coordinator distributed Task on the study findings and to give guidance to future Force publications, including copies of the Summa- resource planning in the Puget Sound Area. The ry Report Draft and two sets of published ap- intent was that workshop participants represent a pendices in each county, and advised participants of broad cross-section of interests in the area, and the location and further availability of reports. The attendance lists signed at each meeting were used to Coordinator reviewed the workshop concept and evaluate the actual broadness of representation. purpose, suggested a general review procedure and Information Bulletin 4 (see Appendix 1, Digest reports to read, and arranged for presentation by of Public Hearings, Volume 111) describing the work- Task Force technical advisors at the request of shop program was published and widely distributed as workshop participants. a way of encouraging and initiating the public review. Time and locations of the first meetings were Near the end of the workshop series the Task set by county officials. Subsequent meeting dates Force published Information Bulletin 5 (see Ap- and times were selected by the participants. The pendix 1, Digest of Public Hearings, Volume 111) to group also decided whether or not to use com- summarize workshop activity and state the most mittees to accomplish the review. Individuals chose frequently raised workshop comments and issues. the reports that they would review. C-3 Near the conclusion of the workshops a ideas are included here to make them known to the summary of the principal questions and issues raised local, State and Federal agencies responsible for at the workshops was made and the Puget Sound water resource management in the Puget Sound Task Force prepared responses (see page C-17) for area. Comments received from workshops are con- those questions and issues. Many of the responses tained in an unpublished appendix. The unpublished resulted in changes and additions in the Summary appendix is available for inspection from the Wash- Report. Supplemental issues raised by the work- ington State Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 829, shops and the Task Force responses are also in- Abbott Rathael Hall, St. Martin's College, Olympia, cluded in this Exhibit (see page C-25). Washington 98504. Summaries for those counties Summaries of the workshops and workshop and cities that subn-dtted them are contained in comments are presented in the following section for Appendix 1, Digest of Public Hearings, Volume 111. each of the counties of the Puget Sound and A brief evaluation by the Puget Sound Work- Adjacent Waters study area. The comments include shop Coordinator (see page C-28) together with points that were stated in written comments re- guidelines (see page C-29)-for future public partici- ceived as the end-product of the workshops. In most pation in water and related land resource studies are cases the points of interest or concern were ex- contained in the latter portion of this section. The pressed by only a few participants while other guidelines were prepared as suggestions by a con- points were of interest to a larger number of people. sultant to one of the Federal agencies who attended Whether expressed by many or relatively few, the some 30 of the workshop sessions as an observer. C-4 COUNTY WORKSHOP SUMMARIES County Page Jefferson ......................... C-6 Mason .......................... C-6 Kitsap .......................... C-7 King ............................ C-8 San Juan ......................... C-9 Skagit ........................... C-10 Clallam .......................... C-1 I Whatcom ........................ C-1 I Thurston ......................... C-12 Island ........................... C-13 Snohomish ....................... C-13 Pierce ........................... C-14 C-5 JEFFERSON COUNTY summer. Some expressed concern, "that the Public Utility District is not moving fast enough with Jefferson County citizens were the first to regard to the development of additional water sup- begin the workshop program using a three and plies." one-half month workshop review series for the Puget There is a need to define the source, quality Sound and Adjacent Waters Study. The first of the and quantity of ground water in Chimacum Valley series of four meetings began on the afternoon of and elsewhere in Jefferson County. Concern was also November 9, 1970, and continued with evening shown over the drainage problem in Chimacum meetings on December 8, 1970, and February 4, Valley. 1971 and an afternoon session on February 22, 1971. More study of water supply for the community All meetings were held in the Commissioners' of Quilcene was stated as needed and concern was Chambers in Port Townsend. shown over the new rule in the Olympic National The .total attendance at the first meeting was Park that excludes horses on all trails that require approximately 40 people. Over the course of four staying in the park overnight. workshop meetings, the total number of participants. The following information was provided for gradually diminished so that the final meeting of consideration in updating the Task Force Report: ' . February 22, had a total attendance of eleven. Crown Zellerbach Company Iis now providing In addition to those who attended as individual citizens there was also representation from the local treatment of all liquid waste emptying into Port Grange, fire districts, educational institutions, booster Townsend Bay. club, garden club, environmental organizations, Soil The Port Commission has developed and im- and Water Conservation District, community club, proved a small boat harbor at Quilcene. pulp and paper industry, power company, Chamber The Army Corps of Engineers has dredged a of Commerce and various agencies of municipal, channel into Mats Mats Bay, and the Port county, State and Federal government. Commission has installed moorage facilities. The meetings were coordinated by a member of the Board of County Commissioners who served as Workshop comments of a more general nature chairman pro tem of each of the four meetings of the involved questions on how the,Puget Sound Study workshop. would be used and who composed the Puget Sound Most participants used the brochures and maps Task Force. Recommendations for future actions of Information Bulletin No. 3 for their review. stated the need to resolve conflicts between resource Workshop comments expressed concern about uses; for more local planning that would include limited water circulation in Kilisut Harbor. A increased public participation; to seek money to problem resulting from removal of a bridge and implement locally acceptable projects; to keep the replacement by a causeway between Indian and Puget Sound report up-to-date and plan for and Marrowstone Islands. Two limited-capacity culverts in determine methods to finance facilities for part-time the causeway were felt to be limiting tidal circulation (seasonal) peak populations. and resulting in lower water quality in the vicinity of Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay. Increased waste dis- charges from pleasure boating and industrial and MASON COUNTY residential development as well as silt deposition from land will aggravate the problem and prevent the The two-month workshop series in 'Mason proper and protective utilization of the full potential County included three workshops with a total at- of the Harbor. tendance of 25 at the first meeting. This attendance Interest was also shown in the workshops for generally prevailed throughout the series. The water quality and the need for additional water meetings were held in the County Courthouse in supplies in unincorporated areas of the county. The Shelton during the afternoon hours of November 30, possibility of acquiring water rights on the Dose- 1970, January 6, and January 27, 1971. wallips and Duckabush Rivers was discussed as was Participants included members of the local the status of water rights on the Big Quilcene River Grange, Chamber of Commerce, improvement and and the critically low flow in the river during the civic clubs, fire districts, sportsmen's groups, private C-6 industry, interested citizens, and representatives of In adaition to interested citizens, workshop local, State and Federal government. attendants represented the League of Women Voters, The review program, was coordinated by the Soil and Water Conservation District, environmental Director of the Mason Regional Planning Council. groups, Labor Council, garden clubs, Jaycees, engi- Review committees were organized on the basis of neers' societies, community organizations, and one committee for each appendix. various agencies of local, State and Federal govern- Among the needs noted during the workshops ment. The meetings which were held in the County were that consideration should be given to fees and Courthouse in Port Orchard, were coordinated locally funding directly from users and from those who by the Kitsap County Planning Director. benefit directly from facilities. The need was stated Review comments and concerns that originated for more efficient use and re-use of water resources, in committees were later brought to the full work- especially municipal supplies. The need to plan early shop meetings. In the full meetings the following for locally acceptable levels of population and eco- resolutions and recommendations were made: nomic growth, and the need to obtain land use rights "We recommend the Puget Sound and Adjacent to assure use for later development or preservation Waters Task Force members, as well as those officials were also mentioned. The need to initiate effective in a position to implement the study and plan, do so flood plain management at an early date was empha- in light of the following resolutions and recommen- sized. Also noted was the need to determine future dations: power requirements and plan early for siting of power "That the Puget 'Sound and Adjacent Waters facilities. Programs and firm target dates are needed Task Force update their plans as data is provided by that will lead to the control of wastes from pleasure the Puget Sound Governmental Conference research craft, marinas and related facilities. Expansion of team efforts in this area. public involvement and education programs were "That we not export water from the twelve supported for water and land resource planning and (12) county area due to its possible limited nature. development. Greater depth in studying problems in "That Appendix VI, Municipal-Industrial Water Mason County is also needed. Supply, indicates that through the year 2020, Munici- Concern was expressed. over the effects of a pal-Industrial Water Supply will be mainly from possible cross-Sound bridge near the- year 1980, and ground water. Consideration must be given to the adequacy of ground water and surface water measure withdrawal rates and monitoring for salt supplies to meet future irrigation requirements. Fi- water intrusion t Io protect this resource from de- nancial assistance is needed locally to plan for and pletion and/or pollution. develop facilities that would serve a large seasonal "Study results indicate that economic activities (summer) population. associated with agriculture, forestry, recreation, Information on soils was considered to be very fisheries, and mining will expand to meet the need of useful and was recommended for separate printing a growing population. Another county function, that and distribution. of a suburban community for the Central Economic It was suggested that recommendations that Division of Puget Sound, will expand especially with applied to the Navigation report and Pleasure Boating the construction of a bridge over Puget Sound by Study be sent to the U.S. Coast Guard, State 1990. It is recommended that the water related Legislature and the Shelton-Mason County Journal. subjects in this study be coordinated with the report, 'Overall Economic Development Plan for Kitsap County, Washington.' KITSAP COUNTY "That the Kitsap County Workshop of the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Task Force reflects The series of five Kitsap County workshops the increasing concern of the people of the entire continued through three and a half months with an Puget Sound area, that all possible measures be taken afternoon meeting being held on December 3, and to develop the tremendous potential of the Puget evening meetings on December 17, 1970, and January Sound fisheries and marine Tarming'into anew asset 21, February 25, and March 18, 197 1. to the economy of the area. Therefore, be it resolved, Total attendance at the first meeting was about that no new or expansion of existing oil handling 33. The last meeting was attended by about 10 ports or facilities be permitted which would ne- people. C-7 cessitate increased tanker traffic in the confined KING COUNTY waters of greater Puget Sound and the San Juan Archipelago; and that drilling for oil in the sea floor The workshop program in King County ex- of the inland waters of Washington State be pro- tended over a period of two and one-half months and hibited by law; and that tankers and barges over included six evening workshops with an attendance of 20,000 dwt carrying petroleum cargo be prohibited .50 at the first meeting held on December 17, 1970. by law from entering Admiralty Inlet into inner Puget An estimated 30 persons attended the final meeting. Sound, and from entering the San Juan Archipelago; In addition to interested citizens, workshop and that studies be initiated to establish procedures attendants represented the State Legislature, Wash- and controls for all petroleum tankers and barges over ington Environmental Council, King County Environ- S,000 dwt and other vessels carrying large quantities mental Development Commission, Puget Sound of petroleum and hazardous pesticides and poisonous Coalition, Environmental Works, Sierra Club, League chemical products which transit the confined waters of Women Voters, University of Washington, West of greater Puget Sound and the San Juan Archipelago; Seattle Community Club, American Institute of and that scientific studies be initiated immediately by Architects, Exploring Division of Boy Scouts of competent chemists and marine biologists to establish America, the Steelhead Trout Club and various baseline levels of toxic hydrocarbon content in edible agencies of local, State and Federal government. shellfish at selected locations throughout greater The review program was led by three graduate Puget Sound. engineering students from the Water and Air Re- "That there be a reestablishment and en- sources Division, Department of Civil ' Engineering, forcement of the Rivers and Harbors Act, especially and the University of Washington. The King County Sec. 13, wherein it requires removal of construction Planning Department provided major assistance to the rendered objectionable by age and state of repair workshops. Workshop participants chose to perform prior to transfer of ownership." the review through committees, each of which usually Discussio ns during meetings also pointed out reviewed only one of the technical appendices. the need for marinas as well as pleasure boats to be Review comir ents indicated that the report equipped with proper waste collection and handling should include more information on, and in- facilities. Early development of these facilities for corporation of, local policy for growth and resource boats should be accompanied at the same time by management. Great reliance should not be placed development of receiving facilities at marinas. upon the aerospace industry in the future economy More general comments were thatimplemen- of the Puget Sound area. Dispersion of population tation of the recommendations of the Puget Sound and economic activity would provide a more stable Study should be considered from the standpoint of foundation for the future. A recently updated version increased economic activity and employment as well of the Washington State input-output table should be as environmental protection. Likewise, possible used in fugure projections. different rates of growth should be considered for the Earlier inclusion of the public in basin planning area. Planning by various levels of government should assumptions should be sought. More systematic pro- include the public with the purpose of education as cedures are needed for public participation, as well as well as information-gathering. It was emphasized that to help keep account of current political pressures local interests need financial aid to implement and the interests of urban areas. Assumptions re- projects and programs. Study data and local goals garding population/land use densities, including the should be included in keeping the report current. possibility of a cross-Sound bridge, should reflect Secondary and tertiary sewage treatment should current preferences and local policy. always be considered. Detailed comments on water supply usually involved suggestions for reevaluating projections, per The hope was expressed that the workshop capita water use and the using of current information. group could continue as at least the start of a county More Iattention to expansion of distribution works for advisory committee. water supplies was recommended. It was felt that the city of Seattle has adequate water in King County for a supply that would last well into the future. C-8 Ferry systems were suggested as possible water- Reasonably detailed presentation of alternative borne mass transit alternatives to highway corridors choices, as in the Nisqually Delta, was supported as a in and around Puget Sound. particularly proper attitude and procedure in Sewage discharge regulations must be es- planning. tablished to handle shipboard wastes that will result Comments noted some question as to whether from increased pleasure craft activities. resource-use priorities should be maintained for fish The goals of planning for future power facilities or public water supply particularly in the Cedar River in the study were thought to have been met. It was system. Future use of ground water shown in the suggested that thermal power plants in the Puget report was thought by some to be excessively high in Sound Basin are vital to the economic welfare of the the Cedar-Green Basins. Studies of ground water area. quality and quantity were thought to be needed. Areas of historic and natural significance were Comments favored consolidation of water emphasized. Concern was shown regarding a con- systems. Greater coordination among port districts tinuous 16 mile waterfront boulevard from North and expansion of existing ports rather than develop- Fort Lawton to South Lincoln Park. ment of new port facilities were recommended. The need for a continued fresh water supply to The dam on the Middle Fork of the Snoqualinie Green Lake for water quality purposes was empha- River was usually supported by many residents of sized. that valley but opposed by many others who Interrelationships and competition between questioned the abAity of zoning ordinances to main- stream fish populations and power generating oper- tain open space in the downstream area. ations were subjects of concern and were emphasized in comments on the Fish and Wildlife report. Concern SAN JUAN COUNTY was shown over the opening, except possibly in the distant future, of watersheds now closed to the The series of San Juan County Workshops public. Complete and inclusive cost and benefit continued through two and one-half months with 3 analysis should be a major consideration in any Saturday morning meetings being held on December decision to open municipal watersheds. 19, 1970, and January 30 and February 27, 1971. Future projections of water pollution problems Total attendance at the first meeting was 23. and resulting needs for treatment should include The last meeting was attended by 12 people. The constant reevaluation of other factors that involve meetings were held in the County Courthouse in economic growth, and growth rates and location of Friday Harbor. population. Costs for waste collection, treatment and In addition to interested citizens, workshop outfall facilities may be too low and could require attendants included representatives of various citizen Federal funding assistance. committees, as well as representatives from county, Consideration of intangible benefits was empha- municipal, state and federal government. sized for the Plan Formulation appendix. The The workshops were coordinated by The changing attitudes of the public were cited in Chairman of the County Planning Commission. suggestions to continually keep the report up-to-date. Review comments stated a need to seek a reasoned The many faceted planning objectives of Senate balance between population, resource use and en- Document 97 were thought by some to be oriented vironmental quality. The availability of water will toward economic productivity and were laudable become the limiting resource of the area. A recom- from that viewpoint, although stronger emphasis on mendation was made for obtaining additional an environmentally-oriented objective was recom- hydraulic data for the islands including precipitation, mended. climate, ground water and water quality, as expressed Concern was expressed over possible port in Appendix 111. accommodation of oil tankers. A solution to concerns Comments were made on the need for water over potential oil spills could involve the prohibition storage facilities and for early public acquisition of of all oil tanker movement in Puget Sound. potential storage and use of 35,000 acres on a basis of Ecological impacts of power and flood control 18 " to 28 " of precipitation. It was noted that costs facilities should be thoroughly identified as should of storing available waters are too expensive to allow similar aspects of any alteration of natural.stream- for irrigation use. Requests were made for special flows. studies of the economics of tourism and to consider C-9 the effective use of available water and to provide a In addition to interested citizens, workshop basis for optimum development. The present scarcity attendants included representatives from environ- of planning information for the islands was mental groups, civic organizations, business, North- commented upon as well as the fact that the west Nuclear and various agencies of municipal, population of the county is already at the 1985 county, state and federal government. The workshop estimate and may reach the 2020 projection by 1980. report indicated committee membership of nine with This would mean that the 1980-2020 population only 4 being non-agency persons. One federal projections will require review and updating. employee committee member subsequently indicated Agricultural production was stated as declining it was not his desire. nor that of his agency to take a due to sub-division, residential development and position as might be implied by the prepared increasing taxation. The forest industry also is de- comments of the committee. chning but some land, purchasers are retaining forest The Citizen Review Program was coordinated stands for aesthetic purposes. by a representative of the Board of County Com- Comments were made on the selection of missioners and the County Planning Director. alternate sites for boat moorages and the use of floats Review comments and suggested changes in at ends of roads and streets was suggested as an population trends, after the time table for com- alternate to boat moorages. Increased citizen partici- pletion, can change the priority of projects. The pation is needed for the final selection of locations study should eventually determine ultimate levels of for small boat moorage and marinas. Comments were population that consider a balance of economics, made on the need for strict environmental control ecology and taxation. Elements of the plan should be criteria for radioactive emissions, thermal pollution, activated dependent upon detailed studies and con- disposal of radio-active wastes and accidents involving sent and payment by the user. The study was stated nuclear reactors. Some stated that residents of San to show large benefits for recreation and fisheries Juan Island do not want any reactors in the county, which are generally intangible to the general popu- although a minority report favored a small nuclear llation. Projects and programs should be in compliance plant which would include desalinization works. with state or federal ecological criteria. Plan B was Seasonal visitors create severe sanitation preferred locally for the Skagit (Scenic and Wild problems at I I or more parks and recreation acres. Rivers). The concept of flood plain management Early action is urgently needed for facilities to rather than structural control of floods was also given prevent and control sanitation problems related to as a preference. the seasonal influx. It was recommended that an There was not agreement with irrigation de- upper limit be established to modify peaks of velopment trends which have been presented. Com- recreational use so that the islands will not be over mencement of a storm and sanitary waste separation run. It was noted that additional parks would place program was recommended at an early date. Also additional burdens on the tax base, which was already recommended was regionalization of waste treatment a problem. at Mt. Vernon-Burlington-Sedro Woolley sewer Some favored the management of the inter-tidal systems and correction of the pulp mill waste areas' water quality, including additional monitoring treatment program at Anacortes. to protect areas of scientific value, and as a means to Channel improvement to accommodate super insure more fish for food and sports fishing. Also tankers in Fidalgo and Padilla Bays was not desired. favored were more fish and wildlife. Programs pro- Funding was recommended to repair the existing posed for the San Juans were noted as primarily for Skagit River Levee and channel where necessary and the benefit of non-residents and therefore govern- opposition was shown to the Avon By-Pass. Place- ment support (or user fees) were considered necessary merit of the Nookachamp Levee near Clear Lake was for implementation. supported to reduce costs and protect a majority of the local population. Adverse comments were given SKAGIT COUNTY on the Skagit and Samish Basin.Dams; however, the combining of land drainage and storm water sepa- The public review program in Skagit County ration programs was favored. Channelization of the included one evening workshop on December 21, Samish River was opposed but stabilization of land 1970 with 40 in attendance. The review program was use, concentration of industry in select locations and basically completed by a singie county comn-dttee. periodic review of economic projections were sup- C-10 ported. The report notes that development trends and siting of new developments. Potential ecological industrial plans point to concentration in the south- problems could result from land development and/or west Padilla Bay-March Point areas of the Skagit- logging on the local soil formations that are highly Samish Basin. susceptible to erosion. Loss of game habitat to other Small craft navigation needs and corrections land uses will result in decreased hunting oppor- which should be made during detailed planning were tunities, particularly with the probable loss of the suggested. The potential for major port development most choice local sites. Accelerated acquisition of was acknowledged and an alternate use of the March additional waterfowl habitat is needed while this land Point-South Padilla Bay area for a general cargo and is still available at reasonable prices. There is a need dry bulk major port was proposed if high volume to preserve the existing native trout in Lake Suther- petroleum shipping does not materialize. land while eliminating the present undesirable scrap Coordination of project choices and programs fish population. This would require development of a within the basin and with exterior basins was recom- new specific scrap fish poison. The growth predicted mended as was scheduling and programming of for the food processing industry through the year research related to nuclear power and associated 2000 was thought to be too high. The installation of environmental impacts. irrigation pipeline was stated to be dependent upon A county office commented adversely on the consolidation of existing irrigation districts and workshops and indicated that the primary concern of companies. It was recommended that the plan include citizens appeared to be for additional information. a reference to consolidation. The work and planning coordination shown by the Task Force was commended. WHATCOM COUNTY CLALLAM COUNTY The series of nine Whatcom County Workshops The workshop series in Clallarn County lasted continued through a period of nearly two months about one and one-half months and included four with meetings being held in January, February and workshops with a total attendance of 20 at the first March, 1971. Total attendance of the initial meeting meeting. Meetings were held in the Clallam County was 108. Courthouse in Port Angeles on the evenings of In addition to interested citizens workshop January 19, February 1 and 8, and March 8, 1971. attendants included representatives of granges, drain- Participants included representatives of the League of age districts, the university, municipal, county, state Women Voters, private industry, Soil and Water and federal government. Conservation District, the Grange, local, state -and The meetings were coordinated locally by a federal agencies and interested citizens. The meetings representative of county government. Workshop par- were coordinated by a member of the Board of ticipants chose to perform their review by means of County Commissioners. committees that usually reviewed one or two of the Comments by reviewers in the Clallam County technical appendices that pertained to their preferred workshops were that refinements and corrections of subjects. data including proposed locations of small boat Review comments stated that additional detail moorages are needed. Further consideration of ge- may be desirable especially during detailed planning. ological and tidal conditions was recommended in Recognition is needed that counties have the tools to siting of small boat harbors. Reference was made to control flood plain, damages to a great degree by changing land values and increasing property tax rates zoning, sub-division and building code ordinances. which tend to accelerate the trends of changing land Workable land and water use policies must strike a use. Irrigated agricultural lands are being rapidly balance between economic use and provision of a 4isplaced by residential use. Reference was made to wholesome environment and more. recreation. The preferred areas for residential development in terms study should be considered as a valuable compilation of both economic efficiency and minimum ecological of data which is not ready for implementation but impact. A recently completed soil survey offers which can become the basis for a good resource plan. additional information on soils in the National Forest Local individuals or an independent non-agency land of the Dungeness Basin. Careful attention to group with broad representation from each basin unstable soils was emphasized for any planning and were recommended as those who could produce an C-1 I ecologically sound river basin plan. Some felt that the may affect evaluation of future funding requests. public may be unwilling to pay for elements or Updating is especially significant in terms of new projects of the plan. technical studies and reports. The value of the study It was recommended that local people should in the quantification and cataloging of basic research be continuously involved in planning decisions af- information must be maintained by keeping current fecting the quality of the environment. Planning the information that has been collected. should be in keeping with a desired population level. The study should examine a number of the Concern was expressed that the reports are printed issues and needs on a continuing basis or as part of and cannot be changed. The compatability of flood detailed, analyses. A number of these issues must be control and recreation was questioned. Use of an evaluated in a comprehensive and rational manner unbiased team of ecologists was suggested for review from an unbiased and uncommitted point of view, of specific projects. A periodic study review of 3 which includes, provision for local technical and years, intensive review prior to implementation of citizen review. projects and more local input during the intensive It was thought that in order to@ be successful, review were recommended. comprehensive planning support must be engineered Added ground water inventories were felt to be from the local citizenry. It was emphasized that the .needed and greater consideration of air pollution series of findings and plan formulation are a be- influences on water quality were proposed. Ad- ginning point and not an end. The goals and ditional weather stations and stream flow gages were objectives of the region and the local area must be thought to be needed. The study was cited as a woven into the fabric of the planning process. valuable source of resource information to assist in The study should include reference to the 1970 follow-up studies. interim Legislative Study performed by Drs. Alcorn and Ray. THURSTON COUNTY A suggestion was made for a new alternate to include total preservation along the entire Nisqually The series of five Thurston County workshops Delta. Additional detailed studies were. suggested to continued through a period of two months with solve anticipated needs and problems. Local water meetings being held on the afternoon of January 22 quality problems and.conflicts were felt certain to and the evenings of January 27, February 10 and increase. March 3 and 31, 1971. Attendance at the initial Numerous questions were raised concerning meeting was 30. The final meeting was attended by elements of development and preservation of the 12 persons. Nisqually Delta including elements of Plan A and B, In addition to interested citizens, workshop both of which were felt to require additional detailed participants included representatives of a county analysis. Additional work was also thought to be advisory committee, the League of Women Voters, required in the Plan Formulation Appendix to make environmental groups, colleges, local press and it comprehensible. various agencies of municipal, county, state and Diminishing population growth and zero federal government. growth were suggested as alternates in comprehensive The ' meetings were coordinated by the planning. Analysis of current growth trends was Thurston Regional Planning Council. Workshop par- emphasized as only one element in economic pro- ticipants chose to perform the review through organi- jections. Establishment of regional goals for popu- zation of committees that usually reviewed only one lation growth were recommended and the use of or two of the technical appendices that pertained to ceilings on power production was suggested as away preferred subjects. of achieving the population goal. Review comments stated that the study is The study was felt to catalogue the resources of considered to be a detailed examination and investi- the region and present a look at the future under gation which requires the review of additional alterna- existing trends. The added work of completing the tes, increased citizen involvement and additional plan by presenting other alternates should be done planning detail. There is a need for periodic updating without delay. of information including population and economic Expansion and more efficient use of existing trends and water sui)Dly needs, especially as these navigation facilities were suggested. Preference was C-12 stated for development of light industry and ex- mentai groups, park and water districts, natural and clusion of oil storage facilities in the Deschutes and historical societies, school districts, civic clubs and Nisqually Basins. various agencies of municipal, county, state and Comments were made on the need for sani- federal government. The meetings were coordinated tation facilities at marinas and at State Parks financed by the Office of County Engineer. by user charges. Public beaches and State Parks were Review comments included detailed suggestions recommended in Thurston County. Summertime boat and corrections concerning transportation, power, moorage facilities, licenses and pleasure boat sani- recreation and population projections. An eventual tation regulations were felt to be needed. Tax relief need for state and federal construction money as- for operators and builders of marinas was suggested. sistance was noted. Some workshop participants Support was shown for the Recreation Plan favored the current county water and sewer plan and under Plan A in the Plan Formulation Appendix, took a very strong position that present well water public acquisition of key sites, orderly and planned systems are low in quality and are not a reliable development, additional public access to water areas, source of potable water. Workshop suggestions con- special fishing and recreation for the very young, aged curred with the need for small boat moorages on and handicapped, bicycling and hiking paths and Whidbey and Camano Islands and for development of public transportation to key recreational facilities. desired land recreational sites including provision for It was noted that the study may cause city and horse, bicycle and pedestrian trails. Increased public county government to continually update both short access was supported for several beach areas and term and long range planning. Additional water preservation of areas that are felt locally to be unique quality monitoring was desired in reference to was suggested. selected use areas, in both fresh and marine waters. Concern was shown over the basis of proving a Treatment of surface water runoff from budt-up areas surface water claim and the difficulty of establishing was also desired. an Island County surface water right to mainland Maximum controls on tankerships carrying bulk water. liquids was suggested as was further use of pipelines rather than tanker penetration of Puget Sound. SNOHOMISH COUNTY Consideration of Alaskan Oil Impact on Puget Sound was recommended and should include both transpor- The series of 3 Snohomish County Workshops tation and refineries. Attention was noted regarding continued through 2 months with an afternoon the increasing occurrences of accidental spills and the meeting being held on February -2 and evening need for a management plan for the total marine area meetings on March 19 and April 5, 1971. Total of Puget Sound was emphasized. attendance at the first meeting was 50. The last Use of waste-water for irrigation was suggested meeting was attended by about 30 persons. Meetings as an alternate to additional waste treatment. Ad- were held in the auditorium of the Public Utility ditional marine hydrology and climatology studies District Building. were felt necessary. An additional marine park at the In addition to interested citizens the workshop head of Budd Inlet as a joint port, city and county, participants included representatives of granges, state and federal project was recommended. drainage districts, Indian Tribes, labor council, private industry, League of Women Voters, environmental ISLAND COUNTY groups, Snohomish County Economic Development Council and municipal, county, state and federal The series of three Island County Workshops government. The meetings were conducted by a continued during a period of approximately one and representative of the County Engineer. one-half months with evening meetings being held on Comments from most of the members of one January 26, February 23, and March 9, 1971. Committee favored the construction of the Middle Attendance at the initial meeting was 22 persons. The Fork Dam on the Snoquahnie River and second stage final meeting was attended by about 10 persons. All construction of Culmback Dam on the Sultan River sessions were held in the County Courthouse in for flood control purposes. Coupeville. Irrigation requirements were thought to be In addition to interested citizens, workshop easily met without affecting other uses and without participants included representatives of environ- public funding. Intensive watershed management-was C-13 considered necessary to obtain the maximum benefit Some felt that a policy and procedure should from flood control measures, Continued cost sharing be established for consolidation of sma!I watersheds between private land owners and governmental and that pricing policy should be considered as a way agencies was also felt necessary. More detailed studies of reducing water demands. Support of recom- on set-back levees at French Creek and Marsl-dand mendations was shown for a super-agency at the Drainage Districts were suggested in addition to early regional or state level to coordinate future port action on Channel Enlargement of the Snohomish development. River and sloughs in the Delta area. Some questioned whether or not state and Concurrence was given to watershed manage- regional goals and policy for industrial growth justify ment proposed for Patterson Creek. Watershed the increasing power-use projections. A need was management action was supported for Trail Slough, expressed for additional information on land impacts Ebey Slough and Allen Creek along with consoli- and alternate sources of power to meet the high dation of diking and flood control districts. Action demands forecasted. Single purpose appendices such programs which consider sequence of development as flood control should discuss the significance of and financing within existing fiscal policy and criteria proposals in terms of limits and/or encouragement to were felt necessary. the use and development of flood plains. It was Comments were made that the study is not a suggested that increased emphasis should be placed comprehensive plan that includes economic efficien- on flood plain management as an alternate for flood cy, flexibility, environmental quality and usability. control. It was further suggested that watershed Comments were given regarding the dynamics management and flood control be combined since of county development and the use of the compre- these activities are complementary. hensive plan as a flexible, long range advisory instrument that expresses goals and objectives for the PIERCE COUNTY areas of growth and development. Some thought the study should be referred to as a generalized Pre- A series of 4 workshops began on February 3 liminary Water and Related Land Resource Study and continued for almost two months with meetings with documentation of local and regional goals, on February 16, March 4 and March 25, 1971. A policies and related factors suggested. total attendance of 20 at the first meeting diminished A need was expressed for a procedure to resolve to about 7 at the final session. All meetings were held tensions between local, regional and state planning in the evening in the County Conunissioners' and the manner to which the study is to be utilized Chambers, County-City Building in Tacoma. on those respective levels. A multi-level of govern- Various people that attended meetings repre- ment and citizens was suggested for involvement in sented themselves, several levels of government, plan formulation with continuous input from these Tacoma Community College, local Granges, League levels. A need to have legislative actions updated and of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County, Sierra provide for rapid adoption Lo legislative change was Club, Conservation Northwest, Tahoma Audubon expressed. Society, Nisqually Parkway Association, Puyallup Some suggested that population projections for Valley Chamber of Commerce, Pierce County Sports- regions and counties be expressed as ranges which are men's Council and private consultants. changeable and related to optimum or ultimate A representative of the Pierce County Com- development, as expressed in policies and goals. Early missioners arranged for the meeting place. However, updating to reflect trends and developments was meetings were conducted by the Puget Sound Study recommended. Workshop Coordinator. Representatives of the Comments were made regarding impacts of League of Women Voters helped gain publicity for changing local goals on single purpose plans. The the workshops. importance of land use zoning and land use inter- Comments referred to the need for continued relationships was stressed as was the need for policies emphasis on water quality improvement and on future development of mineral deposits. municipal waste treatment. The Green River/City of A need was expressed for detailed analysis of Tacoma watershed should be kept closed to maintain the Everett water supply problem in terms of supply, water purity without full treatment until such time as peak demands, alternate sources, proposed low flow the need for added recreational area is fully demon- requirements, watershed management and ownership. strated. Recreation sites should be designed for more C-14 seclusion of picnic and camping areas to enhance the to Puyallup and Sumner. It was noted that sport aesthetic value of the sites. fishing in the Puyallup Basin should be reestablished Opposition was shown to ever-increasing inten- to levels of several years ago. Lands recommended for sive use of flood plains. The Nisqually Delta, which is eventual industrial use were felt to be out of attractive to many for various types and degrees of proportion to the minimal lands recommended for use and preservation, should be analyzed from a open space and recreational use. standpoint that would examine all uses. Any mora- Broader comments stated a need to plan for torium on future actions in the Delta should be various economic and population levels. Subsidy was binding on all concerned. Further development of the suggested for consideration when planning or deve- lower Puyallup River Delta was suggested as a loping facilities that benefit those beyond the im- possible alternative for development of the Nisqually. mediate users. Intangible values, though difficult to More intensive use of existing port and industrial define and use, should be a consideration in planning. facilities was also recommended as an alternative to New techniques for handling intangibles should be an Nisqually development with new technology and objective in the refinement of other planning research cited as possible ways to accomplish this methods. Environmental effects should always be intensification. Almost compulsory guidance was thoroughly examined and discussed in depth. recommended to insure that only water-requiring Interest rates, prevailing policies and other development, if acceptable, be allowed to be located factors that are basic to planning . should be re- on shorelines. Even very modest multiple use of the evaluated as the much needed and strongly recom- Nisqually Delta was cautioned since the unique biotic mended updating of the report is done. In future aspects of the area are extremely sensitive to all planning, and as the report is kept up to date, citizen degrees of environmental change. participation should be included at the beginning and It was suggested that wherever possible, parks developed throughout the process for education of be planned along the Puyallup River from the mouth citizens as well as gathering of public policy. C-1 5 PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS COMPREHENSIVE WATER AND RELATED LAND RESOURCES STUDY ISSUES RAISED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW OF STUDY FINDINGS *Note: Issues and Task Force responses on the following pages have been typed and composed verbatim as distributed at the Final Public Hearings except that AND references to Summary Report draft have been changed to Summary Report as published. RESPONSES BY PUGET SOUND T ASK FORCE PACIFIC NORTHWEST RIVER BASINS COMMISSION DISTRIBUTED AT FINAL PUBLIC HEARINGS 21, 22 APRIL 1971 C-17 Fifty workshops were held from November Department of Health, Education, 1970 through early April 1971 in the twelve counties and Welfare involved in the Puget Sound Study. The workshops Department of Transportation were held because of desires for more thorough Department of Agric 'ultu re review expressed by citizens at hearings last May and Department of Commerce June in Mount Vernon, Everett, and Olympia. Citi- Department of the Interior zens, groups, and agencies were invited to participate. Department of Housing and Copies of the Summary Report draft and appendices Urban Development were furnished to counties and cities. Members and Federal Power Commission staff of the Puget Sound Task Force made themselves available to answer questions. The makeup of the Task Force parallels A broad cross-section of more than 500 persons membership on the Columbia Basin Interagency took part, representing farm groups, chambers of Committee and its successor the Pacific North- commerce, garden clubs, improvement clubs, power west River Basins Commission. Because each companies and PUD's, labor unions, forest products state has only one member in the parent and other industries, conservation and environmental organization and the Puget Sound Study was organizations; students; federal, state, county, city entirely within one state, only one member was and district agencies; citizen groups, and just plain appointed from that level of government. That citizens. member, however, who is Chairman of the Task The issues most frequently raised at the work- Force, is the focal point for representation of shops are summarized in the following pages. Many of all state and local governmental entities. Repre- these were listed in Bulletin 5, distributed before the sentatives were chosen by the respective hearings. However, some issues have been added as a agencies. result of workshop comments received after Bulletin 5 was published. Following each issue is a response 2. Everyone wondered how the Task Force report from the Task Force. would be used. (Is it a guide, a blueprint, or just The Task Force will consider all comments another set of books to gather dust on a shelf? When from the public, including those made at all public something is to be done under the report, who does hearings and workshops, in completing its report. it, how does it get done, and who pays for it? Will Any additional comments must be received by May 7. local views be considered?) Comments made subsequent to the hearings Response: The Task Force report provides should be sent to: short and long term guidance for detailed water Alfred T. Neale, Chairman related planning and program administration by Puget Sound Task Force federal, state and local governments and by Washington State Department of Ecology private individuals and corporations. Post Office Box 829 Updating will occur periodically, as well as Olympia, Washington 98504 detailed planning (see page 7@3, Summary Report). Note: Any programs and projects described in the *References to Summary Report revised from draft to report that are carried out will be initiated and paid for according to established procedures. Summary Report as published, in order to facilitate review. Detailed studies.leading -to action can be started 1. Who is the Puget Sound Task Force? (Why are in many different ways; by requests of citizens most members from federal agencies? Who chose to local, state or federal government, by them?) requests of local officials to the Legislature or Response: Task Force membership is made up Congress, or by independent private action. The of one representative of each of the following: public will play a continuing but more decisive State of Washington role in future planning by furnishing local views Department of Army throughout the implementation process (see Department of Labor pages 6-3 and 7-3, Summary Report). C-18 3. Future studies should be based on several The Task Force has pointed out that the different growth rates of population and economic single-purpose technical appendices were just development. (Some of the economic projections that, technical resource documents. They are were felt to be unrealistically large. Many persons felt working documents only. The Summary Report that policy decisions should be made to decrease or presents the final position of the Task Force limit growth, and that conscious efforts could and and reflects the programs and projects recom- should be made to 'do so. There was great concern mended by the various technical committees that growth could cause a dramatic change in the unless modified in Appendix XV, Plan Formu- character of the area. Various methods of limiting lation, or the Summary Report itself. population could be considered.). 5. The general land-use planning done in the study Response: The economic projections used in should be followed by more detailed studies to guide the Puget Sound Study were based upon what economic growth toward publicly accepted goals. was expected to occur in the future in employ- (Were urban interests in land use adequately re- ment, population, and economic activity. The flected? Some of the -areas frequently discussed in needs for water and related land resources were relation to future land-use decisions were: estimated and a Comprehensive Plan to meet Nisqually Delta-Port or wildlife? Can they be the needs was developed. Policy decisions about combined? How can a moratorium on decisions limiting or encouraging growth cannot be made be enforced? by the Puget Sound Task Force. However, Skagit Valley-Necessity for more flood con- whatever level of growth occurs, the govern- trol? mental agencies with water resource responsi- Snohomish-Snoqualmie Valley-Dams? De- bilities, intend to meet the needs in an environ- velopment? Agriculture? Recreation? mentally acceptable manner. The value of the San Juan Islands-Real estate? Developments? Puget Sound Study lies in demonstrating the Water and sewer problems?) effects on water and related land resources if Response: The general land-use planning under- growth occurs as forecasted. The Task Force taken in the study demonstrates various land will recommend re-examination of economic use patterns under four assumptions of popu- projections with local governments and lay lation density (see Part 6, Appendix V, Water- citizens participating. Related Land Resources). The Task Force 4. In cases of conflicts among resource uses, the recognizes the need for further detailed land conflicts should. be clearly se 't forth and planners use ') studies including future management of should suggest ways for resolving them. (Perhaps the Puget Sound estuaries (see page 1-8, Summary method used-making independent single-purpose Report) and recommends state guidelines be studies and then trying to resolve conflicts-is not the established to resolve land-use conflicts. The best possible. Just what is the status of all the Summary Report will be revised to recommend appendices? Will the person interested in power? for that land use goals be determined by methods example? or watershed management, bother to pick that assure public participation. Under Wash- up the Plan Formulation or Summary Report, or just ingtori State law cities and counties can control look at the volume with the title he is interested in? land use. The result would just be more piecemeal resource 6. Recommendations should be modified where planning). local conditions and public goals have changed by the Response: One of the primary purposes of time specific projects are begun. (Local population comprehensive planning is to identify conflicts projections for the future have already been reached and then resolve these conflicts considering in some cases. This affects the timing of provisions total resources and alternative solutions. The for water supply and other projects. Decision 's to Task Force believes that public involvement is build or not to build a cross-sound bridge and a necessary to resolve conflicts. (In two areas, bridge to the lower end of Whidbey Island have many Skagit River and the Nisqually Delta, the Task effects which must be kept in mind.) Force did not resolve the conflicts but did Response: Recommendations in the report re recommend means for their resolution.) (The subject to complete reexamination to reflect procedures used are described in Appendix XV, local positions and goals at the time of detailed Plan Formulation, pages 10-17, and 10-60, Plan implementation studies (see page 6-3, Summary A and B.) Report). C-19 7. Effects of al projects and programs on the cific programs and projects will be determined natural envirom-nent must be thoroughly considered. in the more detailed future implementation Hidden costs and benefits must be identified, along studies. with ways of comparing natural and economic values. 10. The report should be kept current, with citizen Response: The Task . Force recognizes the and local government participation throughout future importance of preserving the natural environ- studies. (This should include corrections of numerical ment and recommends a large number of data, recent changes in the field, and incorporate new streams, identified in the Summary Report federal, state, and local policies for resource manage- draft, be studied for possible inclusion in a state ment. There must be ways to get and use continued system of recreational rivers, protection of public and local government involvement on policy significant archeological and historical sites and questions as well as ideas about specific programs and outstanding natural and underwater marine projects. Why was there not more throughout the areas; maintaining riverflows for fish, recreation study?) and aesthetics. and acquiring numerous beach Response: The report is intended to be kept and watershed areas for recreation. Some alter- current with improved local government and natives were dropped because of their bad citizen participation recommended in future effects on basin environments. In two major studies (see Part 7, Appendix 11, Political and areas of use conflicts, Nisqually Delta, and Legislative Environment and page 6-3, Sum- Skagit River, alternative plans are presented. In mary Report). The Task Force will include other cases provisions for mitigation of possible guidelines in the Summary Report for assuring adverse effects to the environment are included. future public involvement in follow-on planning Detailed studies of programs and projects will or implementation. be done according to the National Environ- The Task Force sought to obtain public in- mental Policy Act of 1969 (see page 5-7, volvement through the initial hearings con- Summary Report and similar state legislation). ducted in 1964 and throughout the study by All costs and benefits will be identified in these meeting with interested groups, county govern- studies. The detailed studies may also alter the ments and regional planning organizations. Comprehensive Plan. However, as the May-June 1970 public hearings 8. Local areas will need money to implement their demonstrated, future public involvement will shares of projects and programs proposed in the need I to be improved. This is recognized in report. (How will the money for local shares be Appendix 11, Political and Legislative Environ- obtained? In spite of the large amounts involved, ment and the Summary Report. The final estimates of cost for some projects seemed too low.) versions of the Summary Report will stress that Response: Financial help to local governments in the detailed implementation studies the for implementing programs and projects will be public be given an active role initially and obtained through existing federal and state throughout the studies. authorities or through private financing. Ad- 11. Benefit-cost analysis should not be the only ditional details are contained in Appendix II ' factor in deciding whether a project should be Political and Legislative Environment. Some funding must be obtained locally-by tax levees undertaken. Broader methods must be used in making or bond sales. Costs shown in the report are these decisions. (There are a lot of pitfalls to reducing approximate with detailed studies required- to a day of fly fishing on a free-flowing, unpolluted determine firm costs. stream to dollars.) Response: We agree. Benefit-cost analysis was 9. User fees should be considered in financing not the only basis of selecting elements of the some projects and programs. (Admission fees or Compre .hensive Plan. Intangible benefits in- licenses for some activities may provide more and cluding the saving of human life, improvement better facilities, as well as assuring careful use.) of living conditions and the safeguarding of the Response: The Task Force agrees with the natural environment were also considered as concept of user fees and this is discussed in part of the Planning criteria (see page 1-14, Appe. dices VI and X, M&I Water Supply and Summary Report). Storage projects recom- Recre, tion. The exact mode of financing spe- mended in single-purpose planning were in C-20 many basins excluded from the Comprehensive Response: Sanitation requirements for pleasure Plan in order to retain rivers in their free- boats and moorages are discussed in the Task flowing state (see Appendix XVI' Plan Formu- Force report and appendices (see page 3-6 lation). (Examples, North Fork Skykomish, Summary Report, page 1-68, Appendix XIII, North and South Forks Stillaguamish, Miller Water Quality Control and page 2-21, Appendix River). XV, Plan Formulation.) The need for proper 12. Many local problems in estuaries, lakes, and waste collection from commercial vessels and streams were identified as needing immediate at- pleasure craft will be further emphasized in the tention. (Problems included poor water @circulation, final version of the Summary Report. lack of access to water, over-use and over-crowding of 16. The waters of Puget Sound should be studied available areas and littering.) and managed as a single system. (Major activities on Response: Help for local problems should be one part of the Sound may have effects on distant requested by local government or citizens. See parts of it. There is no consideration of Puget Sound Appendix 11, Political and Legislative Environ- as a transportation corridor for ferries which might be ment for agencies and the kinds of help they preferred to more highway corridors.) can furnish. Response: The navigation studies viewed the 13. Flood plain management should be considered deep draft shipping potential of Puget Sound for many. streams in the area. (This would not only on a regional basis, with waterborne commerce help hold down flood damages but would make more projected for the entire area and then allocated space available for recreation and greenbelts.) to the various ports. The Summary Report will Response: Flood plain management with local be revised to, include a recommendation for a land use zoning, flood-proofing, early warning single planning entity for guiding future de- systems and flood insurance has been recom- velopments for waterbome commerce (see page mended for all of the major river basins. The 2-86, Appendix VIII, Navigation). In addition use of flood plain management to reduce the to the Navigation Committee other technical growth in flood damages and facilitate the committees recognized the Sound as a single retention of open space was recognized by the entity (see Appendix X, Recreation, Appendix Task Force (see Appendix VII, Flood Control,. XI, Fish and Wild 'life, and Appendix 11, Political Appendix XV, Plan Formulation and page 4-23, and Legislative Environment). However, the Summary Report). The state, cit@' and county Task. Force, agrees that further studies should governments already have authority to do flood place greater emphasis on Puget Sound as one plain management. eco-system and will include in the final version 14. Leaving an area undeveloped should always be of the Summary Report a recommendation for one of the choices considered. (The effect of not conducting model studies of the Sound for use doin.g anything about a projected need should be in forecasting effects of thermal plant cooling compared with an estimate of how critical the need water discharges and municipal and industrial itself is.) waste discharges. The report will be revised to Response: Nondevelopment alternatives were include a recommendation of expanded ferry considered throughout the planning process. service as an alternative to cross-sound bridging (Seepage 1-11 Summary Report and Appendix of Puget Sound. XV, Plan Formulation). Retaining free-flowing 17. Stringent regulations must be imposed to avoid rivers, zoning flood plains, and pr Ieservmg oil spills in Puget Sound. (The Alaska oil discoveries uniqu .e and historical sites are some examples. have dramatized the problem. The transport of other The* report will be revised to stress this alterna- toxic substances must also be regulated. The im- tive during detailed implementationstudies. portance of aquaculture and commercial and 15. Wastes from commercial vessels, ferries and recreational fi'shing was emphasized). pleasure craft and related shore facilities must be Response: We agree. The importance of aqua- collected and properly treated. (Tax breaks or other culture and commercial, and recreational fishing inducements may encourage operators and builders of and boating in Puget Sound is discussed in the marinas to install sanitary, discharge and garbage Task Force report and appendices. (See pages facilities.) 3-20, 4-30 and 5-4, Summary Report; Ap- C-21 pendix X, Recreation; page 7-3, Appendix 11, Appendices II, Political and Legislative En- Political and Legislative Environment and vironment, Part 7, page 7-3, Administrative Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife.) The concern and Financial Support. over potential damage to these and other Appendix VI, M&I Water Supply, pages resources has prompted revision of the Sum- 2-29, 2-30 and in each basin mary Report to recommend concerted action Summary Report, Part 6. by all responsible agencies to regulate vessel Additional references will be included 'in the movements on Puget Sound and adjacent final version of the Summary Report. waters. This revision will include the recom- 22. Just what is meant by watershed management, mendation that federal and state agencies and and why are such large sums of money recommended marine industry make joint studies leading to a for it in the report? navigation control system that will minimize Response: Watershed management involves the the possibilities of collisions. activities of private developers, agriculture and 18. All levels of government should strive for public forestry and federal, state and local government participation at the beginning and throughout all in construction of urban and suburban storm planning activities. run-off systems, small dams and stock ponds, Response: We agree. She response to Issue 10. placement of riprap along stream banks, and 19. Technological advances are needed to produce land treatment and management for drainage more efficient small-scale units for water supply and and erosion control. Costs are large because sanitation uses. (Outlying areas which are new or most of the land in the Puget Sound area is growing especially require such systems.) affected. For specific references see: Response: Those who need small-scale units Appendix V, Water-related Land Resources should contact their county or city health Appendix XIV, Watershed Management departments or the State Departments of Appendix XV, Plan Formulation Ecology or Health and Social Services. Summary Report 20. Comprehensive planning, land use zoning, tax 23. Irrigation projections should be reconsidered incentives, public purchase of development rights, for areas where farrnland is. being taken out of and early acquisition of sites for preservation or production because of encroaching residential or development should be considered as ways to deal industrial use, or tax reassessment under threat of with increasingly heavy demands on natural re- such use. (Farmers are in a state of uncertainty in sources. (Many of these means could be used now at such areas, and the need for irrigation water may the local level). decrease rather than increase. The effects of such Response: The Task Force report recommends losses, of farmlands may be lessened by increased early identification of sites for preservation or farming efficiency and by careful location of new and development in accordance with heavy de- expanding developments to avoid use of the best farm mands on natural resources. Recommendations land. Two new ideas, using cooling water from made in: thermal power plants and irrigating forestlands, may Appendix II, Political and Legislative En- also have an impact on future needs for irrigation vironment, Part 7 water.) Appendix X, Recreation, pages 1-6 and 1-7 Response: The . projections for irrigation de- Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife, pages 3-56, velopments will be reviewed periodically. Pre- 3-78 sent and future irrigation needs will be de- will be included as part of the Summary Report termined by the farmers involved. Possible use by reference. of thermal power plant cooling water for 21. Communities with large summer (or winter) irrigation and the potential increase in forest populations need methods to finance needed facilities production through irrigation will be examined for water supply and sanitation. during future detailed studies. Response: The Task Force recognizes the need Specific references include: for more effective methods of financing both Appendix VII, Irrigation, page 2-19 seasonal and long term facilities for water Appendix XV, Plan Plan Formulation, page supply and sanitation. Specific discussions on 2-53 financing are contained in: Summary Report, page 4-16 C-22 24. The effect of tax policies on land and resource- amining sites when an interest is shown by a use policies should be carefully considered. Action developing agency. Possibly in the future the should be taken to remedy pressures often caused by council could evaluate and recommend advance increase&/assessments to take land out of open space purchase of sites which meet its criteria. and recreation use. (It should be possible for land 26. Among matters needingearly attention are: owners to agree to hold lands for later purchase by a. Water supply and distribution problems. government. This is difficult under present law.) (Some of the concerns expressed included main- Response: The Task Force will recommend in taining the purity of municipal water by closed the final version of the Summary Report that watersheds or by treatment, or by a combination of federal, state and local governments reexamine both; complete inventory of ground water supplies current policies with regard to taxation to and appropriate conservation keeping them free of determine if desirable changes in resource use sewage or salt water pollution; what to do under the can be induced through modification in tax new water rights registration law, and the status of policy. municipal water rights on various streams; skepticism 25. The large projections of future power needs about interbasin transfers; water tables and whether should be re-examined. (Estimates of future demands water supplies are being mined, and the need for for power and water should take into account the recycling to help maintain water tables; the need for possibility of decreased as well as increased per capita more efficient use of existing water resources as a use. A rationale to choose among different kinds of first step in meeting future water requirements.) power generation must be developed, as well as better Response: The Task Force discussed the methods of choosing sites, especially for nuclear problems of multiple-use of municipal water- power plants. Advance purchasing of sites for future sheds and recommended additional studies be power plants should be considered. Citizens should be undertaken to determine the desirability and educated about muclear power.) justification for opening these areas to Response: The Task Force agrees. Projections recreational use (see page 4-29, Summary of future power needs are based upon popu- Report). A recommendation will be included in lation and economic projections. If these pro- the final version of the Summary Report jections should change when they are perio- stressing the need for a complete regional dically re-examined, the projections.of future inventory of ground water resources, and es- power needs will also change. tablishing a program to insure their conser- vation. Water rights are being reviewed under A projection of decreased per capita use of state law with all who desire a water right electric power would require an increase in the required to file with the Department of projection of pet capita use of other energy Ecology by 1974. More efficient use of existing sources, such as natural gas, coal, oil, wood, water supplies will be reaffirmed in the final paper, etc. for heating, cooking, clothes drying, version of the Summary Report. For example, etc. or a reduction in the standard of living. use of pipe instead of open ditches for irri- gation; replacement of leaky water systems; and There is a very definite rationale for choosing use of meters would allow a reduction in losses among different kinds of power generation and wastage. based upon the most economic alternatives to b. Small boat harbors. (Most agreed that more hydroelectric generation. This rationale, termed are needed, but there was dissatisfaction with some of "Value of Power" was developed by the Feder- the proposed locations.) al Power Commission and was endorsed and is Response: Sites shown in the Task Force report followed by the private, public, and federal for small boat harbors are listed as potential constructing agencies. (See Appendix IX, sites with detailed studies and public meetings Power) required before final selection (See Appendix VIII, Navigation). Permits are also required The Task Force endorses the formation of the from state and federal agencies before facilities Washington State Thermal Power Plant Site can be constructed. Evaluation Council. The Council is now ex- C-23 c. Recreational access of various kinds. (Some some instances to meet these standards. kinds of recreation seem to have been on-dtted, for Standards will be periodically reviewed and example: clam digging, beachcombing and bird upgraded by the Environmental Protection watching. Development of new or existing recreation Administration and the State of Washington areas must include planning for bicycle, horse and Department of Ecology. walking trails. What about the effect of existing or e. Estuaries. (Estuaries have special needs and increased pollution on water-based recreation? Pol- values that should be considered separately.) lution can foreclose some recreation uses, The Response: The uniqueness and importance of problem of flotsam and jetsam on Puget Sound is not Puget Sound estuaries are of concern to the dealt with.) Task Force and are discussed in Appendix X, Response: Recreational planning undertaken by Recreation, Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife, the Task Force incorporated the diverse forms Appendix XIII, Water Quality Control, Ap- of outdoor recreation activity. (See Appendix pendix XV, Plan Formulation, and the Sum- X, Recreation and Appendix XI, Fish and mary Report where a separate section is pro- Wildlife). The final version of the Summary vided on this subject discussing the need for a Report will be made more explicit in this coordinated program of future use. regard. f. Storm water. (Should it be separated from other wastes? Treated with them? Diverted?) Measures contained within the Comprehensive Response: The Task Force supports separation Plan are intended to eliminate or reduce the of storm and sanitary sewers (see page 3-6, current level of water pollution. The problem Summary Report). The final version of the of debris as related to pleasure boating was Summary Report will recommend an investiga- identified in Appendix VIII, Navigation. The tion leading to a solution of pollution problems Summary Report will recommend a study of associated with storm runoff. debris prevention, control and removal. 27. Do we really haveenough acres of land and d. Degree of sewage treatment required before gallons of water to meet the projected needs. (Many dumping into Puget Sound or inland waters. (Many uses-for example, waterfowl feeding and water- advocated secondary and tertiary treatment of oriented industry-may be completely incompatible.) wastes.) Response: Enough land and water resources are Response: The Task Force report supports the available to meet the projected demands Inter and Intra State Water Quality Standards through the year 2020 for most uses if develop- (See page 4-18, Summary Report). Secondary ment follows the Comprehensive Plan. Finding and tertiary treatment may be necessary in this out was the purpose of the Task Force Study (See page 4-5, Summary Report). C-24 SUPPLEMENT TO ISSUES RAISED DURING PUBLIC REVIEW OF STUDY FINDINGS AND RESPONSES C-25 Additional issues below were identified and 8. Live-aboard vessels, whose numbers are in- raised in material received from various counties too creasing, add to the problem of wastes from boats late to be included in "Issues and Responses" and ships. distributed at the Final Public Hearings April 21 and Response: Agree, the Summary Report dis- 22, 1971. The Task Force response follows. cusses this need on page 3-10. 1. Some kinds of experts seem not to have been 9. Since solid waste disposal policies affect water involved in the planning, for example, oceanographer, quality and land use decisions, they should be limnologist, planner-ecologist. Were there enough discussed. Provision must be made for safe, adequate persons with an overall view, besides specialists or disposal of dredging spoils before any dredging those with special interest? projects are undertaken. Air pollution also affects Response: Through an interagency approach water quality and should be taken into consideration. with multiple-discipline representation the Task Response: Agree, see Appendix VIII, Navi- Force sought to obtain an overall view. gation for discussion of this problem. 2. Who decides how Costs are apportioned among 10. Existing ports should be expanded, rather than various levels of government, and private users? allowing entirely new areas to be developed. Pro- Response: Existing legislation establishes the jections of future waterbome commerce seem too basis for cost-sharing. large. Revision would have a major effect on terminal 3. Projections are most appropriately made by land needs. ' regional agencies, since they can be more easily Response: Terminal land requirements make up affected by regional policy, and can themselves in a relatively small part of navigation-related turn influence regional policy. lands (see Appendix VIII, Navigation, for basis Response: The Task Force was the only region- of land needs detern-fination). The Summary al body which had authority to make pro- Report proposes control of port development jections for the entire 12-county area. through centralized planning (See Recom- 4. Computers should be used to help keep the mendation 13, page 7-3). report current. 11. The increased public participation called for Response: Agree. will cost money, for example to print more copies of 5. Economic benefits shown did not always reflect materials. This money must be found. local judgment. Response: Agree; Task Force calls for Federal Response: Criteria on benefits used in the study legislative action to allow Federal agencies to were established by the National Water Re- include the necessary funds for public partici- sources Council. However, reference to "local pation in future planning budgets (See Sum- judgement" took place throughout the study mary Report, page 6-4). period when substantive liaison was established 12. How can seasonal visitors-both long-term, with local officials in the study area. This part-time residents and short-term tourists-be as- liaison took place before, during and after plan sessed their fair share of costs for water supply and formulation. sanitation facilities? 6. Solitude, for example in a wilderness setting, is Response: By appropriate user fees and by an absolute and its loss is also absolute. How can one taxes or charges on services and supplies di- arrive at its cost? rectly related to vists by seasonal visitors. Response: No solution to this problem has yet 13. Projections of vast increases in the tourist been developed; nevertheless the Task Force industry are unwelcome in some areas, especially sought to give intangibles thorough consider- where water supply and sewage facilities are already ation during plan formulation. strained. 7. The county workshops emphasized local Response: If local governments in those areas problems, which was valuable, but sometimes the desire to discourage the tourist industry, they can relationship to the whole region was obscured. adopt this as their policy and use existing institutions Response: This was perhaps a deficiency in the and laws to implement that policy. For example they workshop effort. However, a goal of the effort can deny tourist business as operating licenses; they was to relate local problems to the overall plan can adopt land use restrictions and zoning, develop (see page 2 of Information Bulletin 4, Ap- special laws that inhibit tourism; deny building pendix 1, Digest of Public Hearings, Volume permits; and build and operate their utility systems 111). C-26 with that thought in mind. The Task Force mission Planning" and "Alternative Elements" sections was not to discourage development but only to assure for each basin). that what development does occur, occurs in ac- 21. Future such plan teams should include lay cordance with guidelines that are likely to be environ- citizens. mentally acceptable. Response: Agree in principle but requirements 14. Tax incentives (as for pollution abatement) for continuity (the individual make-up of should be used only with great care, and on a citizen groups are constantly changing) may short-term basis. make it infeasible. However, all public partici- Response: Agree. pation in planning must be programmed as a 15. An intermediateunit of government, like Metro continuing process and this includes public in King County, is useful for,basin-wide planning, scrutiny of plan formulation. able to deal with both local governments and State 22. There should be more suggestions for new (and Federal) agencies. legislation and changes in existing agencies and Response: Agree. legislation, as well as recommendations for better 16. Suggested techniques for slowing the rise in per enforcement or new means of enforcement of ex- capita power consumption should be discussed. The isting legislation. effect of possible future, widespread use of electrical Response: Suggestions have been made by the cars on power demand was not considered, nor were Task Force for legislative action at State and other future technical developments. Federal levels (see Summary Report page 6-4). Response: Although no method for slowing the 23. There is no consideration of the relationship of rise in power consumption was proposed, water pricing and water use, and the practice of proper planning should assure equitable user making small water users help subsidize facilities for charges, and will result in higher relative costs. larger water users. This, in turn, will inhibit use. The use of Response: Although no method for slowing the electric cars and the energy requirements for rise in water consumption was proposed, proper pollution control, recycling of waste materials, planning would make certain that all costs rapid transit, or other future technical develop- identified with the water supply are included in ments may well make the projected estimates the rate structure. This would include intangi- of per capita consumption too low. ble costs and externalities as well as tangible 17. Potential nuclear sites should have been evalu- costs. Progressive rate structures are being used ated as to cost and environmental acceptability. in some countries to control use. Agree that Sources, transportation, and disposal of nuclear fuel small water districts. should share in the cost should be taken into consideration. savings resulting from regional water supply Respose: Will be in future site studies. systems (see Appendix XV, Plan Formulation, 18. More weather and stream gaging stations are Snohomish (pg 7-22) and Cedar-Green (pg needed for long-term water supply predictions and 8-24) basins). short-term flood warnings. 24. The relation between upstream land develop- Response: This is recognized in the Summary ment and what happens downstream should be Report (see pages viii and 2-12). emphasized. 19. There should be more consideration of fish Response: See Appendix V, Water-Related other than salmon. Land Resources, and Appendix XIV, Watershed Response: This is recognized in the Summary Management. Report (see pages 2-12, 3-20 and 4-30). 25. The burden of recreational uses on the natural 20. The basic goals of the study which resulted in environment is not enough recognized, for example the selection or exclusion.of alternatives in the plan fish wastes from hatcheries, oil and noise pollution are not revealed. The study should have considered from boats, erosion from trailbikes. changing public attitudes, and proposed alternate Response: Agree; this will have to be resolved plans to accommodate changing situations. Decision- by those actually administering the hatcheries, makers change, and their priorities change; the study small boat traffic and trails. must reflect these possibilities. 26. Flood control and watershed management Response: Alternatives were presented and should be considered together rather than separately. reasons for their rejection are given in Ap- Response: Agree; the Task Force acted to pendix XV, Plan Formulation (see "Basis of assure that these few functions were coordi- nated in the comprehensive plan. C-27 EVALUATION BY THE WORKSHOP COORDINATOR During the workshop review, a problem future of natural resources, considerable thought has frequently noted by participants was that of trying to been given to methods of improving public judge a project solely on the basis of cost and benefit participation. Suggested guidelines for public factors. This problem is exemplified in trying to participation in future planning studies follow this evaluate the workshops by simply equating the time section. However,\ there are basic points that should and effort expended against the workshop results. be noted here-rot only to provide a better Much of the benefit that can be assigned to the perspective of the comments, but also for the purpose workshops is, as yet, impossible to measure; not only of describing the various pitfalls and successes in because of the abstract nature of many of the order that anyone who attempts similar activities in recommendations but also because the ultimate use the future can gain from the experiences of the Puget made of those recommendations can only be judged Sound study workshops. by observing the course of resource management The entire workshop program was designed to from here on in the future. be conducted in a very informal and unstructured An obvious major benefit was that 500-plus manner even though this approach was frequently workshop participants were made aware of the challenged when meetings were held in the formal findings of the first regional analysis of water and imagination-stifling atmosphere of a courtroom. resources in the Puget Sound area. The counterpart of Furthermore, without firm guidance, the workshop this basic communication process was that the re- discussions sometimes departed from the overall source-managing agencies also learned from the ex- purpose of the meetings and resulted in debate perience. Hopefully, the result will be that both the between participants and local officials over narrow public and government have a reinforced attitude to and often coveted subjects that did not relate directly work toward the ideal of involving all those who are to the findings of the Puget Sound study. willing in guiding how the resources are managed. The undirected approach to the workshops, the A more specific benefit of the workshops was difficulty in attracting participants who were willing that participants were able to make their opinions to do in-depth studying, and the frequent tendency known on the individual projects contained in the Of participants to review only one, two or three Puget Sound study. The opinions covered a broad favorite subjects, sometimes combined to result in front and comments ranged from major support for comments that were inappropriate or out of context some projects to criticism that some projects were with the study. Some comments pertained to infor- being resurrected in the report despite long-standing mation contained elsewhere in the report while other local opposition. Without any attempt to weigh the comments noted information that had never been attitudes for and against a project, the benefit rests in intended for inclusion in the study. the fact that those attitudes, as well as those projects, Most of the problems could be overcome by were brought to the surface for discussion and using a study coordinating staff rather than a single examination. coordinator, a more ordered and nearly step-by-step It should be noted that many of the workshop review procedure and the most important re- comments cited extremely detailed data corrections. quirement of all-early, and more detailed evaluation These corrections will be useful in future work on the of the participants as to the purpose of their study to bring it up to date. Therefore, this detailed involvement and the consideration that would be information, as well as all other comments, will be made of their thoughts and ideas. It is also essential retained intact for the use of the organization that that this early education include the purpose and will perform the updating. (Cornments received from degree of detail that is intended in the final report on workshops are contained in an unpublished appendix. plans that they are helping to produce. The unpublished appendix is available for inspection The workshop program waited almost in- from the Washington State Department of Ecology, actively for nearly six months between the time of P. 0. Box 829, Abbott Rathael Hall, St. Martin's announcement and the actual beginning of meetings. College, Olympia, Washington.) The delay was the result of staff and financial Due to the desire by more and more people to deficiencies in local government, not a sufficiently have some understanding of, and influence on the long preparation time, unfamiliarity with the work- C-28 shop concept, absence of local coordinators who government to cultivate that awareness through im- could initiate the program and, in some cases, proved methods of early public participation that governmental apprehension toward the program. must include a basic education on any planning Once started, the workshop discussions and the program. that is being started, broadening of fre- written comments frequently showed knowledgeable quently found "backyard" protectiveness, and finally thinking but did not often result in concensus governmental consideration and response to ideas opinions although numerous issues were repeated in expressed by participants. several counties. The major issues and the respo Inses Equally, it is incumbent upon the public when to those issues by the Puget Sound Task Force are finding the opportunity to participate, to do so in the contained elsewhere in this exhibit (See pages C-17 spirit of constructive and shared government. The and C-25). In Addition, other common interests can extra effort and costs required of the public to be identified by comparing the subjects that are actively work at participation can perhaps be eased in noted in the preceding workshop summaries. the future by increased budgets within government Nevertheless, although concensus within a that are earmarked for that particular purpose. Until single workshop group was not the usual occurrence, the time when that assistance is made available, the this fact should not be an unmanageable frustration work done by the public must be expected to include to the resource planners but rather a guide to a more the gritty duties as well as the glorious aspects that extensive program in the future. are imagined of planning. In brief, the workshops were a positive step in The workshop program of the Puget Sound public participation. The comments from the work- study achieved a degree of pioneering in public shops, while not often showing unanimous attitudes, involvement but more importantly it acted as a new did reveal an encouraging degree of interest and educational experience for both public and govern- awareness by participants. It is incumbent upon ment with the resulting benefits for exceeding the costs. C-29 SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The county workshops for the Puget Sound and who are not really interested will drop out anyhow. Adjacent Waters Study provided valuable experience The chairman or coordinator must have time and in planning for and dealing with public participation appropriate contacts to get publicity in local news- in water -resources planning. The following sug- papers and on radio and TV. It may be appropriate to gestions are based primarily on this experience. post notices in some areas. If there- is a printed In the beginning.-Public participation should information bulletin, it should be clear, non-techni- be part of the program, planned for and budgeted for cal, and informative. There should be an effort to get from the beginning of the study. It must be a publicity throughout the process. Controversy will continuing activity and be understood to be a help, and will help keep people coming. continuing activity. Those running the program must Who should come.-All kinds of people should be committed to the idea and its value. The public come, but many will not. Every effort must be made will quickly detect if this is not the case. They must to assure the attendance of persons known to be convinced that what they say and do in the public beinterested in water resources and public affairs, participation process can make a difference in the including, for example, those from farm groups, final results; otherwise participation will be small. A chambers of commerce, garden clubs, public utilities, continuing process will help accommodate changing labor unions, industries, conservation and environ- ideas over time, and will help bring both the public mental organizations, students, and governmental and the planners along together. agencies. There should never be any question that How to start.-Responsibilities must be clear. some type of person would not be welcome. Public The entity having primary responsibility for public officials and civil servants should come, but should involvement must be clearly designated. Followup, not overwhelm the group, either by their numbers or preparation and sending out of notices, contacting of their expertise. People working on the study should the press, arranging for a meeting place, and taking come prepared to explain why they are doing what care of other attendant matters should be done by they are doing. Even if the best person to answer a this entity. At the first public meetings plariners specific question is not there, it reassures people to should discuss the scope and purposes of their study see that real live human beings are doing the study, and lay out alternatives in broad outlines, with When and where.-Time and place should be widespread publicity and appropriate written material convenient and suitable for the general public in the available. After the planners and other professionals area. In most communities weekday evenings are best, have heard from the public and governmental bodies but comrnunity custom may be different and should with regard to desired goals, they can begin discussing rule. The place should be centrally located in the different ways of reaching these goals. During subse- geographical area, easy to find, and if possible, quent meetings with the public alternatives should be comfortable or at least not forbidding. It is ideal to discussed completely and gradually narrowed to be able to gather around a table, far from ideal to several which merit detailed investigation. The whole have to sit in a sloped amphitheater. planning process must display the alternatives clearly, What to have at meetings.-Maps and displays so people understand the choices open to them. may be helpful. There must be adequate materials Publicity.-Individual notices (specific and available for those who want and need them. A digest simply written) should be mailed to known interested of lengthy material is enough for most people. Those people. They should be encouraged to invite their who are really prepared to work can be given the friends and associates. Everything should make the more complete material. The formal governmental gatherings sound interesting and open to all. Those review process should not be allowed to forestall C-30 public scrutiny of plans in the making. There should businesslike way, without technical jargon, intimi- be an attendance sheet at each meeting, which should dation, or defensiveness. Difficult participants can be ask for affiliations. The contribution of a public tolerated for awhile and then turned off gently. relations director for a local office of a national Everyone's contribution should be welcomed, as long industry, and that of an officer of a group of 500 as he lets others have their say. Both spoken and local citizens, may be evaluated somewhat differently written material may be presented. as might that from one outspoken college student How to followup.-It is a good idea to try to compared to a resident living in a problem area. get people to write down what they think. It will be What to do at meetings.-Some sort of organi- more organized if they have taken time to think it zation should be set up at the first meeting. One or over and summarize it, and it is easier to deal with. It more prospects for chairman can be lined up in can be read back or distributed to the group for advance, and if the group does not immediately further comment (with the writer's permission). But, organize itself, one of these people can volunteer. The in addition, somebody should take full notes of all job- need not be difficult, and it helps assure the meetings to capture their flavor and make sure continuity. Members of a volunteer group (like the that no useful information escapes. Planners should League of Women Voters) could do this, if proper not be discouraged by lack of attendance, misunder- approaches are made to them in advance. Needed standing, and distrust, If people get feedback from staff help, and money for postage and other expenses, the planners, and see that changes are rn ade as a result should be furnished to any.such volunteers. Meetings of what they say, more trust and cooperation will should be run informally, but moderated in a develop for the future. C- 31 arol d @iu @L@@o 'i4- )v ZA@ P.M7 Ace kA4 7j, 11 "A . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY FINAL PUBLIC HEARINGS Bremerton Hearing-. Approximately 60 persons Some disagreement with current planning by were in attendance with about 50 percent being from the city of Seattle Water Department was noted. The agencies that participated in the Puget Sound and study was criticized for not giving adequate Adjacent Waters Study. No prepared testimony was recognition to Indian water rights. Concern was received, although several questions were asked by expressed over possible adverse environmental the audience with regard to the costs of measures impacts that could result from small watershed proposed by the Task Force. projects. Some expressed the view that future Seattle Hearing: Approximately 150 persons planning should be toward desired goals of attended the hearing with about 30 of these being population and economic development rather than from agencies that participated in the Puget Sound for trends. Retention of the Snoqualmie River valley Study. Twenty persons presented prepared testimony from Fall City to Snohomish in a greenbelt was at the hearing and eight submitted written testimony desired. The Middle Fork Snoqualmie Dam was subsequent to the hearing. The study was generally recognized as having value in reducing flood hazards viewed as a good inventory of the Puget Sound area and thereby allowing an improvement in agricultural resources, useful to local resource planning enterprise. A need was expressed for a factual authorities. However, provision for updating the ecological study. (See Appendix 1, Digest of Public study was strongly urged. Hearings, Volume 111, for presentation of verbatim testimonies). D-3 GLOSSARY Acre-Foot (ac. ft.)-A unit commonly used for measuring the volume of water or sediment; equal to the quantity of water required to cover one acre to a depth of one foot and equal to 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons. Alluvium-Soil material, such as sand, silt, or clay, that has been deposited by water. Anadromous Fish-Species that are hatched in fresh water, mature in salt water, and return to fresh water to spawn. Angler-day-A day or any part of a day spent fishing by an individual. Aquifer-A rock formation ' bed, or zone containing water that is available to wells. An aquifer ay be referred to as a water-bearing formation or water-bearing bed. Arable Lands-Lands which are delineated by classification procedure as suitable for irrigation development. Artesian Water-Ground water under sufficient pressure to rise above the level at which the water-bearing bed is reached in a well. The pressure in such an aquifer commonly is called artesian pressure, and the rock containing artesian water is an artesian aquifer. Base Flow-See Base Runoff. Base Runoff -Sustained or fair weather runoff. In most streams, base runoff is composed largely of ground water effluent. The term base flow is often used in the same sense as base runoff. However, the distinction is the same as that between strearnflow and runoff. When the concept in the terms base flow and base runoff is that of the natural flow in a stream, base runoff is the logical term. Basin-A geographic area drained by a single major strewn. For the purposes of this study the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Area has been subdivided into the following nine basins and the Whidbey-Camano and San Juan Islands. 1. Nooksack-Sumas 6. Puyallup 2. Skagit-Samish 7. Nisqually-Deschutes 3. Stillaguarnish 8. West Sound 4. Snohomish 9. Elwha-Dungeness 5. Cedar-Green BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)-The quantity of oxygen utilized in biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specified time and at a specified temperature. It is determined entirely by the availability of the material as a biological food and by the amount of oxygen utilized by the micro-organisms during oxidation. Usually expressed in terms of BOD5, it is the quantity of oxygen utilized in a five-day period at 200 C. Bottom Land-Lowland formed by alluvial deposits along a river or stream. Capacity Factor (Electric Powed-The ratio of the average load on the generating plant for the period of time considered to the capacity rating of the plant. Capital Expenditures-Outlays for plant and equipment which are normally charged to fixed asset accounts. E-3 cfs (Cubic Foot per Second)-A unit of discharge for measurement of flowing liquid equal to a flow of one cubic foot per second past a given section. Also called second-foot. Channel Storage-7The volume of water at a given time in the channel or over the flood plain of the streams in a drainage basin.or river reach. Channel storage is sometimes significant during the progress of a flood event. Chlorination-The application of chlorine to water, sewage, or industrial wastes generally for the purpose of disinfection, but frequently for accomplishing other 6iological or chen-dcal results. COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)-The quantity of oxygen utilized in the chemical, oxidation of organic matter. It is a measure of the amount of such matter present. Coliform Bacteria-A species of genus escherichia bacteria, normal inhabitant of the intestine of man and all vertebrates. Construction Cost-The total cost of construction, including real estate, engineering, design, administration and supervision. Consumptive Use-The quantity of water discharged to the atmosphere or incorporated in the products in the process of vegetative growth, food processing, industrial processes, or other use. Hence, the amount of water no longer directly available. Consumptive Use Irrigation-All withdrawals are considered to be consumptive unless the full amount of the withdrawal is returned to the source. Demand (Fish and Wildlife)-The number of hunter-days, angler-days, non-hunting or fishing use, or commercial harvest that are expected at a given date. Demand-A need or desire. (Differs from the usual economic definition of demand under which a need is not necessarily reflected in a demand.) Depletion, Strearnflow-The amount of water that flows into a valley, or onto a particular land area, minus the water that flows out of the valley or off from the particular land area. Design Load-The maximum number of recreationists expected to use an area at any one time on an average weekend day during the peak month of annual visitation for which facilities and land or water would be provided. Discharge-In its simplest concept, discharge means outflow; therefore, the use of this term is not restricted as to course or location and it can be used to describe the flow of water from a pipe or a drainage basm. Discharge, Average-The arithmetic average of the annual discharges for all complete water years of record whether or not they are consecutive. The term "average" is generally reserved for average of record and "mean" is used for average of shorter periods; namely daily mean discharge. Diversion-The taking of water from a stream or other body of water into a canal, pipe or other conduit. DO (Dissolved Oxygen)-The oxygen dissolved in water or other liquid, usually expressed in milligrams per liter or percent of saturation. Domestic Coastwise Receipts and Shipments-Domestic waterborne commerce receiving a carriage outside of the Puget Sound Area. E-4 Domestic Internal Receipts and Shipments-Domestic waterborne commerce between ports or landings wherein the entire movement takes place within Puget Sound Area. Drainage Area-The drainage area of a stream, measured in a horizontal plane, which is enclosed by a drainage divide. Drainage Basin-A part of the surface of the earth that is occupied by a drainage system, which consists of a surface stream or a body of impounded surface water together with all tributary surface streams and bodies of impounded surface water. Drainage Divide-The fine of highest elevations which separates adjoining drainage basins. Economic Base Study-A study which evaluates the econornic structure of the region to provide economic projections necessary for the appraisal of future water resource needs. Effective Precipitation -That part of the precipitation falling on a crop. area that is effective in meeting the consumptive use requirements of the crop. Effluent-Municipal or industrial waste water which is partially or completely treated or in its natural state, flowing from a process basin, or treatment plant. Environment-The total of all external factors that affect an animal. Not to be confused with Habitat, which refers to the place where an animal is found. Erosion, Bank -Destruction of land areas located adjacent to a stream from the erosive action of high stream discharges. Escapement-Number of anadromous fish that return from the ocean to fresh-water streams and spawn. Estuary-Semi-enclosed body of water which has a free connection with the open sea and within which ocean water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage. Eutrophication-The process of over-fertilization of a body of water by nutrients which produce more organic matter than the self-purification processes can overcome. Exceedence Frequency-Percent of values that exceed a specified magnitude. Farm Delivery Requirement-The amount of water in acre-feet per acre required to serve a cropped area from a canal or pipe turnout. It is the crop irrigation requirement plus farm waste and deep percolation. Fingerling-Young fish which are self-subsistent, but not yet mature. Firm Power-Power intended to have assured availability to the customer to meet all or any agreed upon portion of his load requirements. Fish Farm-A controlled natural rearing impoundment or relatively small pond for fish. Flood-Any relatively high strearnflow or an overflow or inundation that comes from a river or other body of water and causes or threatens damage. E-5 Flood Peak-The highest value of the stage or discharge attained by a flood; thus, peak,stage or peak discharge. Flood crest has nearly the same meaning but, since it connotes the top of the flood wave, it is properly used only in referring to stage. Flood Plain-A strip of relatively smooth land bordering a stream that has been or is subject to flooding. It is called a "living" flood plain if it is overflowed in times of high water, but a "fossil" flood plain if it is beyond the reach of the highest flood. Flood, Probable Maximum-The largest flood for which there is any reasonable expectancy in the geographical region involved. Flood Stage-The stage at which overflow of the natural banks of a stream begins to cause damage in the reach in which the stage is observed. Flood, Standard Project-A hypothetical flood that might result from the most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological conditions that are reasonably characteristic of the geographical region involved. The SPF is an important consideration for design of flood control structures. Floodway-The channel of a river or stream and those parts of the flood plains adjoining the channel which carry and discharge the floodwater or floodflow of any river or stream. Food Fish-In Washington, those species of fish which may be harvested and sold as a commercial venture. Foreign Imports and Exports-Waterborne commerce between the Puget Sound Area and foreign ports including the Canal Zone. Freeboard-The vertical distance between a design maximum water level and the top of a structure. This space is utilized for safety. Gaging Station-A particular site on a stream, canal, lake or reservoir where systematic observations of gage height or discharge are obtained. Game Fish-In Washington, those designated species of fish which may be taken by sporting means only. Gigawatt (gw)-One million kilowatts. gpcd-Gallons per capita per day. gpd-Gallons per day. Ground Water-Water in the ground that is in the zone of saturation from which wells, springs and ground water runoff are supplied. Habitat-Area which supplies food, water, shelter, and space necessary for a particular animal's existence. Harbors of Ref uge-A temporary haven for small craft in distress or seeking shelter from approaching storms; also a safe place of rest and replenishment for transient boats. Hardness-A characteristic of water; chiefly due to the existence therein of the carbonates and sulfates and occasionally nitrates and chlorides of calcium, iron, and magnesium; which causes "curdling" of. Hunter-day-A day or any part of a day spent hunting by an individual. E-6 Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH)-The weight of hydrogen ions in grams per liter of solution. Conurionly expressed as the pH value that represents the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration. Hydrologic Cycle-A term denoting the circulation of water from the sea, through the atmosphere, to the land; and, thence, with many delays, back to the sea by overland and subterranean routes, and in part by way of the atmosphere without reaching the sea. Industrial Water-The industrial category includes those major water-using industries whose size is related to a significantly larger population than that of the local area and whose water needs are normally supplied through a municipal distribution system. For the purposes of this analysis, these industries are the following: Pulp and paper Other major forest products Food processing Petroleum processing Primary metals Thermal and nuclear power Infiltration-The flow of the fluid into a substance through pores or small openings. Itconnotes flow into a subs- in contradistinction to the word percolation, which connotes flow through a porous substance. Interception (Hydrology)-The process of storing rain or snow on leaves and branches or other objects which eventually evaporates back to the air. Intraport Receipts and Shipments-Which include waterborne commerce between the arms or channels of a port, as between the inner and outer harbor of the Port of Seattle, and local traffic movement of freight and passengers within the confines of a single arm or channel of a port. Irrigated Land-Land receiving water by controlled artificial means for agricultural purposes from surface or subsurface sources. Irrigation Conveyance Loss and Waste-The loss of water in transit from a reservoir, point of diversion, or ground water pump (if not on farm) to the point of use, whether in natural. channels or in artificial ones, such as canals, ditches, and laterals. Irrigation Depletion-The amount of diverted water consumptively used, beneficially and noriberieficially, in serving a cropped area. It is the gross diversion minus return flow. Irrigation Requirement, Crop-The amount of irrigation water in acre-feet per acre required by the crop; it is the difference between crop consumptive use requirement and effective precipitation. JTU (Jackson Turbidity Units)-The JTU is a measurement of the turbidity, or lack of transparency, of water. It is measured by lighting a candle under a cylindrical transparent glass tube and then pouring a sample of water into the tube until an observer looking from the top of the tube cannot see the image of the candle flame. The number of JTTYs varies inversely with the height of the sample (e.g., a sample which measures 2.3 cm has a turbidity of 1,000 JTUs whereas a sample measuring 72.9 cm has a turbidity of 25 JTU's). Kilowatt (kw)-The electric unit of power which equals 1,000 watts or 1.341 horsepower. Kilowatt-Hour (kwh)-The basic unit of electric energy. It equals one kilowatt of power applied for one hour. E-7 Lagoon-A relatively shallow basin, built by excavation of the ground and diking, for the purpose of treating wastes by storage under conditions that favor natural biological treatment and accompanying bacterial reduction. Land Use-Primary occupier of a tract of land grouped into classes with similar characteristics, i.e., cropland, rangeland, forest land, or other. Load Factor-The ratio of the average load over a designated period to the peak4oad occurring in that period. Man-clay-Synonymous with angler-day and/or hunter-day. Major Replacement Costs-Costs of replacement of rehabilitation of major structural or equipment items within the project life. Marina-A marine development having moorages. Other facilities may be available, including repair facilities, bait, tackle and general supply services. Restaurants and hotels or motels are often part of a modern marina complex. Marine Fish-All fish species that spend their entire life in salt water. Includes bottom fish such as flounder and sole. Megawatt (mw)-One thousand kilowatts. Megawatt-Hour (mwh)-One thousand kilowatt-hours. mgd-Millions of gallons per day. mg/1-Milligrams per liter. Moorage Facility-One or more piers, wharves, floats, or permanently anchored buoys to which boats can be secured and left in the water for storage purposes; or land or deck storage areas used with hoists or inclined railways. MPN (Most Probable Number)-In the testing of bacterial density by the dilution method, that number of organisms per unit volume which, in accordance with statistical theory, would be more likely than any other possible number to yield the observed test result or which would yield the observed test result with the greatest frequency. Expressed as density of organisms per 100 MI. Municipal Water-The municipal category includes not only urban domestic water use but also those other civic, commercial, and small industrial uses which are typically supplied through a municipal distribution system and the magnitude of which is related to local population. Nonconsumptive-Nonconsumptive uses related to surface water only, are where no water is diverted from the confines of the surface water source area or channel, where the waters pass over, under, around or through an on-stream project, or when being diverted (effectively) at the upstream edge of a project and being returned (effectively) to the channel at the downstream edge of a project. It is considered nonconsumptive water use when water diverted from a surface water source is returned to the same source at any location upstream from the point of diversion. Transportation losses, evaporation, and seepage are not considered consumptive. Nonstructural Measures-Measures for managing, utilizing, or controlling water and related lands without structural development to achieve the desired objective. Such measures include flood plain zoning, flood warning systems, legal restraints, and preservation, as well as the more common land management measures. E-8 Operation and Maintenance Costs-Average annual costs of project operation and normal maintenance. Opportunities-Potential developments or potential utilization capable of being realized. Outdoor Recreation -Leisure time activities which utilize an outdoor setting. Outdoor Recreation Activity-A specific leisure time action or pursuit in an outdoor environment. Outdoor Recreation Area-A land and/or water area where outdoor recreation is recognized as the dominant or one of the major resource management purposes. Outdoor Recreation Site-A tract of land developed for specific recreation activities. Outdoor Recreation Unit-A facility or group of complementary facilities designated to accommodate a family or other small group. Outfall-A sewer, drain, or conduit from which sewage, industrial wastes, or drainage is discharged. Peak Load-The maximum load in a stated period of time. Usually it is the maximum integrated load over an interval of one hour which occurs during the year, month, week, or day. It is used interchangeably with peak demand. pH-See Hydrogen Ion Concentration. The neutral value of pH is 7.0. Higher values indicate an alkaline solution and lower values indicate an acid solution. Population Equivalent (PE)-The average daily amount of BOD5 exerted by the organic waste from one person. A value of 0.17 pounds of BOD5 is normally equated to one PE. Potential Pleasure Boat Mooring Harbors-Harbors under this category are sites now developed for pleasure boat moorages or having physical characteristics suitable for this use. Potential Terminal Facilities-Waterfront open space that is suitable for waterborne commerce terminals and generally includes water area out to the pier head line or about 40 feet depth below MLLW. Potential Water Transport-Oriented Industries-Open space areas suitable for water ttansport-oriented industry including waterfront land not required for terminal facilities and inland to a maximum of about 5 miles from possible deep water transport terminal. Potentially Irrigable Land-Land having soil, topography, drainage, and climatic conditions suitable for irrigation. ppm-Parts per million. Primary Waste Treatment-Tbe removal of settleable, suspended, and floatable solids from waste water by the application of mechanical and/or gravitational forces. In primary treatment, unit processes such as sedimentation, flotation, screening, centrifugal action, vacuum filtration, dissolved air @flotation, and others designed to remove settleable, suspended, and floating solids have been used. Generally, a reduction in dissolved or colloidal solids has been obtained in primary treatment, but this effect is incidental and not the planned purpose of primary treatment. E-9 Public and Private Marine Facilities-Pubhe facilities refer to marine facilities operated by public agencies such as State, counties, cities, and ports for use by the general public. Private facilities refer to marine facilities operated for profit by private ownership., They are available for general public use. Puget Sound Area-The twelve counties in northwestern Washington bordering Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters. These consist of Whatcom, San Juan Island, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston, Mason, Jefferson, and Clallam Counties. Only Puget Sound and adjacent saltwaters were examined with reference to marine facilities and boating demand. Lake Washington was included as an extension of Puget Sound. Range-Lan d area used by an animal. Most common reference is to the seasonal ranges (winter, summer, fall/spring) used by big game animals. Recurrence Interval-The average number of years within which a given ev ent will be equaled or exceeded. Registered Boat-An undocumented craft propelled by an engine of more than 10 horsepower, us ed on navigable waters of the United States and registered by the United States Coast Guard, as requred by the Federal Boating Act of 1958. Rehabilitation-Chemical treatment of a body of water to remove undesirable fish populations, followed by restocking with desired species. Tenn is also used to mean renovation of land. Resident Fish-Species that spend their entire life cycle in a fresh-water environment. Reservoir-A pond, lake or basin, either natural or artificial, for the storage, regulation, and control of water. Return Flow (irrigation)-Irrigation water applied to an area which is not consumed in evaporation or transpiration and returns to a surface stream or ground water aquifer. River Reach-Any defined length of a river. Runoff-That part of the precipitation that appears in surface streams. It is the same as StTeamflow unaffected by artificial diversions, storage or other works of man in or on the stream channels. Runoff, Average Annual-Average of water year runoff in inches or acre-feet for the total period of record. Salinity- The relative concentration of dissolved salts in seawater and is determined by various methods when compared to the international standard of Eau de Mer Normale. Usually expressed in parts per thousand=0/00. Salmonid-Refers to cold-water fishes of the farriily salmonidae. Represented by the salmon, trout, whitefish, and chars (such as Dolly Varden and brook). Scrap Fish-Pertains to marine species. Includes all mixed fish purchased for reduction or animal feed which dealers have not separated as to species. Mostly dogfish, hake, and tomcod. Secondary Treatment-The removal of dissolved and colloidal materials that, in their natural state as found in waste water,, are notamendable to separation through the application of primary treatment. Secondary treatment will generally reduce the BOD5 of sewage by 85 percent. Sediment-(I) Any material carried in suspension by water which will ultimately settle to the bottom after the water loses velocity. (2) Fine waterborne matter deposited or accumulated. in beds. E-10 Service Areas-An area described for planning purposes whose boundaries would include the future population or industrial activities which could logically and functionally obtain water supply and waste disposal services from a central or integrated system or where the problems are so interrelated that the planning should be done on an integrated basis. Sludge-The accumulated settled solids deposited from sewage or industrial wastes, raw or treated. Storage-Water naturally or artificially impounded in surface or underground reservoirs. Storage Capacity, Active (Usable)-The volume normally available for release from a reservoir below the stage of the maximum controllable level (total capacity less inactive and dead capacity). Storage Capacity, Dead-The volume of a reservoir below the sill or invert of the lowest outlet. Storage Capacity, Exclusive Flood Control-The space in reservoirs reserved for the sole purpose of regulating flood inflows to abate flood damage. Storage Capacity, Surcharge-The volume of water in a reservoir between the designed maximum water surface elevation and normal pool elevation for either a gated or ungated spillway. Storage Capacity, Total-The total volume of a reservoir exclusive of surcharge. Stream-A general term for a body of flowing water. In hydrology, the term is generally applied to the water flowing in a natural channel as distinct from a canal. More generally, as in the term stream gaging, it is applied to the water flowing in any channel, natural or artificial. Strearnflow-The discharge that occurs in a natural channel. Although the term discharge can be applied to the flow of a canal, the word strearnflow uniquely describes the discharge in a surface stream. SWL-An abbreviation for sulfite waste liquor, a by-product of sulfite-type pulp and paper mills. Terminal Facilities-The area of piers, wharves, open and covered storage areas used for waterborne commercial cargo and passenger service together with mooring areas for such vessels. Tertiary (Advanced) Treatment-Selective application of biological, physical, and chemical separation process to effect removal or organic and inorganic substances, primarily phosphorous and nitrogen, that resist conventional treatment practices. User-days-Of general recreation, angling and/or hunting; expressed demand. Water-Related Activities-Those activities that are water-based or enhanced by water. Watershed-A term to signify drainage basin or catchment area. Water Table-The upper surface of a zone of saturation. No water table exists where that surface is formed by an impermeable body. Water Transport-Oriented I ndustries-Waterfront and other lands being used by industries that require or gain a significant advantage by nearness to water transport facilities. Industries of this type are: Transportation Equipment Manufacture Primary Metal Manufacture E-1 1 Chemicals and Allied Products Manufacture Petroleum Refining and Related Industries Paper and Allied Products Manufacture Wholesalers With Stocks, Distributors Lumber and Wood Products Manufacture Stone, Clay and Glass Products Manufacture Warehousing and Storage Water Yield-Runoff, including ground water outflow that appears in the stream, plus ground water outflow that leaves the basin underground. Water yield is the precipitation minus the evapo-transpiration. Zero Damage Flow-The maximum flow a stream can carry without causing overbank flow and damages. E-12 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Report Planning Committee was assisted by many persons in the preparation of this report. However, special efforts by the following are gratefully acknowledged: Dennis Lundblad - Workshop Coordinator Ann Widditsch - Workshop Observer Bill Manderscheid - Plan Formulation Team Bonnie M. Detore - Staff Inez Paustian - Staff Recognition is also given to Mr. H. W. Tyler for his assistance in preparation of the supporting appendices to the Summary Report and for providing guidance in establishing the format of the study documents. Other assistance was provided by Mr. Raymond A. Skrinde, Secretary, Puget Sound Task Force. E-13 I N D E X A. Introduction - Area to be Surveyed Page 1. B. Methods and Procedure Page 1. C. Areas Surveyed I. Roanoke Sound Page 2. II. Albemarle Sound Southeast Portion Page 2. and Southern Currituck Sound III. Croatan Sound Page 4. IV. Alligator River Page 4. V. Pamlico Sound - Croatan Sound to Page 5. Engelhard, including tributaries VI. Pamlico Sound - Engelhard to Pungo Page 5. River, including tributaries VII. Pamlico Sound. Brant Island to page 7. Core Sound VIII. Pamlico Sound Core Sound to Page B. Hatteras IX. Pamlico Sound - Hatteras to Oregon Page 8. Inlet. D . Conclusion Page 8. E. General Observations and Comments Page 9.