Building Practices Reduces Infiltration Potential in Urban Environments and Subsequent Effects of Stormwater in Kitsap County

Item

Title

Eng Building Practices Reduces Infiltration Potential in Urban Environments and Subsequent Effects of Stormwater in Kitsap County

Date

2011

Creator

Eng Pavy, Jonathan

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

Building Practices Reduces Infiltration Potential in Urban Environments
and Subsequent Effects of Stormwater in Kitsap County

by

Jonathan Pavy

A Thesis: Essay of
Distinction Submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2011

© 2011 by Jonathan Pavy. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree

by
Jonathan Pavy

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
By

________________________
Thomas B. Rainey, Ph, D.
Emeritus Member of the Faculty

ABSTRACT

Building Practices Reduces Infiltration Potential in Urban Environments
and Subsequent Effects of Stormwater in Kitsap County
Jonathan Pavy
Our building practices have been dominated by impervious surfaces and stormwater
infrastructure through the ages. Our approach has been to channel stormwater away from the
built environment as quickly as possible. Conventional stormwater management has focused on
complex and costly infrastructures that have not totally delivered on reduced environmental
impacts to aquatic habitats through scouring of stream banks and streambeds, and the movement
of pollutants from the landscape to receiving water bodies.
Kitsap County receives 80% of its potable water from ground sources. Future population
growth will foster a larger urban foot print and an increasing irrigation need will exert greater
demands on the water supply. Climate change presents an uncertain future of its effects on the
Pacific Northwest‘s weather patterns. In light of this, we must start treating stormwater as a
resource instead of waste. By reducing impervious surfaces and managing rainwater at the
impact site, we will reduce the amount of stormwater produced and mimic the natural hydrology
within urban spaces. By modifying how we manage stormwater we will retain a larger
percentage of the water budget within the landscape, allowing for infiltration to the ground water
system. Base flow in streams and rivers will be maintained during periods of low precipitation
and aquifer recharge rates will be maintained.
Low impact development techniques minimize impervious surfaces and manage
rainwater at the impact site before it turns into runoff. It is a proven approach to onsite
infiltration that can mimic the natural hydrology of the landscape.
I conducted a trending analysis on ground water in Kitsap County using the Washington
Active Water Level Network. Conducted a t-test: Paired two sample for means using initial well
measurements and the most recent measurements. The calculated t critical two-tailed value is
1.9860 and is less than the tabled value of t indicating no significance.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. viii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction: Defining the Problem .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1.1 Building Practices ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2

Regulatory ..................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3

Objective....................................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2: Kitsap County.............................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Area Description ................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Building Practices ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Climate .............................................................................................................................................. 11
2.4 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................. 13
Chapter 3: Stormwater ................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1 Stormwater Contaminants ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2 Stormwater Runoff............................................................................................................................ 18
3.3 Regulation of Stormwater ................................................................................................................. 19
3.4 Puget Sound Partnership ................................................................................................................... 21
3.5: Low Impact Development................................................................................................................ 24
3.6: LID Cost .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter 4: Analysis of Effectiveness .......................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 5: Moving Forward........................................................................................................................ 36
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................ 38

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1 Kitsap County Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas…………………………...6
Figure 2 Kitsap County……………………………………………………………....8
Figure 3 Temperature trends in the Puget Sound Region since 1920. (Mote, 1999)..13
Figure 4 Relative trend in April 1st snow water equivalent in Puget
Sound 1920-2000. (Mote, 1999)…………………………………………………….13
Figure 5 Kitsap County, Washington Active Water Level Network………………..32

vii

List of Tables
Table 1 Categories of Principal Contaminants in Stormwater………………. …..18
Table 2 Pollution Removal Efficiencies, Mason County…………………………27
Table 3 Comparison of Conventional and LID Stormwater Management Impact
on the Hydrological Cycle……………………………………………………… 28
Table 4 Cost Comparisons Between Conventional and LID Approaches……….29
Table 1 Results of t-test………………………………………………………….33

viii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the faculty in the Masters in Environmental Studies program for
guiding me from the initial stages of this journey. They provided thought provoking instruction
and that little nudge that got me to the next step. In addition, to the graduating class of 2011 that
supported each other to a successful end of each quarter. To my Reader, Tom Rainey, who
guided me through to the successful conclusion of my thesis.
I also depended on Keith Folkerts, Lisa Lewis, Dave Nash and Mindy Fohn of Kitsap
County all of whom devoted their time in answering my never-ending questions. Last but
definitely not least, thanks to my family for their love and support, and for believing in me.

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction: Defining the Problem

One of the enemies of the built environment is water. Therefore, the age old standing
premise of channeling and expelling stormwater away from the built environment is a hard habit
to break. Current building practices encourage stormwater production with the impervious
surfaces that result from it. Building densities within the urban/suburban land use areas provide
limited opportunity for rainwater to contact the ground and replenish ground water. There is an
elaborate stormwater infrastructure designed to move water away from the built environment as
soon as it runs off of impervious surfaces. The top soil and vegetation, well beyond the building
envelope, are stripped away, reducing the ability of the soil to delay the movement of water
across the landscape and the potential to infiltrate to the ground water system.
Traditional urban development primarily focuses on enhancing human life and prosperity
(Frey, 1999) and does not necessarily take into consideration the part cities play in the ecological
processes of the region. In short, cities are part of nature (they are the site of complex, socially
organized relationships between ―social‖ and natural‖ processes), but it is precisely their
ecologies that are often most difficult to see (since urbanization distances people both spatially
and perceptually from the larger bio-physical processes in which cities occur) (Braun & Castree,
1998). The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in updating its VISION 2020 Growth
Management Economic and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound has identified a

1

regional environmental vision that maintains and restores ecological connectivity, decreases
fragmentation of natural systems, and protects critical areas and resources (Council, 2005).

1.1.1 Building Practices
The Kitsap County Code authorizes a maximum density of 30 dwellings per acre in the
urban high residential zone (County K. , http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/kitsapcounty/,
2010) which allows rain water very little chance of contacting the ground and infiltrate to ground
water. All rainfall that falls on these impervious surfaces are channeled to an elaborate
stormwater collector system that conveys it to a waste water treatment plant(s) and then out to a
receiving water body. This water is summarily removed from the water budget for the watershed.
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) of 1990 was developed to
control uncoordinated and unplanned growth that posed a threat to the environment, sustainable
economic development and quality of life (State, 1990). Though mandated by the state, local
governments manage growth and growth areas and in protecting the environment to enhance the
state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water (State,
1990).
A Comprehensive Plan developed on the local scale to guide the vision of what county
legislatures, with citizen input, would like the county to look like 20 years in the future. The plan
seeks to demonstrate the ability to accommodate the projected population and employment
growth to 2025.
Urban development modifies hydrologic processes when vegetation and soil are cleared
from the land surface, the surface is graded, depressions (e.g. wetlands) are filled, remaining
soils are compacted, and buildings, roads, and drainage systems are constructed. Replacing

2

natural vegetation with development strips the land of its ability to trap and slow the movement
of rainwater. The loss of vegetation reduces the watershed‘s ability to naturally remove large
quantities of rainfall through interception and evapotranspiration. Rainfall that does reach the
forest floor is absorbed by the spongy material that is the top soil. This is the perfect medium that
traps and slows the movement of rainwater, allowing it to infiltrate to the ground water system
that feeds rivers, streams and aquifer recharge.

1.2

Regulatory
Understandably, the density within the urban area is designed to maximize the utilization

of building space, although these particular zonings bring with it a myriad of environmental
problems that have manifested over time. With up to 95 percent of the urban area covered with
impervious surfaces, a tremendous amount of stormwater is produced by a minimal amount of
rainfall. Stormwater moves through the built environment quite rapidly and can be measured in
minutes versus the days or weeks it takes for rainwater to move through the natural environment.
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are defined by the GMA as ―areas with a critical
recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water‖ (State, 1990). To this end, Kitsap County
has developed regulations for land use activity within identified CARAs:
a. Retain existing list of operations that potentially threaten groundwater.
b. Update the list of operations that potentially threaten groundwater using the
latest EPA
list modified for the county.
c. Continue to allow any activity based on results of a geo-hydrologic report.

3

d. Prohibit certain activities outright (e.g. landfills, mining, wood treatment
facilities)
within CARAs.
e. In addition to regulating land use for groundwater quality concerns, regulate land
use
within CARAs for groundwater quantity concerns.
f. Regulate land use to achieve an acceptable density of septic systems (County K. ,
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas - Potential Next Steps, 2004).
Figure ## shows the location and variation of the Critical Aquifer Areas in Kitsap County.

1.3

Objective
The focus of this paper is primarily to explore how the built environment influences

the removal of a large percentage of the water budget from the watershed that is Kitsap
County. Kitsap County receives approximately 80% of its potable water through various
aquifer systems and by removing such a large percentage of the water budget from the
system, the recharge rate of underlying aquifers and baseflow in rivers and streams will be
severely affected, jeopardizing long term viability. The primary means of addressing
aquifer recharge will be to examine the trending analysis of Kitsap County wells in the
Washington Active Water Level Network.
Secondly, I will evaluate Stormwater management as it relates to pollution entering
Puget Sound from non-point sources. Conventional stormwater management techniques
have continuously evolved as problems with the “current” design becomes, apparent
normally long after the problem(s) have manifested themselves. Despite land development
regulations, including stormwater management with best management practices (BMPs),
have not had much success in reducing the amount of pollution entering surface water
bodies. Low impact development techniques, though not widely accepted, have proven to
4

manage rainwater/stormwater at the impact site, without exporting large quantities of
water to receiving water bodies.
Stormwater rushing off of impervious surfaces reduces the resident time on the
landscape producing earlier peaks and higher flow volumes. Stream beds and stream banks
are scoured, compromising aquatic habitats. By incorporating LID techniques in new
development and redevelopment projects, the natural hydrology of the site will be
maintained, allowing rainwater to be detained, infiltrate and evaporate before it becomes
runoff.

5

Figure 3 Kitsap County Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas

6

Chapter 2

Kitsap County

The availability of ground water has always been the essential commodity for the
establishment and continued prosperity of an urban environment. Most aquifers in the urban
environment, or from nearby watersheds, supply most or all the water the area needs for
residential, industrial and irrigation purposes. As the urban area grows, due to increases in
population and industrial activities, more of the natural environment is replaced with
impermeable surfaces. Runoff increases and infiltration decreases. At some point in time, the rate
of withdrawal from the aquifer(s) in Kitsap County will exceed the rate at which the aquifers are
being recharged if this problem is not mitigated. Stormwater runoff has a limited chance of being
infiltrated since it typically runs off of impermeable surfaces to storm water conveyances then to
detention ponds or wastewater treatment plants, or is channeled to the roadside ditch, makes its
way to the nearest stream or river and then out to sea.
Historically, urban drainage was designed with a single objective
in mind—to provide hydraulically and economically effective transport
of surface runoff from urban areas into local receiving waters and thereby to
protect urban dwellers against flooding and provide for their convenience
by controlling runoff ponding in urban areas. (Ellis & Marsalek, 1996)

Stormwater is often viewed as an enemy to the built environment especially when there is
more than the man-made conveyances can handle. As an area becomes more developed,
stormwaters increase to the point of overwhelming designed infrastructure. Sewage treatment
plants cannot handle the increased load and, therefore, introduces the excess, including raw

7

sewage, into nearby streams and coastal waterways. I shall focus on the Kitsap County peninsula
in Washington State and look at alternative ways to reduce the volume of stormwater produced
and new avenues for excess stormwater in an urban environment.
There are few if any suitable sites for expanded surface water storage in Kitsap County.
Coordinated land use strategies will be necessary to accommodate water needs of future
population growth. An expanding industrial base and an increasing irrigation need will exert
even more pressure on existing water resources. Water diverted from infiltrating into the soil and
occurring as runoff to surface water will result in more rapid depletion of aquifers and more
contaminated surface waters (Levin, Epstein, Ford, Harrington, Olson, & and Reichard, 2002).
Levin, et al. (2002) cited a recent survey that found a variety of pesticides in both surface water
and groundwater in all basins with appreciable
agricultural activities or urbanized development (as
mentioned in the U.S. Geological Survey, 1999). He
also mentioned that in these circumstances, competition
among sources (drinking water, agriculture, fish and
wildlife habitats, residential development, energy
production, leisure, etc.) is likely to increase (as
mentioned in U.S. EPA SAB report, 1995).

2.1 Area Description
The Kitsap Peninsula is located west of Seattle

Figure 4 Kitsap County

and northwest of Tacoma, the two most populous areas in Washington State. Situated in the

8

middle of Puget Sound, it is connected to the Olympic Peninsula by a narrow land mass. It is
bordered by the Puget Sound to the east, the Hood Canal to the west and Admiralty Inlet to the
north. Almost completely surround by water, it has a land mass of approximately 393 square
miles and 265 miles of shoreline. Kitsap County is approximately 0.6 percent of the state‘s land
mass, ranked 36th in size of all counties and is the 2nd most densely populated county in the state.
In 2000, the population was 231,969 and is projected to grow to 345,674 by 2030
(Transportation, 2003).
The county‘s built environment consist of medium to high density urban and suburban
dwellings, 5 to 10 dwellings per acre, with commercial and industrial facilities throughout. There
are four military installations on the coast and adjacent to highly populated urban areas. A good
portion of the county is in its natural state dominated by coniferous trees, and to a lesser extent, a
variety of deciduous trees. The densities in rural areas are one dwelling per 5 acres and one
dwelling per 10 acres.
The landscape of the Puget Sound lowland was carved out by the Vashon glaciations
(15,000 – 20,000 BP). As the ice advanced, it carried large amounts of glacial sediment, shaping
the landscape. The glacial landscape was subsequently modified during the Holocene period by
fluvial erosion and deposition, coastal processes and hillslope masswasting along the steeper
slopes bounding streams and the coastline (Shipman, 2008) The Kitsap topography is undulating
with rolling hills and valleys rising to heights between 400 to 600 feet above sea level. The Gold
and Green Mountains are the most prominent peaks rising to approximately 1700 feet above sea
level. Much of the upland areas terminate at the shoreline in steep cliffs and bluffs (Kitsap Public
Utility District, 1997) allowing concentration of human activity in the lowlands to the eastern
side of the county.

9

Although the county has the second highest density of the state, a significant
portion of the county is in an undeveloped forested state with numerous single family acreage
units, farms and small scattered communities throughout. Kitsap County‘s Growth Management
Act (GMA) was developed to facilitate an organized plan for development and minimize sprawl
to all corners of the county. The plan would allow for increased development of urban areas and
restrict waterfront development to one dwelling per acre (Kitsap Public Utility District, 1997).
Further concepts within the plan provide stipulations aimed at reducing anthropogenic impacts
on water quality.

2.2 Building Practices
Land use planning can prevent ecological degradation and maintain environmental
services that the human species has come to take for granted. Surface water contamination is a
direct result of runoff from the landscape that we have engineered to serve our needs. In our
attempt to protect the built environment, we have neglected to account for the needs of the
natural environment.
The Kitsap County Code is the governing regulation for development within the county,
in satisfaction of the GMA. Land use designations prescribe how much, what type and where
development takes place within the county. Within the urban designation the density ranges from
10 to 30 dwelling units per acre (Community Development, 2010). At these densities there are
few opportunities for rainfall to contact the earth and infiltrate to ground water systems.
Impervious surfaces such as rooftops, driveways, roads and pavements dominate the landscape,
producing increasing amounts of stormwater that is removed from the landscape and conveyed to
receiving water bodies.

10

There is a reduction in density the further away from the urban growth area one goes and
the incidence of natural vegetation is more regular. Consequently, there is a continual reduction
in the amount of impervious surfaces that reduces the amount of stormwater produced.

2.3 Climate
The Pacific Northwest is characterized by a mild marine climate in relation to other
locations at the same latitude in the United States. Temperatures rarely fall below freezing and
rarely rise above 80° F due to the influence of the Pacific Ocean. Summers are dry with minimal
rainfall and receives a significant amount of rainfall from early fall to late spring (Kitsap Public
Utility District, 1997).
Winter storms generally approach from the southwestern Pacific Ocean, bringing winds
and clouds saturated with moisture. The southwestern section of the Kitsap peninsula receives
much more rainfall than the northern section due to the rain shadow effect of the Olympic
Mountains. The average rainfall in the northern section of the county is approximately 30‖
compared to approximately 70‖ in the southwestern portion (Kitsap Public Utility District, 1997)
Of the few studies conducted on the urban environment as it affects aquifer recharge,
none depict a formula or technique that quantifies the recharge rate (Lerner, 2002). This paper
cannot to attempt to develop such a strategy. It is beyond the scope of this study. It will attempt
to show that the urban environment does affect ground water and suggest ways in which the
urban environment can be a negligible factor on the recharge rate of underlying aquifers.

11

Kitsap County receives an average of 127mm of rainfall per year of which 7% results in
groundwater recharge. Evapotranspiration accounts for 44%, surface runoff 35% and
baseflow14% (Inc., 2005). The basic formula for the water balance is:
Precipitation = Evapotranspiration + Runoff + Recharge (Lerner, 2002).
We must remember that these allocations are averages for the entire county and are not a
representation of only the urban environment. It is anticipated that evapotranspiration is much
lower and runoff is much higher in areas where impervious surfaces dominate. Increased runoff
leads to increased stream flow during storm events but may not sustain base stream flow during
periods of reduced precipitation (Platt, 2006).
Urbanization drastically alters the hydraulic regime of an area is severely altered when it
is replaced by an urban landscape. The hydraulic connection of rainwater infiltrating to the
ground water is severed if steps are not taken to allow water to reach the ground. County officials
and water purveyors must plan for the growth in future demands on water resources and the
unforeseen effects climate change will have on the amount of rainfall that is delivered to the
region annually.

12

2.4 Climate Change
Climate change is occurring
and it will have global implications
on weather patterns (Kevin, Epstein,
Ford, Harrington, Olson, & Reichard,
2002). As seen in fig. 3, the
temperature rose as much as 2.0° C
across most of the Pacific Northwest
between 1920 to 1999 (Mote, 1999).
This temperature increase has serious
Figure 3 Temperature trends in the Puget Sound Region since 1920.
(Mote, 1999)

implications for Kitsap County but is

not yet clearly understood. The snow pack that delivers a reliable water supply when it melts
during the summer months, a
time of reduced precipitation,
may melt before the need arises
as reflected in Fig 4.

T
a
b
l
e
2
R
e 4 Relative trend in April 1st snow water equivalent in Puget Sound
Figure
1920-2000. (Mote, 1999)

13

This reduces the amount of water available during drier months and the growing season
for crops needing irrigation. The implications are clear. Early snow melt results in increased
stream flow during the wetter months and is reduced during the dryer months of the year.
Maintaining base flow is essential for ecological viability within water courses. Water input from
springs and seeps, and connection to ground water will decrease as the dry period advances,
possibly compromising the ecological integrity of stream(s). Groundwater extraction may reduce
natural aquifer discharge to the aquatic environment in some cases, seriously, and

resource

development involving consumptive use of groundwater (or export from the sub-basin
concerned) has the greater impact (Chilton, 2003). Global warming has caused the retreat of the
majority of the earth‘s glaciers. The melting of these glaciers has promoted sea level rise which
will increase the hydraulic pressure on exploited aquifers. This could lead to salt water intrusion
and compromise the viability of the aquifer(s).
Water in aquifers has residence time in the order of thousands of years. The U.S.
Geological Survey, in corporation with the U.S. Navy, estimates the age of water in aquifers in
the vicinity of Bangor Submarine Base ranges from recent to 4,500 years. Carbon dating
indicates age descriptions ranged from recent in the shallow aquifers which were, of course, from
recent recharge. Longer residence times are in water from wells either deeper in the groundwater flow system or near the area of ground-water discharge (Cox, 2003)

.

14

Chapter 3
Stormwater
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, an upgrade of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Amendments Act of 1972, was enacted to eliminate point source contamination of the nation‘s
waterways and achieve suitable water quality in surface waters for human sports and recreation
by 1983. The ultimate goal was to eliminate point source pollution of these waterways by 1985.
It was further revised by the Water Quality Act of 1987 to include pollution from nonpoint
source pollution activities.
The command and control approach of the CWA was necessary to address the rampant
discharges of pollution to the nation‘s waterways that rendered the vast majority of surface
waters unusable by both humans and aquatic creatures. After years of regulatory control of point
source pollution, nonpoint sources now cause the greatest pollution that introduces contaminants
to our surface waters.
The Pacific Northwest is an area that does not, as a matter of course, receive torrential
downpours that results in flash floods, but does receive steady rainfall that delivers a lot of
precipitation over a longer period of time. This temporal dispersal of rainfall, together with soils
and vegetation, allows for the storage and infiltration of rainfall to the ground water before
runoff turns into stormwater. The storage potential and subsequent release of water as a
continuous flow to rivers and streams help to maintain the base flow in these waterways. The
predominance of subsurface flow in the Pacific Northwest leaves the area particularly susceptible
to negative hydrologic effects associated with urbanization. A typical suburban neighborhood in

15

this region contains approximately 90% less storage capacity than would be found under
naturally forested conditions (Wigmosta, Burgess & Meena, 1994).
As the population increases, so does the amount of impervious surfaces. As development
is regulated under the GMA to prevent sprawl, planned growth extends outwards from the urban
growth areas (UGA) and so do capital facilities to serve these areas. Conventional building
practices are still used; therefore, there are increasing amounts of impervious surfaces producing
more stormwater and thus vital water resources are removed from the water budget for the
watershed.
Urbanization causes dramatic changes to the water regime within a watershed promoting
flooding, erosion, sediment transport and ultimately channel morphology. (Booth, Hartley, &
Jackson, 2002). Hydrologic change also influences the whole range of environmental features
that affect aquatic biota – flow regime, aquatic habitat structure, water quality, biotic
interactions, and food sources (Karr, 1991). These effects are quite evident in the Illahee Creek
Watershed through scour and sedimentation in the stream channel, near-shore sediment
deposition from stormwater runoff, and temperature and other water quality issues related to
stormwater (Massmann & Waters, 2006).

3.1 Stormwater Contaminants
Stormwater runoff, including runoff from agricultural activities, constitutes
approximately 80% of the pollution that enters Puget Sound surface waters, despite the
employment of best management practices (BMP). Human societies engaging in activities that
create the pollutants in urban stormwater runoff are the same cultural systems that must manage
stormwater runoff (Owen, 2004) to which additional techniques must be employed to minimize
transporting pollutants off of the landscape.
16

Land development, with the installation of impervious surfaces, ultimately changes and
disrupts surface water runoff and restricts input to ground water. Typically, urbanized watersheds
have impervious surface areas and drainage systems designed for efficient removal of surface
water (Winter, 1990). Overland runoff is an excellent medium to transport dissolved, suspended,
and sediment adsorbed materials into receiving water bodies (Corbett, Wahl, Porter, Edwards, &
Moise, 1997). Surface water and stormwater runoff in urban and rural areas are now recognized
as the primary, unaddressed transporters of toxic, nutrient, and pathogen pollutants to surface and
groundwater resources throughout the Puget Sound Basin (Crowser, 2007). Kitsap County, with
its many rivers and streams that empty into Puget Sound and Hood Canal, transport the principal
contaminants of non-point source pollutants to the receiving water bodies.

Categories of Principal Contaminants in Stormwater

Category

Examples

Metals

zinc, cadmium, copper, chromium, arsenic, lead

Organic chemicals

pesticides, oil, gasoline, grease

Pathogens

viruses, bacteria, protozoa

Nutrients

nitrogen, phosphorus

Biochemical oxygen demand

grass clippings, fallen leaves, hydrocarbons, human, and animal

(BOD)

waste

Sediment

sand, soil, and silt

17

Salts

sodium chloride, calcium chloride

Table 1 Categories of Principal Contaminants in Stormwater ((NRDC), 1999)

3.2 Stormwater Runoff
There is a noticeable effect on the volume and flow of stormwater in the urban landscape
due to the absence of vegetative cover that intercepts and retards the movement of rainwater
once it hits the ground. Impervious surfaces like rooftops, driveways and parking lots offer little
resistance to water flowing across its surface, particularly on a sloped surface. This water moves
faster and faster, transporting a greater amount of sediments and pollutants with increasing
erosive power once it leaves the impervious surfaces and enters rivers and streams.
Natural landscapes have the ability to absorb and infiltrate rain water to the ground water
system and slowly release it through lateral and downward movement to streams, creeks, seeps
and underlying aquifers. This absorption and release slows and meters the volume of stormwater
that is present in the system at any one time. Precipitation runoff from a developed area reaches
the stream channel with a typical delay of just a few minutes, instead of what had been a lag of
hours, days, or even weeks. The result is a dramatic change in flow patterns in the downstream
channel, with the largest flood peaks doubled or more and more frequent storm discharges
increased by as much as tenfold (Booth, Hartley, & Jackson, 2002). The implications of
stormwater runoff are multiple in that in addition to introducing pollutants to receiving water
bodies, it also causes erosion and destroys aquatic habitats.
In stream habitat is severely altered and compromised through extensive changes in basin
hydrologic regime, channel morphology, and the physicochemical water quality associated with

18

modified rainfall-runoff patterns and anthropogenic sources of water pollutants. The cumulative
effects of these alterations produce an in-stream habitat considerably different from that in
which native fauna evolved (Horner, et al., 2002). Increased flow patterns erodes stream banks
in the process of undercutting riparian vegetation, wash away gravel beds that provide habitat for
in stream micro and macro invertebrates, or is buried under large deposit of sediment leading to
a decline of in stream species (Recreation, 2009). In 1997 and 1998 a salmon rearing project in
the Illahee Creek watershed failed due to high sedimentation from stream bank erosion, and the
inability to maintain minimum base flow during months of low precipitation (Massmann &
Waters, 2006).

3.3 Regulation of Stormwater
The Clean Water Act (CWA) established the basic structure for regulating discharges of
pollutants into the waters of the United States. It provides EPA and the States with a variety of
programs and tools to protect and restore the Nation‘s waters. These programs and tools
generally rely either on water quality-based controls, such as water quality standards and water
quality-based permit limitations, or technology-based controls such as effluent guidelines and
technology-based permit limitations (EPA), Water: Laws and Regulatory Development, 2009).
In 1987 Congress amended the CWA authorizing the EPA to develop phased requirements for
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for stormwater discharges. Phase
I was promulgated in 1990.
Under Phase 1, the NPDES set forth guidelines for stormwater discharges from industrial
activity and for discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems serving a population in

19

excess of 100,000 people. These permits served as a mechanism to monitor the discharges from
these entities (EPA), Overview of the Storm Water Program. EPA 833-R-96-008, 1996).
Stormwater Phase II Final Rule was adopted in 2003 in the EPA‘s effort to preserve, protect, and
improve the Nation‘s water resources from polluted stormwater runoff. It is intended to further
reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat by instituting the use of controls on
the unregulated sources of stormwater discharges that have the greatest likelihood of causing
continued environmental degradation (EPA), Stormwater Phase II Final Rule, 2000).
Phase II Final Rule provides nationwide direction for cities and counties operating a
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), serving an urbanized area with less than 100,000
people with densities of 1,000 people per square mile, and also applies to construction activities
disturbing 5 acres or more of land. Kitsap County was designated as a Phase II location and the
Washington State Department of Ecology issued a Phase II permit in January 2007 which
became effective in February 2007 (Public Works & Utlities).
All municipalities that fall into this category must develop and implement a Stormwater
Management Program (SWMP) that addresses the following program elements that collectively
results in a significant reduction of pollutants entering surface waters. The six program elements
are: 1) Public Education and Outreach; 2) Public involvement and participation; 3) Illicit
Discharge Detection and Elimination; 4) Construction Site Runoff; 5) Operation and
Maintenance of Post Construction Stormwater Facilities; and 6) Pollution Prevention and Good
Housekeeping (Public Works & Utlities). This multipronged approach is designed to produce the
greatest reduction in non-point source pollution entering surface water bodies.
Section 319 of the CWA mandates that states rank their surface waters on susceptibility
of non-point source pollution and to develop and implement management programs that directly

20

addresses a reduction in this type of pollution when implemented. Washington Administrative
Code 400-12-210, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, establishes criteria and procedures
in ranking watersheds and implementing corrective or preventative action where needed. This is
expected to reduce pollutant loading, prevent unforeseen or new pollutant loading avenues,
enhance water quality and protect beneficial uses. This approach will require a collaborative
problem solving approach from all stakeholders – local, state, tribal and federal interest (Code,
1996).

3.4 Puget Sound Partnership

The Puget Sound Partnership, under the same statutory authority as the Puget Sound
Water Quality Action Team, was designed to combine individual groups within Washington
State that were working on environmental issues plaguing Puget Sound. Individual research was
being duplicated several times over as organizations worked to identify problems and ways in
which to fix them. This was a waste of resources and money. In 2008 The Puget Sound
Partnership was formed to maximize the efforts of all entities and streamline the processes in a
more collaborative manner.
Within this partnership, there is a strong conviction for a scientific approach in
addressing the pollution problems of Puget Sound. The Partnership Science Panel worked with a
broad-base of leading scientists, professionals and other interested parties that developed 20
indicators that would allow for a manageable and measureable list of scientifically valid, socially
relevant elements by which to gauge the progress of the Puget Sound restoration and protection
work. The executive director of The Puget Sound Partnership, David Dicks, said ―these

21

indicators are the ‗vital signs‘ of Puget Sound that will allow us to measure key elements of the
general health of the Puget Sound natural system‖.
These indicators address both marine and fresh water quality and the fauna and biota in
both environments. The abundance of salmon, forage fish and orca species are monitored as well
as are the abundance and breeding patterns of birds in the region. The extent of ell grass beds,
degree of shoreline armament and the various types of land use and the extent of impervious
surfaces are also being monitored. Toxins in marine organisms and in sediments are also being
addressed. The social science aspect is not ignored in that the quality of life index is monitored
and the extent to which Puget Sound-friendly practices are being practiced. The percentage of
core swimming beaches meeting water quality targets, shellfish beds being affected by degraded
water quality and the harvest of commercial fisheries, both tribal and non-tribal are recorded as
well.
This collaborative approach ideal could relegate the adversarial model to history in the
Puget Sound region. New leadership techniques realize that society, technology, and
communication have all changed in ways that make historic leadership approaches increasingly
obsolete (Gordon & Berry, 2006). The historic leadership model revolved around a central figure
with absolute decision making authority whereas the collaborative model is centered on a team
of diverse professionals from different disciplines. The diverse nature of the makeup of the Puget
Sound Partnership brings people of varying backgrounds and skills together to address and
propose solutions to specific problems. Complex problems require diversity of thought to be
solved; often differences in personal characteristics and background produce different views of
the same problem (Gordon & Berry, 2006).

22

The command and control approach to solving environmental problems was a necessary
approach in bringing the Nation‘s surface waters back from the brink of total disaster. Point
source pollution entering surface water bodies has been reduced to a minimum but non-source
pollution is much harder to eliminate due to the wide array of contributing sources. The more
complex problems remain that would require a more scientific approach. We are now in a phase
where interconnected environmental problems are much more difficult to identify. Gunderson et
al demonstrates, through a wide-ranging array of environmental management cases, that there are
no simple, consistent, widely accepted answers to environmental problems, and that an adaptive,
place-based approach, requiring broad yet fine-grained local leadership, is the only one likely to
pay off (Gordon & Berry, 2006).
Existing stormwater management employs both expedited removal of stormwater runoff
through stormwater infrastructure, and also the detention and slow release through non-structural
BMPs like infiltration ponds, filters, and constructed wetlands. These approaches in dealing with
stormwater have proven ineffective in eliminating or preventing the introduction of non-point
source pollution into surface water bodies, and they have not addressed or made allowances for
the natural hydrologic function of ground water. The Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan discussed in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
(2005), monitored by the Washington State Department of Ecology, must consist of and make
provisions for erosion prevention, sediment control and for the control of other pollutants
(Washinton State Department of Ecology, 2005). I am not proposing a ―silver bullet‖ to reduce
pollution entering surface water bodies but must look to new techniques to work with existing
technologies as we address this problem. The City of Bremerton has taken the lead in adopting
Low Impact Development techniques as a stormwater management strategy.

23

3.5

Low Impact Development

The limitations of conventional stormwater management techniques have continuously evolved
as problems with the ―current‖ design become apparent, which is normally long after the
problem(s) have manifested themselves (Debo & Reese, 1995). Treating all stormwater before
discharging to receiving water bodies is an unrealistic endeavor and is not being suggested as a
goal. Minimizing the amount of stormwater generated might prove to be a more effective
measure in reducing the amount of pollution washing off of the landscape to receiving water
bodies. An integrated approach to stormwater management appears to be the most effective use
of BMPs. When multiple layers of structural and nonstructural BMPs are used in unison, the
watershed will reap the largest benefit (Muthukrishnan, Mardge, Selvakumar, Field, & Sullivan,
2004).
The volume of stormwater runoff generated in a development can be greatly reduced by
minimizing the amount of impervious surfaces. Reductions in impervious area can be undertaken
by reducing the overall size of the developed area, and/or by reducing the amount of impervious
surface created within the developed area. Reductions in impervious area can also be achieved
through cluster developments that maximize open (undeveloped) space and minimize the
required length of roadway and other infrastructure. Clustering concentrates development on
smaller lots leaving relatively large areas undeveloped with reduced impervious surfaces.
This approach will help address peak flow control, stream bank erosion protection, removal of
drainage path obstruction, water quality enhancement, and groundwater recharge and community
enhancement (Muthukrishnan, Mardge, Selvakumar, Field, & Sullivan, 2004).

24

Low impact development (LID) techniques are a proven approach to onsite infiltration
that can mimic the natural hydrology of the landscape. Instead of large, centrally located
detention ponds, LID applications uses small site specific designs that store, filter and infiltrate
to ground water recharge while minimizing peak volume flows and maintaining normal
hydrologic discharges. Basic LID techniques involve conservation of natural features,
minimizing impervious surfaces, hydraulic disconnects, disbursement of runoff and
phytoremediation (Muthukrishnan, Mardge, Selvakumar, Field, & Sullivan, 2004).
Phytoremediation, as defined in Encarta, is the process of decontaminating soil by using plants to
absorb heavy metals or other pollutants.
Specific LID controls referred to as Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) reduces
runoff by integrating stormwater controls in small, discrete units near the source of impacts
reducing or eliminating the need for a centrally located BMP. These micromanagement
techniques break up a site into micro-watersheds allowing for many smaller systems instead of
one large system (Griffin, 2007).
Four major hydrologically based planning elements go into the site planning and design
approach that affect hydrology:


Curve Number (CN)- A factor that accounts for the effects of soils and land cover on
amount of runoff generated. Minimizing the change in the post development CN by
reducing impervious areas and preserving more trees and meadows to reduce runoff
storage requirements all to maintain the predevelopment runoff volume.



Time of Concentration (Tc) - This is related to the time runoff travels through the
watershed. Maintaining the predevelopment Tc reduces peak runoff rates after

25

development by lengthening flow paths and reducing the use of pipe conveyance
systems.


Permanent storage areas (Retention) - Retention storage is needed for volume and peak
control, water quality control and to maintain the same CN as the predevelopment
condition.



Temporary storage areas (Detention) - Detention storage may be needed to maintain the
peak runoff rate and/or prevent flooding (Coffman, 2000).
Maintaining predevelopment Time of Concentration (Tc) requires the inclusion of several

micro-scale retention and detention LID practices at the impact site. Micro-scale features include
redirecting flows to vegetated swales, rain gardens, preserving woodlands, avoiding soil
compaction the elimination of curbs/gutters and disconnecting down spouts. Impervious surfaces
such as driveways, parking lots and streets that are exposed to light traffic can be replaced with
pervious concrete and asphalt that will allow rainwater to pass through and infiltrate to the
ground water system.
Multi-functional LID features such as rain gardens, vegetated swales and bioretention
cells have built in storage to detain runoff that will either filter into the soil or evaporate while
trapping suspended solids and pollutants before they are carried to the receiving water bodies.
These LID features provide infiltration for ground water recharge to mimic site pre-development
hydrology, filter out pollution and detain the runoff long enough that evaporation may take place.
As the retention storage increases there is a reduction in the runoff volume and peak discharge
rate. More storage volume may result in a reduction in runoff that is less than predevelopment
runoff rate (Coffman, 2000).

26

Tables 2 provides a level of reference of how effectively different LID practice removes
different pollutants.

Table 2 Pollution Removal Efficiencies, Mason County (County M. , 2008)

Table 3 illustrates the effectiveness of LID practices over conventional stormwater management
technologies as it affects the hydrologic cycle in a watershed.

27

Table 3 Comparison of Conventional and LID Stormwater Management Impact on the Hydrological Cycle

(County M. , 2008)

3.6

LID Cost
Installing multiple micro-scale site specific LID features that reduces runoff consequently

negates the need for more costly stormwater infrastructure. A major reduction in stormwater
infrastructure cost can be realized when LID techniques are employed in site development
designs. The elimination of pipes, pond, curbs and pavers greatly reduces the cost of site
development resulting in substantial saving to the developer. LID techniques can reduce the cost
of flood control structures by infiltrating and evaporating runoff (EPA), Fact Sheet: Reducing
StormwaterCost Throught Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. EPA
Publication number 841-F-07-006, 2007).

28

The following table provides cost comparison between conventional development costs
versus LID cost. There is a tremendous cost savings when LID techniques are employed to
manage stormwater reducing or negating the need for stormwater infrastructure.

Table 1. Cost Comparisons Between Conventional and LID Approaches

Project

a

2nd Avenue SEA Street
Auburn Hills

Conventional
Development
Cost
$868,803

LID Cost

Cost
Percent
Differenceb Differnceb

$651,548

$217,255

25%

$2,360,385 $1,598,989

$761,396

32%

Bellingham City Hall

$27,600

$5,600

$22,000

80%

Bellingham Bloedel Donovan Park

$52,800

$12,800

$40,000

76%

$4,620,600 $3,942,100

$678,500

15%

Gap Creek
Garden Valley

$324,400

$260,700

$63,700

20%

Kensington Estates

$765,700 $1,502,900

-$737,200

-96%

$1,654,021 $1,149,552

$504,469

30%

Laurel Springs
Mill Creekc

$12,510

$9,099

$3,411

27%

Prairie Glen

$1,004,848

$599,536

$405,312

40%

Somerset

$2,456,843 $1,671,461

$785,382

32%

Tellabs Corporate Campus

$3,162,160 $2,700,650

$461,510

15%

Table 4 Cost Comparisons Between Conventional and LID Approaches
(EPA), Fact Sheet: Reducing StormwaterCost Throught Low Impact Development (LID)
Strategies and Practices. EPA Publication number 841-F-07-006, 2007).

29

LID techniques not only mimic natural hydrology of the watershed and filter out
pollutants, they also provide substantial cost savings when compared to traditional development
costs.

30

Chapter 4

Analysis of Effectiveness

When the natural landscape is replaced by impervious surfaces, the natural hydrology of
the area is disrupted by removing a large portion of the water budget from the watershed.
Stormwater infrastructure collects and transports waters sheeting off impervious surfaces away
from the built environment to receiving water bodies. Not only is the hydrology disrupted but
pollutants are carried from the landscape, roads and parking lots to receiving water bodies that
degrade water quality and compromises aquatic habitats.
The City of Bremerton is taking steps to mitigate stormwater production and the resulting
effects of stormwater to rivers and streams, and the introduction of pollutants to receiving
surface waters. They have formally adopted LID techniques in the city‘s code as a stormwater
management and development strategy, being applied at the parcel and sub-division scale to
closely mimic predevelopment hydrologic functions (Bremerton, 2011).
Throughout Kitsap County, there are 110 wells out of 344 that are part of the Washington
State Active Water Level Network, used to monitor the levels of ground water resources
throughout the state. Figure 5 provides a visual representation of their locations, randomly
dispersed throughout the county. Initial measurements of the sampled wells began in
approximately 1988 with the most recent as early as 2002. I was unable to determine when these
wells were drilled. The most recent measurement of the water level in the wells was recorded
late in 2010 and early 2011.

31

The measurements represent the static level of the water level below land surface. Data is
collected and maintained by the US Geological Survey. Out of the 110 wells in Kitsap County,
seventeen with only one measurement have been removed from the analysis.
Kitsap County, Washington. Part of Washington Active Water Level Network

Figure 5 Kitsap County, Washington Active Water Level Network

Wells are at varying depths and water levels may have either decreased or increased from
the initial measurement and the latest measurement. The difference in measured levels ranged
from less than an inch to approximately 100 feet. The well with the difference of approximately
100 feet was a gain in water level. (I can only report on the data and make no claim to the
veracity of said data).

32

The data, subjected to a t-test, suggests that building practices have not significantly
affected aquifer recharge. See Table ##
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson Correlation
Hypothesized Mean
Difference
df
t Stat
P(T<=t) one-tail
t Critical one-tail
P(T<=t) two-tail
t Critical two-tail

Initial
Measure
124.3188172
9596.487984
93
0.969496876

Second
Measure
122.3790323
8954.800881
93

0
92
0.779012796
0.218985696
1.661585397
0.437971392
1.986086272

Table 3 Results of t-test.

Using a probability of 0.05, degrees of freedom (df) of 92, the tabled critical t value is 1.9861
(two tailed). The calculated t Critical two-tailed value is 1.9860 and is less than the tabled value
of t. There is no significant difference between the initial measurement and the most recent
measurement of the sampled wells. Therefore, the null hypothesis that building practices does
not affect aquifer recharge has not being repudiated.

4.1 Discussion
Water resources, and the continued supply of these resources, are one of the most
important ingredients of the human habitat. The larger the population grows, the greater the need
will be for an increase in the water supply. Population growth drives urban expansion,
commercial activity and irrigation needs. All of these increases water demand. Urban expansion
also increases impervious surfaces prompting additional quantities of the water budget being

33

expelled from the watershed. These impervious surfaces will also contribute to the degradation
of surface water bodies with the introduction of additional pollution from non-point sources.
Regulating urban growth is an orderly path to controlled development which will
minimize sprawl. We recognize our current stormwater management practices are not enough to
minimize the amount of pollution being carried from the landscape to surface water bodies. The
EPA adopted a phased approach in addressing pollution entering surface water bodies through
regulation and expensive stormwater treatment. A shift in our approach to dealing with
stormwater will not only maintain the hydrology of the watershed that allows rainfall to infiltrate
to the ground water system, but it also filters out pollution before entering surface water bodies.
Incorporating LID techniques as a stormwater management strategy reduces runoff by
managing rainfall at the impact site. Land Use Planners and Landscape Designers must adopt a
new paradigm in addressing stormwater. The goal must be to minimize stormwater volume by
managing it at the impact site. LID techniques can complement existing stormwater management
strategies as we address surface water pollution.
Expected population growth in Kitsap County will continue to increase the demands on
the water supply. The future is uncertain as to climate change impacts on the region‘s hydrologic
cycle. It is imperative that we retain as much of the rainfall on the landscape as possible to
maintain base flow in rivers and streams, and recharge of underlying aquifers. LID techniques
are an effective means in mimicking natural hydrology. Although the t-test did not indicate
significance in declining water levels in the county‘s wells, it was on the far end of the
acceptable spectrum.

34

Developers must recognize the benefits of adopting LID techniques as they transform the
natural landscape, and redevelopment projects, into residential spaces. If the environmental
benefit is not a concern, the cost savings from not having to install stormwater infrastructure,
larger roads and the prospect of enhanced property values may provide some incentive. We will
never totally eliminate the impacts development has on water quality and the hydrology within
the developed landscape but human beings can mitigate their impacts.
Throughout history, we have consistently integrated new technologies into development
projects as the need arises. Today we have another need. We need to minimize the transport of
pollutants from the landscape to surface water bodies that compromises aquatic habitat. We need
to maximize the infiltration potential within the urban area to provide for the long term viability
of underlying aquifers.
Kitsap County is right in the middle of the Puget Sound Lowland, seemingly isolated,
surrounded by water. Our water source is totally dependent on rainfall that falls within its
watershed. This is a resource that must be utilized and not expelled to receiving water bodies.
Being self-sufficient and maintaining a reliable water supply well into the future will depend on
how we make allowances for its continued replenishment. Employing LID techniques as we
transform the landscape is a step in the right direction.

35

Chapter 5
Moving Forward
The Bremerton Housing District is redeveloping the Bay Vista Complex, formally known
as West Park constructed shortly after World War II, with a new vision moving forward.
Previous stormwater infrastructure made no provision for water quality with direct release to
Sinclair Inlet, Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. The 83 acre site sits on Glacial till determined to be
Type C soil. This soil type has a moderately high runoff potential. As quoted in the Hydrologic
Soil Series for Selected Soils in Washington State:
Soils having low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of
soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately
fine to fine textures. These soils have a low rate of water transmission (0.05-0.15 in/hr.).

The designs call for a reduction in traditional impervious surfaces through pervious roads,
driveways and sidewalks. Stormwater infrastructure consists of multiple subterranean chambers
that detain the water onsite for infiltration or evaporation. Porous concrete and asphalt provide
enormous surface area that allow for faster evaporation, reducing the amount of water entering
the stormwater system (Dort & Johnson, 2009).
The landscape is divided into three distinct watersheds that drain to three separate
locations in Puget Sound – Sinclair Inlet, Oyster Bay and Ostrich Bay. Within each watershed
are micro-watersheds that employ LID techniques that detain water for infiltration and
evaporation (Dort & Johnson, 2009). It is expected that upon completion, a light rain will
produce zero stormwater entering Puget Sound from the Bay Vista Complex. This is just one
area in which the City of Bremerton is addressing water quality problems in Puget Sound.
36

The Kitsap Conservation District (KCD) has instituted a Rain Garden Cost Share
Program with over 63 property owners taking advantage of this financial incentive to install rain
gardens on their property. The program provides half of the cost to install a rain garden up to
$500. The average cost of installing a rain garden is $1,000 to $1,500. Kitsap County Surface
and Stormwater Management (SSWM) provide funding for the program through stormwater fees
from property owners in unincorporated parts of the county. $50,000 is allotted to the program
on a yearly basis. Technical assistance is provided by trained Conservation staff or Master
Gardeners from Washington State University (WSU) (Works, 2011).
In the 1980s, non-point source fecal pollution was instrumental in the closure of shellfish
beds within Puget Sound. Due to intensive development in rural watersheds and the marine
shoreline, large amounts of fecal coli form was introduced to the marine environment. Shellfish
growing areas in Dyes Inlet watershed are situated among rural, urban and commercial activities.
Potential fecal pollution sources include failed onsite sewage systems, waste from farm animals,
combined stormwater-sewer overflows (CSOs), and contaminated stormwater runoff. Numerous
fecal pollution sources were identified and resolved through the efforts of Kitsap County, City of
Bremerton and the U.S. Navy to the point where water quality has shown significant
improvement. After decades of closure, shellfish beds in Dyes Inlet are once again open for
consumption (Health, 2010).
These continued efforts throughout the county indicate that watershed specific approach
to controlling environmental problems associated with stormwater runoff are effective in
reducing pollution entering surface waters.

37

Works Cited
(NRDC), N. R. (1999 йил May). Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution. Clean
Water and Oceans: Water Pollution: In Depth. Retrieved 2011 йил 26-April from Natural
Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/stoinx.asp
Booth, D. B., Hartley, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Forest Cover, Impervios-Surface Area, and the Mitigation
of Stormwater impacts. Journal of the American Water Resources Association , v. 38:835-845.
Braun, B., & Castree, N. (1998). Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millenium. London and New York:
Routledge.
Bremerton, C. o. (2011 йил 16-March). Chapter 20.14: Critical Areas . Retrieved 2011 йил 22-May from
www.ci.bremerton.wa.us: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/bremerton.html
Chilton, S. F. (2003). Groundwater: the processess and global significance of aquifer degradation. .
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London , 58, 1957 - 1972.
Code, W. A. (1996 йил 20-December). WAC Title 400: Puget Sound Water Quality . Olympia,
Washington, United States of America.
Coffman, L. S. (2000 йил February). Low-Impact Design: A new Paradigm for Stormwater Management
that Mimicking and Restoring the Natural Hydrologic Regime. An Alternative Stormwater
Management Technology. Prince Georges County, Maryland, United States of America.
Community Development. (2010 йил 8-November). Kitsapgov.com. Retrieved 2011 йил 15-Feburary
from Kitsap County: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/kitsapcounty/
Corbett, C. W., Wahl, M., Porter, D., Edwards, D., & Moise, C. (1997). Nonpoint source runoff modeling:
A comparison of a forested watershed and an urban watershed on the South Carolina coast.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology , (213) 133-149.
Council, P. S. (2005 йил 25-August). VISION 20 +20 Udate: Issue Paper on Environmental Planning.
Seattle, Washington, United States of America/Puget Sound.
County, K. (2004 йил 21-January). Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas - Potential Next Steps. Retrieved 2011
йил 8-June from Kitsap County Department of Community Development:
http://www.kitsapgov.com
County, K. (2010 йил 11-January). http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/kitsapcounty/. Retrieved 2010
йил 09-February from Kitsapgov.com: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/kitsapcounty/
County, M. (2008 йил 10-June). Mason Couty . Retrieved 2011 йил 11-June from Mason County Chapter
17.80. Low Impact Development (LID):
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/stormwater/pdf/Allyn_AppendixB.pdf

38

Cox, S. (2003). Estimates of Residence Time and Related Variations in Quality of Ground Water Beneath
Submarine Base Bangor and Vicinity, Kitsap County, Washington. Water-Resources
Investigations Report 03-4058 . Tacoma: U.S. Geological Survey.
Crowser, H. (2007 йил November). Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound -- Phase1: Initial Estimate
of Loadings. Olympia, WA, USA.
Debo, T. N., & Reese, A. J. (1995). Municipal Stormwater Management. Lewis Publishers.
Dort, B., & Johnson, L. (2009). Preliminary Technical Information Report for Bay Vista Development.
Tacoma: BCRA.
Ellis, J. B., & Marsalek, J. (1996). Overview of urban drainage: Environmental impacts and concerns,
means of mitigation and implementation policies. Journal of Hydrological Resoures , 34:723 731.
EPA), U. S. (2007 йил December). Fact Sheet: Reducing StormwaterCost Throught Low Impact
Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. EPA Publication number 841-F-07-006. Retrieved
2011 йил 13-May from epa.gov: www.epa.gov/nps/lid.
EPA), U. S. (1996 йил June). Overview of the Storm Water Program. EPA 833-R-96-008. Retrieved 2011
йил 2-April from Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0195.pdf
EPA), U. S. (2000 йил January). Stormwater Phase II Final Rule. Retrieved 2011 йил 2-May from
Environmental Protection Agency EPA 833-F-00-001: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/fact10.pdf
EPA), U. S. (2009 йил 14-October). Water: Laws and Regulatory Development. Retrieved 2011 йил 2April from Environmental Protection Agency web site:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/laws.cfm
Frey, H. (1999). Designing the City: Towards a More Sustainable Urban Form. New York: Routledge.
Gordon, J. C., & Berry, J. K. (2006). Environmental Leadership Equals Essential Leadership: Redefining
Who Leads and How. New Haven: Yale.
Griffin, C. o. (2007 йил October). City of Griffin Stormwater Department. Retrieved 2011 йил 13-May
from Design Manual: Chapter 9 Low Impact Development:
http://www.cityofgriffin.com/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Stormwater/StormwaterU
tility/DesignManual/Design_Manual_Section_9.pdf
Health, W. S. (2010). Status and Trends in Fecal Coliform Pollution in Shellfish Growing Areas in Puget
Sound: Year 2009. Office of Shellfish and Water Protection. Olympia.

39

Horner, R., May, C., Livingston, E., Blaha, D., Scoggins, M., Tims, J., et al. (2002). Structural and Nonstructural BMPs for Proctecting Streams. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Storm water
Research and Watershed Management Conference Southwest Florida Water Management
District, Tampa, Florida.
Inc., G. A. (2005). Water Balance and Water Use Refinements. Redmond, WA: Golder Associates Inc.
Karr, J. (1991). Biological Integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological
Applications , v. l, 66-84.
Kevin, R. B., Epstein, P. R., Ford, T. E., Harrington, W., Olson, E., & Reichard, E. G. (2002 йил February).
U.S. Drinking Water Challenges in the Twenty First Century. Environmental Healt Perspectives ,
pp. 43-52.
Kitsap Public Utility District. (1997). Kitsap County Initial Basin Assessment. Bellevue, WA: Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Lerner, D. (2002). Identifying and quantifying urban recharge: a review. Hydrogeology Journal , 10:143152.
Levin, R. B., Epstein, P. R., Ford, T. E., Harrington, W., Olson, E., & and Reichard, E. G. (2002 йил
February). U.S. Drinking Water Challenges in the Twenty-First Century. Environmental Healt
Perspectives, Vol. 110, Supplement 1 , pp. 43-52.
Massmann, J., & Waters, K. (2006). Stormwater Effects in Illahee Creek Watershed. Mercer Island.
May, C. W., Karr, J. R., Mar, B. W., & Welch, E. B. (1997). Effects of Urbanization on Small Streams in the
Puget Sound Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4) , 483-494.
Mote, P. (1999). Impacts of Climate Change in the Pacific Northwest. Retrieved 2010 йил 08-02 from
www.atmos.washington.edu: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/Lecture34Mote-slides-PDF.pdf
Muthukrishnan, S., Mardge, B., Selvakumar, A., Field, R., & Sullivan, D. (2004 йил September). The Use of
Best Management Practices (BMP) in Urban Watersheds. EPA/600/R-04/184 . Retrieved 2011
йил 12-May from Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r04184/600r04184.pdf
Owen, C. L. (2004). An Analysis of the Implications and Potential for the use of Phytoremediation as a
tool in Vegetated Stormwater Treatments of the Puget Sound Region. Olympia, Seattle:
Evergreen State College.
Platt, R. H. (2006). Urban Watershed Management: Sustainability, one stream at a time. Environment ,
Vol. 48, Iss.4; pg 26.

40

Public Works & Utlities. (n.d.). Stormwater Management/NPDES Phase II. Retrieved 2011 йил 02-May
from City of Bremerton: http://www.ci.bremerton.wa.us/display.php?id=1027
Recreation, V. D. (2009 йил 08-September). Why Stormwater Matters. Retrieved 2011 йил 11-June from
www.dcr.virginia.gov: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/documents/swmhndbkdrft_ch04.pdf
Shipman, H. (2008). A Geomorphic Classification of Puget Sound Nearshore Landforms. Technical Report
2008-01. Olympia.
State, W. (1990). Growth Management Act. Olympia, WA, USA.
Transportation, W. S. (2003 йил 10-December). Population Growth in Relation to State's Counties.
Retrieved 2010 йил 06-February from www.wsdot.wa:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/wtp/datalibrary/population/PopGrowthCounty.htm
Washinton State Department of Ecology, W. Q. (2005 йил February). Stormwater Management Manuel
for Western Washinton. Publication no. 05-10-30. Olympia, Washington, United States of
America.
Winter, T. (1990). Hydrology of lakes and wetlands, In, Surface Water Hydrology: Boulder Colorado,
edited by M.G. Wolman and H.C. Riggs, Geological Society of America. The Geology of North
America , pp. Vol. O-1.
Works, K. C. (2011, Month 15). Rain Gardens. Retrieved June 15, 2011, from Kitsapgov.com:
www.kitsapgov.com/sswm/rain_gardens

41

42

Media

Pavy_JMESthesis2011.pdf