KITSAP COUNTY INITIAL BASIN ASSESSMENT October 1997

With the multitudes of lakes, streams, and rivers, Kitsap County Watershed Location Map Washington State seems to have an abundance of water. The demand for water resources, however, has steadily increased each year, while the water supply has stayed the same, or in some cases, appears to have declined. This increased demand for limited water resources has made approving new water uses complex and controversial. To expedite decisions about pending water rights, it is vital to accurately assess the quality and quantity of our surface and ground water. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) recognizes that water right decisions must be based on accurate scientific information. Ecology is working with consultants and local governments to conduct special studies called Initial What do we know about the Kitsap County Watershed or Basin Assessments throughout the Basin? State. The assessments describe existing water rights, streamflows, precipitation, geology, hydrology, Kitsap County encompasses almost 400 square miles and water quality, fisheries resources, and land use occupies a peninsula and several islands in Puget Sound. patterns. It is bounded on the east and north by Puget Sound and The assessments evaluate existing data on water which Admiralty Inlet, and on the west by Hood Canal. The will assist Ecology to make decisions about pending County is adjoined by Pierce and Mason Counties on the water right applications. The assessments do not affect south, Jefferson County on the west, and King County on existing water rights. the east. This report summarizes information detailed in the Because of the physiography of the County and the Kitsap County Initial Basin Assessment and represents dominance of localized ground water and surface water the most current (1996) compilation, review, and flow systems, the most logical method for study of the analysis of water resources data including a peer hydrology or water resources is by subdividing the county review of the assessment (August 1996) for Kitsap into smaller subareas. Based upon the local geology, County (County). Kitsap County is part of the Kitsap hydrology, and topography, 18 subareas have been Peninsula Basin which has been designated by the identified within the County. Exhibit 1, on the following state as Water Resource Inventory 15 (WRIA 15). page, shows the 18 subareas designated for detailed This assessment was initiated and funded by Kitsap water resource assessment. The designation of these Public Utility District and conducted under a subareas involved evaluation of both surface and Memorandum of Agreement with Ecology. subsurface information. This report summarizes information presented in the What are the water allocation issues? detailed Ecology Open File Technical Report No. 97- 04. It also presents some actions that could be taken YEcology needs to make decisions on 220 pending in response to the results of this assessment. (December 1995) water right applications located within the County. Accurate data are essential to Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. making these water allocation decisions. If the Kramer, Chin, and Mayo decision is not to allocate, then infrastructure planning Pacific Groundwater Group must be adjusted accordingly. Currently, there are 200 ground water applications for 41,530 gpm (92.5 Robinson and Noble, Inc. cfs) and 20 surface water applications for 1616 gpm In Cooperation With (3.6 cfs). Washington State Department of Ecology Funded By Kitsap Public Utility District YThere is no evidence of extensive seawater intrusion in the County, but localized seawater intrusion is found

WR-95-1

in a few areas such as Jefferson Beach (Kingston Subarea).

YAquifer water levels since 1990 in general have followed precipitation trends. The period from 1991 through 1994 was generally characterized by below average precipitation and decreasing water levels. Water levels in 1995 and 1996 seem to respond to an above average period of precipitation. Long term water level data are generally not available, therefore detailed correlation between climate, water use and ground water system response will be conducted in the future.

YWhile there are no large river systems in the County, there are many small streams which are highly influenced by ground water and support a variety of fish populations. Escapements (the number of salmonids that make it back to spawn) in many creeks are generally not documented. Limited data has been collected with fish health in mind. Existing information does not provide an in-depth assessment of the overall fisheries habitat within the County, although studies by tribes are ongoing. YMaintenance of streamflows necessary to preserve instream resources is a major concern. The state has set minimum instream flows for 14 rivers and creeks; established approximately 32 year- round closures, and 10 partial Where does the water come from? closures of streams, lakes, and drainage systems in Kitsap County. Prior to 1990, only five control Precipitation provides the sole source of water for all of the points (established measurement locations as per streams, lakes, springs, and other surface waters and Chapter 173-515 WAC) had associated gaging ground water within the County. Some of this water stations. Several of the original five gaging evaporates or is used by plants, some flows into the stations are no longer active. Approximately 20 streams and rivers, and the rest infiltrates into the soil to other gaging stations have been established since become ground water. Some segments of streams and 1990 at or near established control locations. rivers gain water from ground water that seeps into the Major drainages with regulatory closures include channel. Other segments lose water that leaks through the Big Beef Creek and the Union, Tahuya, and streambed into the ground. The County has a Dewatto Rivers. characteristically marine climate typified by short, cool, dry summers, and prolonged, mild, wet winters. Winter YSeveral subareas appear to have sufficient data to storms generally approach the make allocation decisions. In most subareas, additional data will probably be needed to resolve current water allocation issues and provide a basis for prudent water allocation decisions.

WR-95-2

County from the southwest. The presented in Chapter 5 of the Submarine Base at Bangor, southwestern portion of the assessment. Most of the aquifers Keyport Naval Undersea Warfare County receives relatively high are near or below sea level and Center, Puget Sound Naval winter rainfall from storms which are comprised of pre-Vashon Shipyard, Department of Defense enter the area through a topo- geologic units. Perched aquifers Supply Center, and the graphic gap between the Olympic occur throughout the County, Manchester Fuel Depot. Mountains and the Black Hills. making it difficult to distinguish Outside of the urbanized centers The northern portion of the Kitsap aquifer characteristics and of Bremerton, Port Orchard, Peninsula experiences drier establish definitive boundaries. It Silverdale, Poulsbo, Kingston, winter weather because it is is highly likely that additional, yet- and Bainbridge Island, the situated in the rain shadow of the to-be discovered, major aquifers County is generally characterized Olympic Mountains. exist within the County. by scattered, small communities, Precipitation varies over the How are surface and homes on acreage, and large County from just under 30 ground water connected? parcels of undeveloped land. inches/year in the north to almost Low density, single-family 70 inches/year in the southwest. In areas where both surface dwellings and small farms are On a seasonal basis, 79 percent water and ground water are used, scattered throughout the County, of the precipitation at the the connections between the two and there are large areas of Bremerton Fire Station occurs in sources become important. In pasture and forest land. the six-month period from some instances, ground water Satellite imagery data show October through March. Addi- flows from the aquifer to the approximately 10 percent of the tionally, total rainfall for the driest surface water, while in others, the County in a developed state. The months of June, July, and August reverse occurs. Ground water remaining area is largely is seven percent of the annual provides the base flow in the coniferous forest (50 percent), total. rivers and creeks which constitutes total flow during dry other natural cover (35 percent), What are the major surface periods when there is no rain to or mixed forest land (5 percent). water sources? contribute to the flow. An analysis of land use codes Although surface water is not the Hydraulic continuity refers to the utilized by the County Assessor primary source of supply, the interconnection between water shows a similar pattern with County contains a multitude of bearing units, including ground about 75 percent open, forested, creeks, only a few of which drain water and surface water. or rural, and another 10 percent extensive land areas. Hydraulic continuity typically classified as suburban. Accord- occurs where ground water ing to the Assessor's data, about Surface water development in the discharges to surface water, such 14 percent of the area is classi- County is primarily based on as in spring-fed lakes and gaining fied as urban, commercial, or individual stream diversion rather rivers; or where surface water industrial. than large dams with associated discharges to ground water, such reservoirs. Casad Dam, located Although nearly 90 percent is as from riverbed seepage to an at McKenna Falls on the Union rural and forested, the County is adjacent alluvial aquifer. Where River, is the only major diversion ranked second only to King hydraulic continuity exists, structure in the entire County. County in overall population changing hydraulic conditions in a density, with 562 persons per What are the major ground ground water body will result in square mile in 1995. water sources? changes to connected surface water bodies. The County ranks sixth in total Ground water is the dominant population (220,600 in 1995) and and most important source of How does land use affect has experienced a 31 percent supply in the County. Twenty- water? increase in population since eight "principal aquifers" have 1985, ranking eighth in growth in Land use practices can have been identified as an integral part the State. profound effects on the amount of this assessment. The current and quality of water moving The highest growth is projected level of knowledge and through the County. for the Manette, Gorst, and understanding for each aquifer Manchester subareas. Lowest varies considerably because of From a regional viewpoint, the population growth is predicted for the complex hydrogeology of the County contains abundant the Stavis, Tahuya, Anderson, area. A conceptual model and forestry areas and numerous and Dewatto subareas. stratigraphic sequence of the 15 government owned and operated identified hydrogeologic units is facilities, including the Trident

WR-95-3

What are the water quality The status of salmonid popula- are short, available only for issues? tions in the County is a concern isolated periods, and/or available to all agencies and organizations only prior to the rapid water Ground water throughout the involved in water resources. resource development which County is generally of good Because of the poor returns of began in the early 1970s. Long- quality and suitable for most coho and chinook salmon to term data records (those over 25 purposes. With only a few Hood Canal, there have been years) are best suited to stream- exceptions, water sampled from restrictions placed on harvesting flow trend analysis. over 1,100 wells located through- these stocks. out the County was within State Several different techniques were drinking water standards. A major factor in the decline of used to assess trends in mini- Aesthetic standards for iron and coho salmon stocks has been the mum streamflows (summer low manganese were frequently reduced summer and fall flows in flows). The minimum flow exceeded, as is typical for glacial small streams associated with analyses were limited by aquifers of Western Washington. drought cycles. Some small available data. streams have become unable to Ground water quality testing Comparison of regulatory support coho production similar associated with sites of known instream flow requirements and to the levels supported prior to contamination (such as landfills, historic flow curves for a few 1975. For example, the average the three major military installa- rivers and creeks showed that annual rainfall for Seabeck over tions, and the Wycoff Wood current instream flow the last 16 years (55.93) has Preservation Facility) indicates requirements were not satisfied been four inches less than the only local perched aquifers have to varying degrees throughout the long-term average of 59.92 been affected so far. year. inches. Time series evaluation of water It should be noted that in Fish habitat quality is greatly quality data was performed as establishing instream flows by reduced by nonpoint pollution. part of the Kitsap County Ground regulation, Ecology recognizes Storm water runoff from con- Water Management Plan that the recommended regulatory struction sites, roadways, and (GWMP) in 1991. The analysis flows are not, and probably have cleared land continues to cause employed water quality data never been met, 100 percent of both erosion and siltation of provided by the EPA (including the time. The intent of the streams removing critical juvenile data from the USGS and from regulation, however, is to protect rearing habitat. Other factors Group A wells), by Ecology streams from further depletion affecting the survival of all (Group A), by the Washington (for instance, through subsequent salmonid species are the Department of Health (Group A appropriations) when flows influence of hatchery fish on and B wells), and by the approach or fall below the natural spawning stocks and the Bremerton Kitsap County Health recommended discharges. District. Data collected at known interception of fish returning to ground water contamination sites the Kitsap Peninsula. The impact Water level trend analysis was were not included in these trend of harvest on returning adults accomplished utilizing data from analyses. In general, the time was well demonstrated by the a subset of the wells in the series evaluations indicated no fishing closure in 1994 and the GWMP monitoring network. significant trends. subsequent, significant increase Hydrographs for 149 wells were in coho adults spawning in the developed. An exhaustive review Are fish resources stable? streams of Hood Canal in the fall of in-well and regional production and winter of 1994/95. data has not been conducted. Escapements in many creeks in the County are generally not Existing fisheries habitat infor- What are water rights? documented. Chum salmon mation for much of the County is returning during late November limited and does not provide a The State of Washington through December are consid- sufficient basis for an in-depth manages ground water and ered healthy in the Hood Canal. assessment. surface water withdrawals Early-arriving chum salmon are through a system of permits. considered depressed. How have streamflows and Water withdrawals for all but Escapements in this region have water levels changed? limited small ground water uses ranged from 500 to 8,000 fish. must be authorized by Ecology. The ability to conduct annual Upon receiving an application for Other salmon species are less streamflow trend analyses abundant in County creeks. a water right, Ecology conducts throughout the County is also an extensive evaluation, which is severely limited. Data records

WR-95-4

currently taking in excess of five years, to determine whether or Exhibit 2 not they should issue a permit to Historic Growth of Water Allocations develop the water resource. 120,000 Water right certificates are issued after the water appropriation has 100,000 been perfected (actually put to beneficial use). Water rights Groundwater 80,000 established through the permit Surface Water system have been recognized by existing water laws since 1917 for surface water and 1945 for 60,000 ground water. A water right is a legal authoriza- 40,000 tion to use a certain amount of Allocated Annual Volume (Qa) in acre-feet public water for specific beneficial 20,000 purposes. State law requires every user of streams, lakes, springs, and other surface waters 0 to obtain a water right permit 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 before using these waters. Year People who use ground water "claims period" between 1969 Exhibit 2 shows the historic also need a water right permit and 1974. growth of water rights and annual unless they use 5,000 gallons or allocations over the past 80 years A water right claim is not an less each day for one or more of throughout the County. This authorization to use water, but the following purposes: watering graph dramatically illustrates the rather a statement of claim to a stock, watering a lawn or garden rapid pace of increased water water withdrawal generally less than one-half acre in size, or resource development that developed prior to 1917 or 1945. a single, group domestic, or occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. In most cases, the validity of industrial water supply. It also shows that since 1990 existing claims has not been very few ground water right Three categories of water rights, determined. although recognized, can not be allocations were made. A water right claim is just a claim quantified as a part of this How is water currently allo- for a right to use water. A water assessment. The first category cated and what new uses are relates to ground water right claim on file with Ecology proposed? withdrawals in small quantities may or may not represent a valid (i.e., exempt from permit water right. The validity of a Exhibit 3 displays the total requirements pursuant to RCW claim cannot be determined until allocation, claims, and uses of 90.44.050). The second and the court rules on it through an ground and surface water rights. third categories relate to federal adjudication process. Currently, ground water with- reserved rights associated with Why are water rights impor- drawals dominate water rights either US Reservations (e.g., (and to a lesser extent, water military) or Indian Reservations. tant? right claims). Ground water What are water right The basis for water rights is "first rights represent 83 percent of in time, first in right." This means claims? current total allocations, and people with older, or senior, ground water claims account for Not all uses of water developed rights get to use the water first 71 percent of current total claims. before 1917 for surface water when there is not enough for Issued water rights exceed water and 1945 for ground water were everyone. The water rights right claims for both ground water registered as part of the water program ensures that and surface water. rights process. To preserve Washington's water resources active water withdrawals devel- are appropriately allocated and Ground water resources are also oped prior to these two dates, the managed. By effectively manag- primarily allocated for domestic State required individuals to ing the allocation of new water multiple (57 percent) and register withdrawals during a rights, senior water rights can be municipal (31 percent) use. Fish protected. propagation comprises eight

WR-95-5

TOTAL ALLOCATIONS AND CLAIMS SURFACE-WATER RIGHTS BY USE Comprehensive, long-term Other streamflow data are lacking in Claims 4% 6% most areas of the County.

Permits & Irrigation Therefore, it is difficult to quantify Certificates Permits & 17% 65% SURFACE Domestic Certificates WATER Municipal and evaluate water availability 13% 40% GROUND WATER from contributing aquifers. Exhibit 3 Domestic The interconnection between Claims Total Water Multiple 16% 39% surface and ground water and Total Volume = 134,521 acre-feet/year Allocations, Total Volume = 17,673 acre-feet/year the effect of ground water Claims, withdrawals on streamflows in Uses for GROUNDWATER RIGHTS BY USE WATER-RIGHT APPLICATIONS much of the County is not well WRIA 15 known or understood. In areas Other 4% draining to streams, administra-

Fish Domestic Propogation Multiple GROUNDWATER tively closed to protect habitat, or Domestic 8% 57% Multiple Total 68% that have recommended flow Surface Water SURFACE WATER 4% limitations, the interconnection Other 7% between ground and surface

Domestic Municipal Domestic water will have to be evaluated 21% Municipal 31% Total requested withdrawal rate = 120 cubic feet/second when deciding on new alloca- Note: Applications are requested as instantaneous withdrawal rates (Qi's). If approved, Total Volume = 87,239 acre-feet/year they will be limited on an annual basis by maximum allowable withdrawals (Qa's). tions. Monitoring for seawater intrusion should be continued percent and other uses comprise withdrawals. Municipal ground and expanded. the remaining four percent. water withdrawals account for 21 percent of the total quantity An analysis of land use, popula- Water resources associated with requested, and other ground tion projections, and water water right claims appear to be water withdrawals account for demand indicates that the County primarily associated with irriga- seven percent. Surface water will have significant urban growth tion. Based on the irrigated applications account for only four in some subareas (Manette, acreages and the formulas for percent of the total quantity. The Gorst, Manchester), while other water-duty assignments, at least current total surface water subareas will remain rural with 49 percent of the surface water request is primarily divided relatively low growth (Anderson, claims and 91 percent of the between irrigation (31 percent), Dewatto, Stavis, and Tahuya). ground water claims can be municipal (27 percent), domestic attributed to irrigation. New water rights will need to be multiple (23 percent), and fish granted for existing public water Surface water resources are propagation (17 percent) uses. systems. For the most part, primarily allocated for municipal these do not appear to be large (40 percent) and domestic What are the conflicts in the County? increases over existing rights multiple (39 percent) use. (certificates). Much of the Irrigation uses comprise 17 Water use conflicts occur when forecasted demand may be percent and other uses comprise available water supply is unable covered under existing water the remaining four percent. to satisfy existing water rights, right applications. claims, new appropriations, and, There are 220 pending applica- Identifying areas where additional at the same time, maintain tions for new water rights within water rights will be required is key sufficient water quality as well as the County on file with Ecology. to effectively prioritizing studies to aquatic habitat. Applications for ground water support water right allocation rights comprise the majority of Balancing these competing decisions in the County. Future potential future water allocations. needs is complex. For example, assessment efforts should focus Presently, 200 ground water where recommended instream first on subareas such as applications exist for 41,530 gpm flows are not met more than 50 Bainbridge, Kingston, and (92.5 cfs) and 20 surface water percent of the time during the Manchester. These subareas will applications exist for 3.6 cfs. lowest flow periods in late be accommodating significant Exhibit 3 also shows the summer and early fall, additional population growth and will require distribution of these applications. water allocations may not be improved data and better The majority of the total quantity available from shallower aquifers information on which to base requested (68 percent) is for during these months. water allocation decisions. domestic multiple ground water

WR-95-6

A summary of average day water Precipitation=Evapotranspiration+ proposed actions. Usually, a demand for the County Runoff+Recharge combination of actions is required developed for the GWMP is to effectively manage water displayed on Exhibit 4. The water Exhibit 5 summarizes the resources and meet the demand uses include municipal estimates of water balance challenges and opportunities and domestic, com- components for Kitsap County. facing all of the stakeholders mercial/industrial, irrigation, fish involved. propagation, and stock watering. Where do we go from here? Instream uses are not included. While mandated by law to protect Finally, Exhibit 6, provides a instream water use and existing The total average day water summary for each of the 18 water rights, Ecology also is resource requirement was about subareas within Kitsap County. responsible for making decisions 31 MGD in 1990. It is projected on applications for new water to increase to approximately 45 Several factors can be considered rights. The public's opinion is MGD by 2020. This assumes in making water right decisions. important to Ecology in making water consumption habits and They include: potential for program decisions governing lifestyles will not change. If an stream-aquifer continuity, potential water use. Ecology invites public increase in multi-family housing for seawater intrusion, degree of input on future steps to be taken. units occurs in the urban areas of water resource allocation, ground Ecology will also work with the County, and a municipal and water level trends, streamflow people who have applied for new domestic water conservation trends, and the impact on fish due water rights and discuss options program is initiated, then the to changes in habit and water for processing their applications. average day demand in 2020 is quality. projected to be about 39 MGD. What additional information An additional water resource This Initial Basin Assessment is available? requirement of 8 to 13 MGD does not provide a complete (8,961 to 14,600 acre feet per picture of water resources in If you would like to learn more year) over 1990 average day Kitsap County. It acknowledges about water issues in the Kitsap supply will be needed by 2020. that additional data collection and County Basin, the following are more in-depth analysis of some of the studies and technical Total peak day demand was reports that are available: approximately 74 MGD in 1990. information will be required to By 2020, peak day demand is make some future water right Dion, N.P., Olsen, T.D., and anticipated to reach almost 100 decisions. Payne, K.L. 1988, Preliminary MGD. The additional water Evaluation of the Ground Water resource requirement for a peak Ecology wants to hear your Resources of Bainbridge Island, day in 2020 would be opinions and ideas on these and Kitsap County, Washington, US approximately 26 MGD over the other water allocation issues and Geological Survey Water 30-year forecast period. Exhibit 4

Recent population growth has 1990-2020 Average Day Water Demand exceeded projections used by the GWMP so these demand Average Day Water 1990 2020 projections are probably low. Demand Uses *MGD Percent *MGD Percent

What are the water balance components? Municipal 19.55 63% 30.43 68% Domestic/Single Family 4.89 16% 7.61 17% A water balance is an assessment Commercial/ Industrial 0.27 1% 0.27 1% of the major components of a Irrigation 1.18 4% 1.18 3% hydrologic system and includes Fish Propagation 5.20 17% 5.20 12% the interactions between surface Stock Watering 0.04 0% 0.04 0% water and ground water systems. TOTALS: 31.13 100% 44.73 100% The components of a simplified water balance equation can be *Note: MGD = Million Gallons Per Day expressed as: Source: Volume 1 GWMP, 1991, Table II-9, pg. II-67

WR-95-7

Resources Investigations Report Kitsap County Phase I Basin AGI Technologies, November 18, 87-4237. Assessment Reference File 1996, North Perry Avenue Water District Wellhead Protection Becker, J.E., 1995, Kitsap GWAC et al., 1991, Kitsap Investigation. Report prepared Hydrogeological Analysis of the County Ground Water Manage- for North Perry Avenue Water Bangor Aquifer System, Kitsap ment Plan, Background Data District, Bremerton, WA. County, Washington. Collection and Management Ecology, Department of, 1981, Issues, Volume I and II. AGI Technologies, October 8, Chapter 173-515 WAC, Instream Lestelle, L.C., and others, 1996, Final Report Gorst Creek Resources Protection Program December 1993, Evaluation of Basin Study Phase I. Report Kitsap Water Resource Inventory Natural Stock Improvement prepared for City of Bremerton Area (WRIA) 15. Measures for Hood Canal Coho Public Works, Bremerton, WA. Economic and Engineering Salmon: Point No Point Treaty Services, Inc. (EES), November Council, Technical Report TR 93- 3, 1992, Kitsap County Coordi- 1, 173 p. nated Water System Plan Robinson and Noble, Inc., Regional Supplement (CWSP). November 1992, Investigation of Garling, M.E., Molenaar, D.E. Impacts on Dogfish Creek from and others, 1965, Water the Use of the City of Poulsbo's Resources and Geology of the Pugh Road Well. Kitsap Peninsula and Certain Sceva, J.E., 1957, Geology and For more information... Contact Adjacent Islands: Washington Ground Water Resources of State Division of Water Raymond Hellwig at (206) 649- Kitsap County, Washington, US 7096 (voice), (206) 649-4259 Resources, Water Supply Bulletin Geological Survey Water Supply No. 18, 309 p., 5 plates. (TDD), or write to the Department Paper 1413. of Ecology, 3190-160th Ave. SE, Hansen, A.J., and Bolke, E.L., Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, Bellevue, Washington 98008- 1980, Ground Water Availability J.J. Adams, 1975, A Catalog of 5452. Ecology does not on the Kitsap Peninsula, Washington Streams and discriminate in its services. If you Washington: US Geological Salmon Utilization, Vol. 1, Puget have special communications Survey Water Resources Sound Region, Washington needs, contact Lisa Newman at Investigations Open File Report Department of Fisheries, (360) 407-6604 (voice) or (360) 80-1186. Olympia, WA. 407-6006 (TDD).

WR-95-8

EXHIBIT 6 Kitsap County Initial Basin Assessment Summary

Kitsap Dominant Land Use Projected Known Established Subarea Relative Water Pending Water Percent County Area Population Density Annual Water Year-Round Stream-Aquifer Seawater Resource Development of Total Basin Square Area 1990 Growth Quality Stream *Continuity Intrusion Average **Relative Applications Inflow Subarea Miles Pattern Density Rate Threats Closures Probability Potential Rainfall Development (Max. Withdrawal) Hansville 16.5 Rural 160 2.5% Minimal Little Boston RH-Hansville Aquifer No Hansville Aquifer 30 8% Ground Water = 301 gpm 3% Creek RL-Sea Level Aquifer Yes Sea Level Aquifer Surface Water = 0 Kingston Grovers Creek (Seasonal) RL-Kingston Aquifer Yes If Excessive 30.7 Rural 295 3.3% Minimal Thompson Creek Port Gamble South Ground Water 34 24% Ground Water = 3030 gpm 17% Suburban Cowling Creek RH-Suquamish - Development Surface Water = 0.5 cfs and Smaller Miller Bay Aquifer Occurs Streams Port Rural 220 4.2% Negligible Gamble Creek RH-Edgewater Aquifer Yes Edgewater and 36 11% Ground Water = 3355 gpm 26% Gamble 19.1 RH-Port Gamble Aquifer Port Gamble Aquifers Surface Water = 0.1 cfs Poulsbo Dogfish Creek RL-Poulsbo Aquifer Yes If Excessive 18.7 Suburban 450 3.7% Minimal and RH-Other Perched Ground Water 37 19% Ground Water = 2792 gpm 20% Urban Johnson Creek Aquifer Development Surface Water = 0 in Coastal Area Bangor Past Land Strawberry RH-Island Lake Varies Between Commercial Use Creek Aquifer Four Aquifer Ground Water = 8142 gpm 35.7 Rural 636 2.2% Contam- Barker Clear Varies Between Systems 41 23% Surface Water = 0 28% Urban inated Creek, and Four Aquifer Sites Scandia Creek Systems Bainbridge Urban Two Small RH-Meadowmeer No - Meadowmeer Island Suburban Develop- Unnamed Aquifer Varies Aquifer; Varies 29.1 Surban 540 2.6% ment. Stream Between Six Between Six 35 30% Ground Water = 3384 gpm 22% Rural Otherwise Tributary to Aquifers, But RL Aquifers Depending Surface Water = 0.97 cfs Minimal Murdan Cove Upon Ground Water Fletcher Bay Development Manette Urban and Varies Between Bucklin Hill Aquifer 17.7 Urban 2,000 3.2% Commercial Steel and Three Aquifers, Minimal. Varies 40 43% Ground Water = 2803 gpm 23% Commercial Develop- Mosher Creeks but RL Between Three Surface Water = 0.97 cfs ment Aquifer Systems Chico Chico/Kitsap Aquifers Not Well Not Well Rural Urban/ Creeks. Understood; Understood; Ground Water = 296 gpm 19.7 Commercial 480 2.5% Suburan Unnamed Potential Possible Coastal Area 53 7% Surface Water = 0 1% Kitsap Lake Continuity If Excessive Ground Tributary Unknown Water Developed Seabeck Big Beef Varies Between Varies Between 27.3 Rural 130 1.2% Minimal Anderson the Three Aquifers; Three Aqufiers; 57 10% Ground Water = 2524 gpm 7% and Seabeck RL Except Not Possible Surface Water = 0 Creeks Perched Aquifer Perched Aquifers Stavis Not No Major Aquifer 10.2 Rural 75 1.1% Minimal None Understood. Identified. 64 3% Ground Water = 165 gpm 1% RH for Perched Not Possible Surface Water = 0 Aquifers Perched Aqufiers Manchester Curley Varies Between Urban (seasonal) Varies Between Six Aqufiers. 45 Rural 660 2.5% Land Blackjack, Six Aquifers. Possible in Port 43 24% Ground Water = 7831 gpm 20% Urban Develop- Sullivan, Beaver, RH for Orchard/Yukon Surface Water = 0.91 cfs ment Salmonberry Wilson and North Aqufiers if Excessive Creeks Lake Aquifers Supply Developed Gorst Industrial Urban Anderson 23.5 Urban 1,150 3.2% Suburban and Ross Varies Between If Excessive 51 18% Ground Water =1470 gpm 6% Commercial Commercial Creeks Two Aquifers Ground Water Surface Water = 0 Lt. Industry Union River, Supply Developed Union Mission Lake, No Major Aquifer Not Possible 16.5 Rural 52 2.5% Minimal and Identified. RH for Perched Aqufiers. 58 15% Ground Water =564 gpm 3% Little Perched Aqufiers; Little Potential Surface Water = 0 Mission Creek Not Understood Exists Tahuya Not Not Possible 14 Rural 57 1.1% Minimal Tahuya River Understood. Perched 62 1% Ground Water =642 gpm 3% RH For Perched Aquifers. Little Surface Water = 0 Aquifers Potential Anderson Not Not Possible 8.3 Rural 12 1.1% Minimal Harding Creek Understood. Perched 66 <1% Ground Water = 0 gpm 0% RH for Perched Aquifers. Not Surface Water = 0 Aquifers Understood Olalla Strandley Purdy and Not Not Possible 25.4 Rural 340 3.9% Scrap Metal; Burley Creek Understood. Perched Aquifers. 44 11% Ground Water = 1651 gpm 7% Suburban Olalla RH for Perched Not Surface Water = 0 Landfill Aquifers Understood Not Understood. Land Use RH for North Not Possible Ground Water = 2080 gpm McCormick 33 Rural 120 2.2% Patterns Minter Creek Lake Aquifer and Perched Aquifers. 52 2% Surface Water = 0 5% Minimal Other Perched Low Potential Aquifers DeWatto Not Understood. Not Possible Ground Water = 0 gpm 6.4 Rural 21 1.1% Minimal DeWatto River RH for Perched Perched Aquifers. 66 <1% Surface Water = 0.1 cfs 0% Aquifers Not Understood

*Continuity Abbreviations RH - Relatively High RL - Relatively Low **Relative Development is percent of total inflow (Precipitation minus Evapotranspiration) to the subarea that has already been allocated.