HomeMy WebLinkAbout4503
Vendor
Subject
Department
Status Code
Amount
Begin Date
End Date
Review Date
Insurance
Comments
Contract Number 4503
KIT SAP CO PARKS & RECREATION
Assessments - Environmental - Charleston Beach Rd
Engineering
GOV File Class LEG 12-1
$200000.00
07/31/2005
12/31/2006
02/15/2008
GL $
AL $
E&O $
Insurance Total $
Insurance Review Date
KC-399-05
Vault 01/01/2008
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN KITSAP
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BREMERTON KC-399-05
I. PREAMBLE
This Interlocal Agreement (hereafter "AGREEMENT") is by and between Kitsap County
(hereafter "COUNTY") whose principal offices are located at 614 Division Street, Port
Orchard, WA, 98366 and the City of Bremerton (hereafter "CITY") whose principal
offices are located at 3027 Olympus Drive, Bremerton, W A 98337.
II. RECITALS
Kitsap County has successfully applied and been awarded an environmental
assessment grant of $200,000 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
under the national brownfields economic redevelopment initiative. Kitsap County has
entered a co-operative agreement with the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, (Exhibit A) to perform environmental assessments of properties
located within the Charleston Beach Road segment of the State Route 304
Transportation Improvement Project (PROJECT) as specified in the grant proposal.
The COUNTY does not have adequate staff available to accomplish the work under the
co-operative agreement (Exhibit A). The CITY, in addition to having available
resources, is the lead agency for the assessment, acquisition, and redevelopment of
properties within the PROJECT boundaries. Therefore, the COUNTY has requested
that the CITY complete the project administration, environmental assessment,
community involvement, and cleanup redevelopment planning requirements of the co-
operative agreement and the CITY is committed to providing these requirements.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines Brownfields as real
property where the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated
by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties takes development
pressures off of undeveloped, open.land, and both improves and protects the
environment.
The CITY and COUNTY de~ire to enter into an AGREEMENT for performing the
require"ments of the co-operative agreement. The COUNTY will receive and submit for
reimbursement from the United States Environmental Protection Agency any eligible
costs incurred by the CITY "in performance of work specified in the co-operative
agreement between the COUNTY and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. The Interlocal Cooperation Act, R.C.W.39.34, further authorizes the parties
hereto to enter into this AGREEMENT.
ACCORDINGL Y, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
III. AGREEMENT
1. Purpose
The purpose of this AGREEMENT isto provide a mechanism for the CITY to provide
reimbursable environmental assessment services as specified in the co-operative
between Kitsap County and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
2. Scope of Work
The CITY shall provide the COUNTYwith all environmental assessment, sampling and
analysis, property access, redevelopment planning, and reporting necessary for the
COUNTY to meet the requirements and expectations set forth in the co-operative
agreement between the COUNTY ancLthe United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Services performed under this AGREEMENT include:
. Project Adrninistration
. Site I nvestigatioh
. Remediation Planning
. Community Involvement
. Redevelopment Planning
The scope of work for each of these ta~k,s is set forth in the following documents:
. "Charleston Beqch Road Segment of the State Route 304
Transportationlmprovement Project; Kitsap County Brownfields Target
Site KCB 500; Brownfields Assessment Grant Proposal, Decell!ber3~
2003;" ~.
. Go-operative Agreement
. Kitsap County Work Plan for Brownfield$ Assessment
TheOrr'j(;shallcomplete the requirements of the co-operative agreement and submit
final closeout documentation to the COUNTY by December 31 , 2006.
3. CountVRepresentative
JosephCoppo, Park Planner
Kitsap County
614 Division Street,.. MS-6
Port Orchard, W A 98366-4699
360-337-5355
4. City Representative
Phil Williams, PE
Director of Public Works and Utilities
City of Bremerton
3027 Olympus Drive
Brertlerton,'WA 98310.
360-473-5315
5. Reimbursement
COUNTY shall submit CITY invoices for actual eligible incurred costs to the United
States' Environmental Protection Agency for reimbursement. COUNTY will forward
payment from the United States Protection Agency to the CITY as reimbursement for
services performed under this AGREEMENT. COUNTY shall approve CITY invoices
and submit reimburse requests to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
within 10 days of receipt. Invoices not approved by the COUNTY will be returhed to the
CITY. COUNTY will reimburse CITY within 30 days of receipt of reimbursement from
the United States Environmental Protection Agency. CITY shall submit reimbursement
requests to COUNTY monthly, unless otherwise approved in advance by the COUNTY.
6. Documentation of Costs & Maintenance Records
CITY shall maintain all books, documents, receipts, invoices and records including
payroll records necessary to sufficiently and properly reflect the expenditure of grant
funds. The accounting records must provide for a separate recording and reporting. of all
receipts and expenditures related to this AGREEMENT. Financial records pertaining to
matters authorized by this AGREEMENT are subject to inspection and audit by
representatives of COUNTY or the State Auditor upon request. Financial records shall
be preserved and made available to COUNTY, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, or their agents for a period of six(6) years after the end of this
AGREEMENT or, in the event of an audit, records shall be kept until the audit is
completely resolved.
7. Assionment
CITY shall not assign any portion of the services provided within the terms of this
AGREEMENT without obtaining prior written approval of COUNTY. All terms and ."
conditions of the AGREEMENT shall apply to any approved assignment related to this
AGREEMENT.
8. Nondiscrimination
CITY and COUNTY agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and/or federal laws
and ordinances, and agree that they shall not discriminate in their employment practices
or delivery of services or other activities on the grounds of race, color, religion, national
origin, age, sex, marital status, veteran status, sexual orientation, or the presence of
any sensory, mental or physical handicap. CITY and COUNTY shall ensure thataoy
subcontractor shall fully comply with this paragraph.
9. Compliance with Laws
CITY shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and
regulations applicable to the performance of this AGREEMENT. CITY agrees to comply
with all the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act and all regulations
interpreting or enforcing such act.'
10. Indemnitv
It is understood and agreed that this AGREEMENT is solely for the benefit of the parties
hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as
a result of this AGREEMENT. Each party hereto agrees to be responsible and assumes
liability for its own negligent acts or omissions, or those of its officers, agents, or
employees to the fullest extent required by law, and agrees to save, indemnify, defend,
and hold the other party harmless from any such liability. In the case of negligence of
both COUNTY and CITY, any damages allowed shall be levied in proportion to the
percentage of negligence attributable to each party, and each party shall have the right
to seek contribution from the other party in proportion to the percentage of negligence
attributable to the other party. This indemnification clause shall also apply to any and all
causes of action arising out of the performance of work activities under this
AGREEMENT.
11. Insurance - Workers.Compensation
CITY agrees to comply with all State requirements to Works Compensation Insurance.
12. Amendments to Aoreement
The parties hereby further agree that this AGREEMENT cannot be amended or
modified.withoutthewritten concurrence of both parties.
13. Termination
Either party to this Agreement may elect to terminate this Agreement for any reason by
delivering a thirty (30) day written notice of intent to terminate to the other party. In the
event of such termination, the City shall be compensated for the actual costs incurred
prior to the time of notification of contract termination.
14. Duration of AQreement
This Agreement is in effect from the date of approval through December 31, 2006.
DATED this J)" n. day of J f,f J y
,2005.
BOARDO~FC.. IS..IONERS
KITSA8 ~
,2
E:::::~~
RIS NDRESEN, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
ubovich, City Attorney
E~hibit A.
Cooperative Agreement
: ,.. .,). ]V
_. ~. 'F -17095901 - 0
ASSISTANCE ID NO.
PRG I DOC 10 IAMEND#
SF. 97095901 . 0
TYPE OF ACTION
New
PAYMENT METHOD:
Page 1
oJ
. 'r
,f.D sr"
. ftiS'.
\~
U.s. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE OF AWNi,D
02 SEP ~
rril~12tJ04
ACH#
RECIPIENT TYPE:
County
Send Payment Request to:
EPA Finance Unit, OMP-146
FAX # 206-553-6525
PAYEE:
Kitsap County
614 Division St., MS-36
Port Orchard, WA 96366
RECIPIENT:
Kltsap County
614 Division St., MS-36
Port Orchard, WA 98366
EIN: 91-6001348
PROJECT MANAGER
Eric Baker
614"Divlslon St., MS-36
Port Orchard, WA 98366
E.Mail: ebaker@co.kitsap.wa.us
Phone:(360)337~95
PROJECT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION
Kitsap County BF Assessment 05/06
Brownfields environmental assessment of hazardous contaminants and petroleum on the Charleston Beach Road site.
EPA PROJECT OFFICE t
Susan Morales
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
E-Mail: Morales.Susan@epamail.epa.gov
Phone: 206-553-7299
EPA GRANT SPECIALIST
Bob Phillips
Grants Administration Unit, OMP-145
E-Mail: Phillips.Bob@epa.gov
Phone: 206-553-6367
This award approves the proposed Work Plan and budget, and provides full funding for the approved project and budget periods.
BUDGET PERIOD
11/01/2004 - 10/31/2006
PROJECT PERIOD
11/01/2004 - 10/31/2006
TOTAL BUDGET PERIOD COST
$200,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT PERIOD COST
$200,000.00
NOTE: The Agreement must be "completed In duplicate and the Original returned to the appropriate Grants Management Office listed below,
within 3 calendar weeks after receipt or within any extension of time as may be granted by EPA Receipt of a written refusal or
failure to return the properly executed document within the prescribed time, may result in the withdrawal of the offer by the Agency.
Any change to the Agreement by the Recipient subsequent to the document being signed by the EPA Award Official, which" the
Award Official determines to materially alter the Agreement, shall void the Agreement.
OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE
The United States. acting by and through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), hereby offers
Assistance/Amendment to the Kitsao County for 100.00 % of all approved costs Incurred
up to and not exceeding $200,000 for the support of approved bUdget period effort described In application (including
all application modifications) cited "in the Project Title and Description above, signed 07/20/2004 Included herein
by reference.
ISSUING OFFICE (GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICE) AWARD APPROVAL OFFICE
ORGANIZATION I ADDRESS ORGANIZATION I ADDRESS
EPA Region 1-0 U.S. EPA, Region 10
Mail Code: OMP-145 Office of Environmental Cleanup
1200 Sixth Avenue 1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA98101 SeatUe, WA 98101
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE U~S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TYPED NAME AND TITLE DATE
Daniel D. Opalski, Director - Office of Environmental Cleanup
This agreement Is subject to applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency statutory provisions and assistance regulations. In
accepting this award or amendment and any payments made pursuant thereto, (1) the undersigned represents that he Is duly
authorized to act on behalf of the recipient organization. and (2) the recipient agrees (a) that the award is subject to the applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter B and of the provisions of this agreement (and all attachments), and (b) that
acceptance of any payments constitutes an agreement by the payee that the amounts, if any found by EPA to have been overpaid
will be refunded or credited in full to EPA
BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT ORGANIZATION
TYPED NAME AND TITLE
Malcolm Fleming, Count' Administrator
EP A Funding Information,
SF - 97095901 - 0 Page 2
FUNDS FORMER AWARD THIS ACTION AMENDED TOTAL
EPAAmount This Action $ $ 200,000 $ 200,000
EPA In.Klnd Amount $ $ $ 0
Unexpended Prior Year Balance $ $ $0
Other Federal Funds $ $ $0
Recipient Contribution $ $ $0
State Contribution $ $ $0
Local Contribution $ $ $0
Other Contribution $ $ $0
Allowable Project Cost $0 $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Assistance Program (CFDA)
66.81 B - Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup
Cooperative Agreements
Statutory Authority
CERCLA: Sec. 101(39)
CERCLA: Sec. 104(k)(2)
Regulatory Authority
40 CFR PART 31
Fiscal
Site Name DCN FY Approp. Budaet PRC Object Site/Project Cost Obligation I
Code Organization Class Organization Deobligation
NEG437 04 E4 iON 402D79E 41.14 GOOONYOO 50,000
NEG438 04 E4 10N 402D79ESP 41.14 GOOOOROO 150,000
200,000
, .J
f,i" ~,.~ ~ ..l~ ~~~.Q,-' 4"".% r,
L ~- - i:; ti ,;J A
. ,
'.
,
'.
BF - 97095901 - 0 Page 3
3udget Summary Page
Table A . Object Class Category
(Non-constructlon)
, Total Approved Allowable
Budget Period Cost
$3,750
$0
$475
$0
$2,320
$182,700
$0
$10,755
$200,000
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$0
1. P,ersonneJ
2. Fringe Benefits
3. Travel
4. Equipment
5. Supplies
6. Contractual
7. ConstructIon
8. Other
9. Total Direct 'Charges
10. Indirect Costs: 0;. Base
11. Total (Share: Recipient 0.00.0;. Federal 100.00 %.)
12. Total Approved Assistance Amount
13. Program Income
EP A Cooperative Agreement (KC 459-04)
Brownfields Assessment Grant - Charleston Beach Rd.
" .
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this I:> Nt day of November 2004.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITSAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
~
PAT
BF - 97095901 - 0 Page 4
Administrative Conditions
1. Payment Information
a. Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) systems: There are two EFT payment systems available to
recipients, whereby payments are sent directly to the recipient's financial institution within 3-5 business
days. Recipients may use either EPA's EFT-IFMS system or ASAP, as follows:
Under EPA's EFT-IFMS. your payment request must be made on the EPA Region 10 EFT-Payment
Request Form.
Under the Automated Standard Application for Payment (ASAP), the recipient follows Department of
Treasury ASAP instructions.
To enroll in either system (if not currently enrolled), or if you have questions, please call Linda
Donahue at 206-553-6388 or Jean Alexander (2.06) 553-2114.
b. Treasury check bv mail: Recipients not receiving electronic funds transfer payments will be paid by
Treasury check. Recipients must submit a "Request for Advance or Reimbursement," Standard
Form-270. via FAX to EPA Region 1.0 Finance Unit at FAX # 2.06-553-6525, OR mail to EPA Region 10
Finance Unit, 12.00 Sixth Ave, OMP-146. Seattle. WA 98101. Recipients will normally receive payment
within 30 days of EPA's receipt of a correct SF-270. . .
Under any of the above payment mechanisms, recipients may request/draw down advances for
their immediate cash needs, provided the recipient meets the requirements of 40 CFR 30.22(b) or
40 CFR 31.21 (c), as applicable. Additionally. recipients must liquidate all obligations incurred within 9.0
calendar days of the project period end date. Therefore. recipients must submit the final request for
payment, and refund to EPA any balance of unobligated cash advanced' within 90 calendar days after the
end of the project period. .
2. Cost Principles/Indirect Costs Not Included .(A11 Organizations)
The cost principles of OMS Circular A-21 (Educational Institutions ), A-'87 (State, Local or Indi13n Tribal
Governments), or A-122 (Non-Profit Organizations) are applicable, as appropriate, to this award. Since
there are no indirect costs included in the assistance budget, they are not allowaqle under this Assistance
Agreement. .
3~ Financial Status Reports (FSRs). Yearly
The Financial Status Report (FSR), Standard Form 269,for this award shall be submitted to the Grants
Administration Unit,'OMP-145. within 90 days after the end of the budget period. If the budget period is
longer than one year, or if the agreement is revised to extend the budget period beyond one year. th.e
recipient must submit an annual FSR within 90 days after the end of each anniversary of the agreement.
For agreements with multipl'e budget activities, separate FSRs must be provided for each of the activities,
sites, or budgets. as applicable.
4. Audit Requirements
The recipient agrees to comply with the requirements of OMS Circular A-133, "Audits of States, Local
Governments. and Non-Profit Organizations."
5. Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act
Effective October 1, 1994, the recipient agrees to ensure that all conference, meeting, convention, or
training space funded in whole or in part with Federal funds, complies with the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety
Act of 1990'.
6. Recycled Paper
ALL APPLICANTS: .
In accordance with EPA Order 1000.25 and Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government Through
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, the recipient agrees to use recycled paper for all
reports which are prepared as' a part of this agreement and delivered to EPA. This requirement does not
apply to reports prepared on forms supplied by EPA, or to 9tandard Forms, which are printed On recycled
paper and are available through the General Services Administration. Please note that Section 901 of
E.O. 13101, dated September 14,1998, revoked E.O. 12873, Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste
Prevention in its entirety.
STATE AGENCIES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS:
Any State agency or agency of a political subdivision of a State which is using appropriated Federal funds
shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6962). RegUlations issued under RCRA Section 6002 apply to any acquisition of
an item where the purchase price exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity of such items acquired in the
course of the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or more. RCRA Section 6002 requires that preference be
given in procurement programs to the purchase of specific products containing recycled materials
. identified in guidelines developed by EPA. These guidelines are listed in 40 CFR 247.
STA TE AND LOCAL INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, HOSPITALS, AND NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZA TJONS:
Pursuant to 40 CFR 30.16, State and local institutions of higher education, hospitals, and non-profit .
organizations that receive direct Federal funds shall give preference in their procurement programs
funded with Federal funds to the purchase of recycled products pursuant to EPA's guidelines.
. 7.. Lobbying
ALL RECIPIENTS:
The recipient agrees to comply witl.l Title 40 CFR Part 34, New Restrictions on Lobbying; The recipient
shall include -the language of this provision in award documents for all subawards exceeding $100,000,
and require that subrecipients submit certification and disclosure forms accordingly.
In accordance with the Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment, any recipient who makes a prohibited expenditure
under Title 40 CFR Part 34 or fails to file the required certification or lobbying form~ shall be subject to a
civil penalty of not less than .$10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure.
PART 30 RECIPIENTS:
All contracts awarded by a recipient shall contain. when applicable. the anti-lobbying provision as.
stipulated in the Appendix at Title 40 CFR Part 30.
Pursuant to Section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, the recipient affirms that it is .not a nonprofit
organization described in Section 501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or that it is a nonprofit
organization described in Section 501 (c)(4) of the Code but does not and will not engage in lobbying
activities as defined in Section 3 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
8. Lobbying and Litigation
ALL RECIPIENTS:.
. Pursuant to EPA's annual Appropriations Act, the chief executive officer of this recipient agency shall
require that no grant funds have been used to engage in lobbying of the Federal Government or in
litigation against the United States unless authorized under existing law. As mandated by this Act, the
recipient agrees to provide certification to the award official via EPA Form 5700-53, Lobbying and
Litigation Cerlificate,within 90 days after the end of project period.
Recipient shall abide by its respective OMB Circular (A-21 , A-87, or A-122), which prohibits the use of
federal grant funds for litigation against the United States. Any Part 30 recipient shall abide by its
respective OMB Circular (A:'21 or A-122), which prohipits the use.of Federal grant funds to participate in
various' forms of lobbying or other political activities.
9. Suspension and Debarment
Recipient shall fully comply with Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 32, entitled "Responsibilities of Participants
Regarding Transactions." Recipient is responsible for ensuring that any lower tier covered transaction, as
described in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 32, entitled "Covered Transactions," includes a term or condition
requiring compliance with Subpart C. Recipient is responsible for further requiring the inclusion of a
similar term or condition in any subsequent lower tier covered transactions. Recipient acknowledges that
failing to disclose the information required under 40 CFR 32.335 may result in the delay or negation of this
assistance agreement, or pursuance of legal remedies, including suspension and debarment.
Recipient may access the Excluded Parties List System at htto:/lwww.eols.qov.This term and condition
supersedes EPA Form 5700-49, "Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other
Responsibility Matters."
10. Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Requirements (Non-SRF Recipients)
The recipient agrees to comply with the requirements of EPA's Program for Utilization of Small, Minority
and Women's Business Enterprises in procuremerft under assistance agreements: .
(a) The recip'ient accepts the applicable FY99 Minority Business Enterprise (MBE)/Womens' Business
Enterprise (WBE) "fair share" goals/objectives negotiated with EPA by your organization or the
Washington Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises as follows:
Purchased Goods: 8% MBE
Purchased Services: 10% MBE
Professional Services: 10% MBE
4% WBE
4% WBE
4% WBE
(b) The recipient agrees to ensure, to the fullest extent possible, that at least the applicable "fair share"
objectives of Federal funds for prime contracts or subcontracts for 5u'pplies, construction, equipment or
services are made availl;lble to organizations owned .or controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals, women and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
. ..
(c) . The recipient agrees to include in its bid documents the applicable "fair share" objectives and require
all of its prime contractors to include in their bid documents for subcontracts the negotiated "fair share"
percentages.
(d) The recipient agrees to follow the six affirmative steps or positive efforts stated in 40 CFR 30.44(b), 40
CFR 31.36(e), or 40 CFR 35.6580, as appropriate, and retain records documenting compliance.
(e) The recipient agrees to submit an EPA form 5700-52A, "MBE/WBE Utilization Under Federal Grants,
Cooperative Agreements and Interagency Agreements" as follows:
. For grants .awarded under 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart A (refer to the Regulatory Authority box
shown in the middle .of Page 2 of the Assistance Agreement/Amendment), reports are due
annually by October 30 of each year (covers the Federal Fiscal Year October 1 - September 30).
For Assistance Agreements/Amendments with institutions of higher education, hospitals and other
non-profit organizations awarded under the Regulatory Authority of 40 CFR Pa~ 30, reports are
due annually by October 30 of each year (covers the Federal Fiscal Year October 1 - September
30).
Grants awarded under any other Regulatory Authority are due Quarterly. These reports are
due beginning with the Federal .Fiscal Year quarter the recipient receives the award and
. continuing until the project period ends. These reports must be submitted within 30 days
of the end of the Federal Fiscal Quarter (due dates are January 30, April 30, July 30, and
October 30). .
All reports must be submitted to the Grant!i Administration Unit, OMP"145, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
. Seattle, WA 98101. For further information, please contact Marie McPeak at (206) 553-2894, email:
mcoeak.marie((i2eoa. aov.
(f) If race and/or gender neutral efforts prove inadequate to achieve a "fair share" objective, the recipient
agrees to notify EPA in advance of any race and/or gender conscious action it plans to take to more
closely achieve the "fair share" objective.
. .
EPA may take corrective action under 40 CFR Parts 30, 31, and 35, as appropriate, if the recipient fails to
comply with these term and conditions. .
11. Small Business in Rural Areas (SBRA)
. '\1
',' If a contract is awarded under this assistance agreement, the recipient is also required to utilize the
following affirmative steps:
(a) Place SBRAs on solicitation lists.
(b) Make sure that SBRAs are solicited whenever there are potential sources.
(c) Divide total requirements, when economically feasible, into small tasks or quantities to permit
maximum participation by SBRAs.
(d) Establish delivery schedules, where the requirements of work permit, which would encourage
participation by SBRAs.
(e) Use the. services of the Small Business Administration and the Minority Business Development
Agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, as appropriate.
(f) Require the contractor to comply with the affirmative steps outlined above.
There is no formal reporting requirement for SBRAs at this time; it is recommended that the recipient keep
records of SBRA participation.
12. Payment to Consultants
EPA participation in. the salary rate (excluding overhead and travel) paid to individual consultants retained
by recipients or by a recipient's contractors or subcontractors shall be limited to the maximum daily rate for
Level IV of the Executive Schedule. to be adjusted annually. This limit applies to consultation services of
designated individuals with specialized skills who are paid at a daily or hourly rate. As of January 1, 2004.
the limit is $524.77 per day ($65.59 per hour). This rate does not include overhead or travel costs and the
recipient may pay these in accordance with its normal travel practices.
Subagreements with firms for services which are awarded using the procurement requirements in 40 CFR
Parts 30 or 31. as applicable, are not affected by this limitation unless the terms of the contract provide the
recipient with responsibility for the selection, direction, and control of the individuals who will be providing
services under the contract at an hourly or daily rate of compensation. See 40 CFR 30.27(b) or 40 CFR
31.360)(2), as applicable, for additional information.
NOTE: For future years' limits, the recipient may find the annual salary for Level IV of the Executive
Schedule on the following Internet site: hUp:llwww.opm.gov/oca. Select "Salary and Wages~, and select
"Executive Schedule". The annual salary is divided by 2087 hours to determine the maximum hourly rate,
which is then multiplied by 8 to determine the maximum daily rate.
Proaramrnatic Conditions
The attached Programmatic Conditions are hereby incorporated into this agreement.
END OF ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT BF-97095901-0
"
Programmatic Terms and Conditions for
Brownfields Assessment Cooperative Agreements -2004
I. GENERAL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
. .
NOTE: For the purposes of these Terms and Conditions the term "assessment" includes, eligible
activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) 104(k)(2)(A)(i) such as activities involving the inventory, characterization,
assessment, and planning relating to brownfield sites as described in.the BPA approved scope of
work. "
A. Federal Policy and Guidance
1. a.
"".,
Cooperative Agreement Recipients: In implementing,this agreement, the
cooperative agreement recipien~ (CAR) shall insure that work done with
cooperative agreement funds complies with the requirements of the .
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) 104(k.). The CAR shall also ensure that assessment activities
supported with cooperative agreement fu,nding comply with all applicable Federal
and State laws and regulations.
b.
CERCLA 104(g) requires that recipients comply with the prevailing wage rate
requirements under the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 for construction, repair or'
alteration contracts "fun~ed in whole or in part" with funds provided under this
agreement. If the CAR uses funds awarded under this agreement to contract for
construction, repair or alteration work, it must obtain recent and applicable wage
rates from the U.S. Department of Labor and incorporate them into the'
construction, alteration or repair contract.
c. The recipient agrees to comply with E~ecutive Order 13202 (Feb. 22, 2001, 66
Fed. Reg. 11225) ofFebmary 17,2001'1 entitled "Preservation' of Open
Competition and Government Neutrality Towards Government Contractors' Labor
. Relations on Federal and Fe~era.l1y Funded Construction Proj ects," as amended by
Executive Order 13208 (April 11, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 18717) of April 6, 2001,
entitled "~endment to Executive Order 13202, Preservation of Open
Competition and Government Neutrlllity Towards Govemnient Contractors' Labor
Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects.
d. The recipient must comply with Federal cross-cutting requirements. These
r~quirements include but are not limited to, MBEIWBE requirements found at 40
CFR 31.36( e) or 40 CFR 30.44(b) (see administrative condition, "S~all and
Disadvantage Business Utilization Requirements (Non-SRF Recipient)" for
details); OSHA Worker Health & Safety Standard 29 CFR 1910.120; the Uniform
Relocation Act; Historic Preserv~tion Act; Endangered Species Act; and Permits
required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; Executive Order 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity, and implementing regulations at 41 CFR 60-4;
Contr~ct Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, as amended (40' USC 327-333)
Final RIO BF Assessment T &C 07/28/2004
1
the Anti Kickback ACt (40 USC 276c) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 as implemented by Executive Orders 11914 and 11250.
B. Eligible Brownfields Site Determinations
1.
2.
a.
. The CAR must provide information to the EP A Project Officer about proposed
site-specific work and receive EP A approval to work on the site prior to incurring
any costs under this cooperative agreement, for sites not pre-approved in the
CAR-'s work plan. The information that must be provided includes the basis for
detennining that the site meets the definition ora brownfield as defmedin
9101(39) ofCERCLA or is eligible for a property-specific determination, the
identity of the owner, and the date of acquisition.
b. If the site is excluded from the general definition of a broWnfield, but is
eligible for a property-specific funding determination, then the CAR must
provide information sufficient for EP A to make a property-specific
funding determin~tion. The CAR must pr9vide sufficient information on
how financial assistance will protect human health and the environment,
and either promote economic development or enable the creation of,
preservation of, or addition to parks, greenways, undeveloped property,
other recreational property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
The CAR must'not incur costs for assessing sites requiring a property: .
specific funding determination by EP A until the EP A Proj ect Officer has
advised the GAR that the Agency has determined the site is eligible for
funding.
a.
For any petroleum contaminated brownfield site that is not included in the CAR's
EP A approved work pl.an, the CAR shall provide sufficient documentation to the
EP A prior to. incurring costs under this cooperative agreement which includes:
(1) that a State has determined that the petroleum-only site is of relatively
low risk, as compared to other petroleum-only sites in the State,
(2) that the State detennines there is "no viable responsible party" for the
site;
(3) that the State determines that the person assessing or investigating the
site is a person who is not potentially liable for cleaning up the site; and
(4) that the site if! not subject to any order issued under section 9003(11) of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.
This documentation must be prepared by the CAR or the State following contact
and discussion with the appropriate p.etroleum program official, and provided to .
the EPA Project officer for review. The CAR shall not incur costs until it receives
EP A approval to work on the site.
b. Documentation must include the identity ofthe State program official
contacted,.the State official's telephone nUmber, the date of the contact,
and a summary ofthe discussion relating to the state's determination that
the site is of relatively low risk, that there is no viable responsible party
. and that the person assessing or investigating the site is a person who is
. not potentially liable for cleaning up the site. Other documentation .
'.
Final RIO BF Assessment T &C 07/28/2004
2 .
,.
provided by a State to the recipient relevant to any of the detenninations
by the State must also be provided to the EP A Project Officer.
c. If the State chooses not to make the detenninations described in 2.a.
above, the CAR must contact the EP A Project Officer and provide the
information necessary for EP A to make the requisite determinations:
d. EP A must also make all detenninations on the eligibility of petroleum
contaminated broWnfield sites located on Indian tribil1lands. Prior to
incurring costs for these sites, the CAR must contact the EP A Project
Officer and provid~ the infonnation necessary for EP A to make the _
determinations described in 2.a. above.
n. GENERAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
AD;MINISTRATIVEREQUlREMENTS
A. Term of the Agreement
1. The tenn of this agreement is two years from the date of award, unless otherwise
extended by EP A at the CAR'- s request.
2. - If after 1 Yz years from the date of award, EP A determines that the CAR has not made
sufficient progress in implementing its cooperative agreement, the Agency may tenninate
this a~eement.
3. Assessment funding for any eligible brownfielrl site may not exceed $200,000 unless a
waiver has been received and then it is not to exceed $350,000.
n. Substantial Involvement
1. The U.S. EP A may be substantially involved in overseeing and monitoring this
cooperative agreement.
a. Substantial involvement by the U~S. EP A generally includes
administrative activities such as: monitoring; review ofproject phases_; and
approval of substantive terms in~luded in professional services contracts.
b. Substantial EP A involvement also includes brownfields property-specific
funding determinations descnbed in 1.13.1. ~der Eligible Brownfields Site
Determinations above. If the CAR awards a suhgnint for site assessment,
the CAR may also request technical assistance from EP A on what sites
qualify as a brownfield.site _and determining whether the statutory
prohibition found in section I-04(k)(4)(B)(i)(IV) ofCERCLA applies to
potential sub grant recipients. Generally, this prohibition prohibits a
subgrant recipient from using grant-funds to assess a site if the subgrant
recipient is potentially liable under 9107 of CERCLA for that site.
c. Substantial EP A involvement may include reviewing financial and
Final RIO BF Assessment T &C 07/28/2004
3
environmental status reports; and monitoring all reporting,record-keeping,
and other program requirements.
, d. EP A may waive any ofthe provisions in term and condition n.B.I., at its
own initiative or upon request by the CAR. EP A will provide waivers in
writirig.
. '
2. Effect ofEPA's substantial involvement includes:
a. EPA's review of any project phase, document, or cost incurred. under this
cooperative agreement. EP A's review under the cooperative agreement
does not supercede CERCLA 9 128 Eligible Response Site determinations
,or rights, authorities, and actions under CERCLA or any Federal statute.
b. The CAR remains responsible for ensuring that all assessments are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with all
applicable Federal and State laws.
c. ,The CAR and its subgrantees r~main responsible for incurring costs that
are allowable under the applicable OMB Circulars.
C. Cooperative Agreement Recipient Roles and Responsibilities
1. The CAR must acquire the services of a qualified environmental professional(s) to
coordinate, 'direct, and oversee the brownfields assessment activities at a particular'site, if
they do not have such a professional. on staff.
2. The CAR is responsible for ensuring that contractors and subgrant recipients comply with
the terms of their agreements with the CAR, and that agreements between the CAR and
subgrant recipients and contractors are ,consistent with the terms and con~tions of this
agreement.
3. Subgrants are defined at 40 CFR 31.3. The CAR may not subgrant to for-profit '
organizations. The CAR must obtain conunercial services and products necessary to
carry out this agreement under competitive procurem.ent procedures as described in 40
CPR 31.36. In addition, EP A policy encourages awarding subgrants competitively and
the CAR must consider awarding subgrants through competition.
D. Quarterly Progress Reports
1. The CAR must subIDit progress reports on a quarterly basis (30 days after the end of each
Federal fiscal qu3.rte~) to the BPA Project Officer. The progress reports must document
incremental progress at achieving the 'project goals and milestones. Quarterly progress
reports must include:
a. Documentation of progress at meeting the performance goals and objectives.
b. An update on project milestones, schedule and deliverables, and a discussion of .
any changes made or proposed to the approved work plan budget or schedule.
c. A summmy of the EP A Cooperative Agreement budget status by object class
Final Rl 0 BF Assessment T &C 07/28/2004
4
..
under the following headings: Current Approved Budget; Costs mc~ed this
Quarter; Costs mcurred to Date; and Total Remaining Funds. [Note: This
requirement does not supersede the requirement for submission of annual
Financial Status Reports, as stated in administrative _condition.]
D. If applicable, quarterly reports must specify costs incurred at petroleum
contaminated brownfields sites. .
E. When funding for both hazardous contamination and petroleum contamination has
been awarded in the CAG; ,the recipient must specify and account for hazardous
and petroleum costs separately.
f. Recipient quarterly reports must clearly identify which activities performed during
'the reporting period were lindertaken with EP A funds, and must relate EP A-
funded activities to the objectives and milestones agreed upon in the work plan
including a list of sites where assessment activities were completed.
2. The CAR inust maintain records that will enable it to report to EP A on the amount of
- funds expended on specific sites under this grant.
3. The CAR must mairitain records that will enable it to report to 1?P A on the amount of
funds expended by the CAR at petroleum sites identified in the EP A approved scope of '
work.
4. The CAR must complete Property Profile Forms. (OMB NO.: 2050-0192) provided by
EP A. An initial form must be provided when site-specific work starts, and updated forms _
should be completed and provided to EP A ,when new information is available and With
the final repoi1'submitt~ after the pi:o)ec~ period ends.
E. ,Final Performance Report
L 'm addition to the periodic performance reports, the, recipient. shall submit a final
performance. report, which is due 90 calenc;lar days after the expiration or termination of
the award. The report shall be submitted to the EP A Project Officer and may be provided
.electronically. The report shall generally contain. the same information as in the periodic
reports, but should' cover ~e entire project period. After completion of the project, the
EPA Project Officer may waive the requirement for a fmal performance report if the EPA
Project Officer deems such a report is inappropriate or unnecessary. '
HI. _ FINANCIAL ADMINlSTRATION REQUIREMENTS
A. Eligible Uses of the Funds for the Cooperative Agreement Recipient
1. To the extent allowable under the scope of work, cooperative agreement funds may be
used for eligible programmatic expenSes to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct
planning and outreach. Eligible programmatic expenses include activities described in
Section N of these Tenus and Conditions. m addition, such eligible programmatic
expenses may include:
.'
a. Detennining whether assessment activities at a particular site are authorized by
Final RIO BF Assessmen1 T &C, 07/28/2004
5
. ,
CERCLA 104(k);
, '
b. Ensuring that an assessment complies with applicable requirements under Federal
and Statel~ws, as required by CERCLA 104(k); ,
c. Purchasing environmental insurance if the purchase of such insurance is necessary
to. carry out assessment activities; ,
d. Any other eligible progra:n.nnatic costs including costs incurred by the recipient in
reporting to EP A:, procuring and managing contracts; awarding and managing
sub grants; and carrying out outreach pertaining to the assessment activities..
e. The funds may not be mixed between the two categories. The funds must be used
on activities for their respective type of contamination and must not be used for
activities where the other type of contamination is the predominant concern.
, '
B. Ineligible Uses of the Funds for 'the Cooperative Agreem~nt Recipient
1. Cooperative agreement funds shall not be used by the CAR for any of the following
activities:
a. Site-specific cleanup (remedial) activities, other than cleanup planning approved
by EP A in the work plan;
. '
h. Development actiVities that are not brownfields assessment activities (e.g.,
Construction of a ?Jew facility); ,
c. Job training unrelated to performing a specific assessment at a site'covered by the
grant;
d. To pay for a penalty or fine;
e. To pay a federal cost share requirement (for example, a cost-share reqUired by
, ' another Federal grant) unless there'is specific statutory autho~ty;
f. T~ pay for a response cost at a brownfields site, for w:hich the recipient of the grant
or sub grant is potentially liable under CERCLA ~107; ,
g. To pay a cost of compliance with any federal law, excluding the cost of
compliance with laws applicable to the assessment;' and
h. Unallowable costs (e.g., lo~bying and fund raismg) Ul?-der applicable OMB '
Circulars., . " ,
2. Under CERCLA l04(k)(4)(B), administrative costs are prohibited costs under this'
agreemerit. I.>rolrlbited administrative costs include all indirect costs under applicable
OMB Circulars.
Final RIO BF Assessment T &C 07/28/2004
6
a. Ineligible administrative costs include costs incurred in the form of
salaries, benefits, contractual costs, supplies, and data processing charges,
incurred to comply.with most provisions of the Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants contained in 40 CFR Part 31. Direct costs for
. grant administration, with the exception of costs specifically identified as .
eligible programmatic costs, are.ineligible even if the grant recipient is
required t~ carry out the activity under the grant agreement.
. .
b. Ineligible grant administration costs include:
(1) Preparation of applications for Brownfield.s grants;
(2). Record retention requited under.40 CFR 31.42;
.. (3) Record-keeping associlited with supplies and equipment purchases required
under 40 CFR 31.32 and 31:33;
(4) Preparing revisions and changes in the budgets, scopes of work, program
plans and other activities required under 40 CFR 31.30;
'(5) Maintaining and operating financial management systems requiTed under 40
CFR 31~
(6) Preparing paYment requests and handling payments under 40 CFR 3 L2i;
(7) Non-federal audits required under 40 CFR 31.26 and OMB Circular A-133;
and
(8) Close. out under 40 CFR 31.50.
3. Cooperative agreement funds may not be used for any of the following properties:
a. Facilities listed, or proposed for listing, on the NationaJ Priorities List (NPL);
b. Facilities subject to unilateral administrative orders, court orders, adn,tinistrative
orders on cOnSen(or judicial consent decree issued to or entered by parties under
CERCLA; . .
c. . . Facilities that are subject to the jurisdiction, custody or control of the United
States government except for land held in trust by the United States governinent
for an Indian tribe; or
d. A site excluded from the definition of a brownfields site for which EP A
has not made a property-specific funding detennination.
C. Interest -~earing Accounts and Program Income
1. In accordance with 40 CFR 31.25(g)(2), the CAR is authorized to add program income to .
Final RIO BF Assessment T &C 07/28/2004
7
-.
the funds awarded by the EP A and use the program income under the same terms and .
conditions of this agreement. Program income for the assessment CAR shall be defined . .
as the. gross income received by the recipient, directly generated by theoooperative
agreement award or earned during the period of the award. Program income includes, but
is not limited to, fees charged for conducting assessment, site characterizations, clean up
pbinning or other activities when the costs for the activity is charged to this agreement.
2. The CAR must deposit advances of grant funds and program income (e.g., fees) in an
interest bearing account.
a. futerest earned on advances, CARE are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
g31.2l(i) to remitting interest on advances to EP A on a quarterly basis.
b. futerest earned on program income is considered additional program
income.
.~. ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Quality Assurance (QA) Requirements
1. Acceptable Quality Assurance documentation must be submitted to the EP A Project
Officer within 30 days of the acceptance of this agreement or another date as negotiated
with the EP A Project Officer. No work involving direct measurements or data
generation, enviromneptal modeling, compilation of data from literature or electronic
media, and data supporting the design, construction, and operation of environmental
technology.shall be initiated under this project until the EPA Project Officer, in concert
with the EP A Quality Assurance Manager, has approved the quality assurance docliment.
(For more infonnation contact your EP A Project Officer or see 40 CFR 30.54 or 31.45, as
appropriate.) ,
B. Completion of Assessment Activities
-
2. The CAR shall properly document the completion of all act~vities described in the EP A
approved scope of work. For site-specific work this shall include a final report or letter
. ~om .a qualified environmental professional, or other documentation provided by a State
or Tribe that shows assessments are complete.
...
C. All Appropriatelnquiry
1. As required by CERCLA gl04(k)(2)(B)(ii) ane! CERCLA glOl(35)(B).. th~ CAR shall
ensure that a "Phase f'site ch<!l"acterization aild assessment carried out under this
agreement will be performed in accordarice with American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) standard E1527-00, "Standard Pt:actices for Environmental Sit~
Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, "until EP A promulgates
final federal standards governiIig the.conduct of "all approprIate inquiry." After BPA
promulgates final regulations governing the conduct of all appropriate inquiry, Phase I
site characterizations and assessinents will have to be conducted ill compliance with the
Final Rio BF Assessment 1:' &C 07/28/2004
8
final regulations. This does not preclude the use of grant funds for additional site
characterization ,and assessment activities that may be necessary to characterize the
enVironmental impacts at the site or'to comply with appliqable State standards.
Final RIO BF Assessment T&C 07/28/2004
9
WORK PLAN
FOR
KITSAP COUNTY BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT GRANT
CHARLESTON BEACH ROAD SITE
August 11, 2004
Submitted by
Kitsap County
Department of Community Development
Eric Baker, Project Manager
(360) 337-4495
FAX (360) 337-4925
ebaker@co.kitsap.wa.us
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
1.0 Introduction 3
2.0 Project Description 3-4
3.0 Quality Assurance Requirements 4
4.0 Schedule 4
5.0 Budget 4-7
6.0 Reporting 7
6.1 Quarterly Reports 7
6.2 Other Deljverables and Measures of Success 7-8
Appendix A
Project Schedule
Kitsap County Brownfields Assessment Grant
Charleston Beach Road Site
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Work Plan will detail Kitsap County's proposed actions for the environmental assessment
of the Charleston Beach Road site using EPA Brownfields funding. The Work Plan will include a
proposed schedule and budget for the assessment of petroleum contamination and hazardous
substances on site.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Brownfields Assessment of the Charleston Beach Road site is a large part of the
redevelopment of Navy Yard City, a community just outside of the City of Bremerton. This site
currently consists of numerous properties occupied by dilapidated commercial and industrial
uses. The real and perceived environmental contamination associated with these historic uses
have been a significant impediment to redevelopment.
The site consists of 26 individual properties on the east and west sides of Charleston Beach
Road located directly across from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard's Missouri Gate. These
properties were selected in the original Brownfields Assessment for Kitsap County and have
preliminary environmental assessments completed. It is estimated that the contamination on
these properties primarily consists of petroleum, polynuclear aromatic compounds, solvents and
metals from uncontrolled spills and leakages from the historic commercial and industrial uses.
The environmental assessment would identify the nature and extent of the contamination,
quantify impacts to human health, evaluate cleanup options and propose a Cleanup Action Plan
to prevent future risks to the environment.
Site assessments will be conducted in a manner consistent with an approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP). This plan to be developed at the beginning of the project will establish
assessment and measurement techniques and contaminant reporting methods for the project.
The County will ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act and National Historic
Preservation Act through a comprehensive permitting and assessment process. Project staff
will coordinate NHPA issues with the Suquamish Tribe (a project partner), and the Washington
Office of Archaeological and Historic Preservation (OAHP).
The County will reengage the Brownfields Task Force formed during the original assessment.
The membership of this Task Force includes private property owners, the City of Bremerton,
United States Navy, state and local regulators and may be broadened to provide more
representation for the property owners in the Charleston Beach area. The County will publicize
and hold Task Force meetings to discuss the goals, methods and results of the assessment
project. Drafts of project documents will be made available to the public for review and
comment. Public comment will be used to refine the documents before they are finalized.
Additional meetings with key stakeholders such as the Navy and City of Bremerton will be held
to further the overall goals of the project.
As members of this Task Force from the beginning of the original assessment, the Department
of Ecology and Kitsap County Health District have participated in the selection of sites, review of
environmental analyses and design of future remedial actions. Both agencies will have an active
role in reviewing and commenting of the measurement of reporting of potential environmental
contaminants.
The Brownfields Assessment will promote future environmental cleanup of these sites and, in
conjunction with Washington State Department of Transportation Gateway transportation
project, provide viable commercial and industrial property on a major state highway and in close
proximity to Puget Sound Naval Shipyard operations.
The Project's goals are to:
. Identify potential soil and groundwater contaminants associated with the subject
properties;
. Prepare a preliminary cleanup plan for use by public and private parties in future
development projects;
. Begin the process of removing underutilized industrial/commercial properties and
replacing them with new development capable of supporting the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard and its future needs; and
. Produce a redevelopment plan that folds the subject properties into a greater concept for
the Bremerton area;
3.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Kitsap County will develop Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1 for the Charleston Beach
Road site. The QAPP for this project will define quality requirements for sampling and data
collection, analytical methods, and data evaluation. The existing QAPP was prepared as part of
the Kitsap County Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot Project to define quality
requirements for sampling and data collection, analytical methods, and data evaluation. The
existing QAPP was prepared in accordance with EPA's QA-R5 guidance document and includes
methods and quality measures for collecting soil and groundwater samples at sites that include
the Charleston Beach Road site. As remedial design activities proceed, the County will identify
supplemental characterization and confirmation sampling requirements for the remedial actions
at these sites.
4.0 SCHEDULE
Appendix A contains the full schedules for the completion of this assessment project.
5.0 BUDGET
Clean up activities have been divided into five tasks: Project Administration, Site Investigation,
Remediation Planning, Community Involvement and Redevelopment Planning. The following
tables present the task activities and the associated budgets for each specific task.
1 Quality Assurance Project Plan, Kitsap County Brownfields Demonstration Pilot Project - Phase II Site Assessments-
Gorst, Washington. Prepared for Kitsap County by Parametrix. August 2002.
Kitsap County Brownfields Assessment Grant
Charleston Beach Road Site
4
Personnel
Planner: $1,250 $1 ,000 $500 $500 $500 $750 $3,000
100 hrs. @ $37 per
hr.
SUB-TOTAL
Travel
Mileage: $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $75 $25 $50
200 Miles at $.375
per mile
Lodging: $0 $0 $300 $0 $0 $30C, $10C, $200
Brownfields 2004
2 Nights @ $150
per night
Miscellaneous $0 $0 $50 $0 $50 $100 $33 $67
Travel: Parking, Per
Diem, etc.
SUB-TOTAL
Supplies
Telecommunications $0 $100 $0 $0 $20 $12 $40 $80
Minutes, Phone
Cards, Ete
Digital Camera $0 $250 $0 $0 $0 $250 $83 $167
Document $0 $100 $250 $100 $500 $950 $317 $633
Production
Presentation $0 $0 $200 $500 $200 $900 $300 $600
Materials
SUB-TOTAL $0 $450 $450 $600 $720 $2,220 $740 $1,480
Sub-Contractors
Project $10,000 $0 $2,200 $0 $5,000 $17,200' $4,733 $12,467
Management
QAPP/Final Report $0 $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $12,500 $3,002 $9,498
Miscellaneous $0 $100 $0 $0 $0 $100 $33 $67
Sampling Supplies
Well Installation $0 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $8,000 $22,000
Laboratory $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $9,333 $30,667
Site Planningl $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $9,333 $30,667
Design
Kitsap County Brownfields Assessment Grant
Charleston Beach Road Site
5
Environmental $0 $3,000 $5,000 $0 $25,000 $33,001 $9,000 $24,000
Review
Public Meeting $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $2,333 $7,667
Facilitation
SUBTOTAL $10,000 $95,600 $17,200 $10,000 $50,000 $182,800 $45,767 $137,033
Equipment
GEOPROBE $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $2,333 $7,667
Rental by County
PIO $0 $755 $0 $0 $0 $755 $252 $503
Rental by County
SUB-TOTAL $0 $10,755 $0 $0 $0 $10,755 $2,585 $8,170
Task 1 - Project Administration
Labor includes county staff time, specifically Mr. Eric Saker (Brownfields Coordinator) to prepare
written reports of work, negotiate contractor and subcontractor agreements, manage grant
funds, and communicate the progress of work to EPA and County Commissioners. The labor
includes all fringe benefits. Minor travel, equipment and supplies are expected. No indirect
costs are anticipated and are not included in the budget. The County will contract a portion of
this task to a professional services firm to assist with project administration and reporting.
Task 2 - Site Investigation
This entire activity will be contracted to a professional services firm. The County will retain a
firm to develop QAPP and HSP for the site and conduct intrusive environmental site
investigations including soil and groundwater sampling. The firm will also compile and report all
data regarding the findings on the site to the Kitsap County Health District and Washington
State Department of Ecology. Limited travel may be necessary in evaluating similar projects for
innovative remediation strategies.
Task 3 - Remediation Planning
The activity will be predominantly conducted by a professional services firm. The firm will
compile all assessment results and prepare a preliminary cleanup plan for hazardous materials
and petroleum. The firm will finalize this product through negotiations with the Washington State
Department of Ecology. This cleanup plan will establish parameters for the future remediation of
the site consistent with the nature of the environmental contamination.
Task 4 - Community Involvement
This activity will be predominantly conducted by a professional services firm. This firm will
prepare fact sheets and conduct community outreach activities, which will include re-
establishing the Srownfields Stakeholders Task Force and developing a site-specific Community
Kitsap County BrownfieJds Assessment Grant
Charleston Beach Road Site
6
Relations Plan. The County will publish public notices for Task Force meetings and will, during
the meetings provide the opportunity for written and verbal comment on project activities.
Additional comments will be received for up to 15 days following each Task Force meeting.
Public comments will be considered and incorporated into project activities as appropriate. Task
Force meetings are identified in the project schedule (Attachment A). Project draft documents
will be released for a minimum of 30 days for public review and comment. The County will use
these comments to refine and finalize the documents.
Task 5 - Redevelopment Planning
This activity will be predominantly overseen by a professional services firm. The firm will
evaluate potential land use/redevelopment options of the site and prepare a redevelopment plan
including possibilities for future funding sources.
6.0 REPORTING
Kitsap County will provide all required to reports to EPA Region 10 in a timely manner.
6.1 OUARTERL Y REPORTS
Kitsap County will provide eight quarterly progress reports to the EPA no later than 30 days after
the end of each quarter.
6.2 OTHER DELlVERABLES AND MEASURES OF SUCCESS
The County expects to complete the following tasks and submit the following reports as part of
this project:
Project Administration
. Prepare and submit Ouarterly Reports to EPA (03 04 - 04 05)
. Prepare and update Property Profile Forms (04 04)
. Request for Proposal for Contracted Services (03 04)
. Financial Status Reports (03 04 -04 05)
. Project Close-Out Report (04 05)
. Effective and efficient project coordination (03 04 - 0405)
Site Assessment
. Amended OAPP and HSP describing techniques for testing and assessment (7/04)
. Consultation with state and federal agencies in regards to environmental regulations
(03 04 -02 05)
. Conduct intrusive environmental site investigations and provide report on findings
(0304 - 01 05)
. Prepare and submit preliminary cleanup plan (02 05 - 03 05)
Kitsap County Brownfields Assessment Grant
Charleston Beach Road Site
7
Community Involvement
. Site-specific Community Relations Plan (Q3 04)
. Submit relevant documents and analyses into the Administrative Record/Information
Repositories to ensure availability to the general public (Q3 04 - Q4 05)
. Notice of availability of draft analysis of Brownfields Cleanup alternatives for a minimum
of 30-day review and comment period (Q3 05)
. Designate spokesperson and establish administrative record and information
clearinghouse convenient to the project site (Q3 04)
. Reengage Brownfields Task Force and conduct six public task force meetings
(Q3 04 - Q4 05)
. Notice of availability of draft assessment for a minimum 30-day comment period (Q2 05)
. Document significant comments and the County's responses to them-(Q3 04 - Q4 05)
. Produce up to four project fact sheets (Q3 04 - Q4 05)
Redevelopment
. Develop report of future land use redevelopment options for the site (Q4 05)
. Prepare plan for acquiring future public and private funding for the redevelopment
(Q4 05)
. Engage prospective investors in redevelopment of the Charleston Beach area
(Q2 05 - Q4 05)
Kitsap County Brownfields Assessment Grant
Charleston Beach Road Site
8
FINAL BROWNFIELD ASSESSMENT GRANT PROPOSAL
CHARLESTON BEACH ROAD SITE
KIT SAP COUNTY, WASHINGTON
B. APPLICANT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: Charleston Beach Road Segment of the State Route 304 Transportation
Improvement Project; Kitsap County Brownfields Target Site KCB500. Refer to Attachment A for
map and site selection information.
2. Grant Type: Kitsap County is applying for an assessment grant. The application is requesting
$150,000 to assess petroleum contamination and $50,000 to assess petroleum commingled with
hazardous substances.
3. Total Dollar Amount Requested for this Grant: $200,000
4. Applicant: Kitsap County Department of Community Development, Kitsap County, Washington
5. . Project Contact: Eric Baker, Senior Planner
Kitsap County Department of Community Development
614 Division Street, MS-36, Port Orchard, WA, 98366-4682
Phone: (360) 337-7181
Fax: (360) 337-4925
ebaker@co.kitsap.wa.us
6, Chief Executive: Jan Angel, Kitsap County Commissioner
614 Division Street MS-4, Port Orchard, WA 98366
Phone: (360) 337-7146
Fax: (360) 337-4632
ianqel@co.kitsap,wa.us
7. Location: Navy Yard City, Kitsap County, WA
8. Population:a Kitsap County, WA :231,969; Navy Yard City: 2,685
9. Special Consideration: Navy Yard City is defined as Census Tract "53035081000, which is
qualified as a HUBZone (Historically Underutilized Business Zone) under 13 CFR PART 126.103)
and as defined by the Small Business Administration.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT GRANTS
A. Applicant Eligibility
1. Kitsap County is a general purpose unit of local government, as defined in 40CFR31.
B. Community Notification
Kitsap County conducted a public meeting on November 19, 2003 to present draf~ proposals and solicit
comments from the public and the project Task Force.
1. Kitsap County implemented the following steps to notify the community of the preparation and
submission of this grant proposal and to solicit public comment on specific elements of the
proposal:
a Source: State of Washington Office of Financial Management 2003 Estimates Used for Allocation of
Selected State Revenues, available online at ttp://www,ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1 /finalapril12003popofcities.pdf
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 1 of 15
. Press release/fact sheet (see Attachment B) sent to regional daily journals that service Kitsap
County including The Sun newspaper and the Porl Orchard Independent (Kitsap Newspaper
Group);
. Fact sheet mailed to 200 individuals representing the community, local government, and
interest groups;
. Meeting notification sent to BKA T (Bremerton public access television);
. Fact sheet and meeting notification posted to Kitsap County Website; and
. Kitsap County Brownfields Task Force member notified of meeting via e-mail two weeks prior
to meeting date.
C. Letter from the State or Tribal Authority
A letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology acknowledging Kitsap County's plan to conduct
assessment activities and apply for federal funds is provided in Attachment C.
D. Site Eligibility and Property Ownership Eligibility
1. No waiver of the $200,000 per site funding limit is being requested.
2. Parcel names, addresses, operational history, environmental concerns, and current site use and
activity for the 16 tax parcels comprising the Charleston Beach Road Target Site are listed in Table
1.
3. A property-specific determination is not necessary for the sites listed in Table 1.
4. Current Owners are listed in Table 1. The ownership history is highly variable, and available
records are incomplete. Kitsap County completed a Phase I environmental site assessment in
2002b that identified significant site historical uses as listed in Table 1.
5. Sites became contaminated through the uncontrolled spills, leaks, and discharges from former
automotive maintenance, fuel storage, and industrial equipment storage and maintenance
operations. Contaminated soil and groundwater are known to exist within the project boundariesb,
The principal contaminants are known to be petroleum consisting of gasoline, diesel, and motor-oil
range constituents. The Phase I environmental site assessment also identified several historical
source areas that could contribute hazardous substances such as metals, polynuclear aromatic
compounds, and solvents to soil and groundwater. .
6. Kitsap County is aware of no environmental enforcement actions at the Charleston Beach Road
site.
7.
a.
Kitsap County is the jurisdictional authority for the site. It has no direct relationship with
current property owners.
b Charleston Beach Road Brownfields Target Site Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared for
Kitsap County Deparlment of Community Development by Parametrix, March 2003
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 2 of 15
b. The current owners will provide historical information to support assessment actions.
c. Access to the sites will be secured using Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) right of eminent domain. Attachment D includes a letter with WSDOT's
commitment to the project. The City of Bremerton is the lead agency for the SR304 project
and has previously secured access for the Phase I environmental site assessment.
8. Kitsap County does not own any of the parcels within the Charleston Beach Road site.
Petroleum Sites
9. The state determination of site eligibility regarding petroleum contamination is provided in
Attachment E. The eligibility is based on the following information submitted to Kitsap County:
a. Current Owner: Current owners are listed in Table 1.
b. Property History: Properties were created in the 1920s through 1970s as the US Navy,
State of Washington, and private entities filled along the Bremerton shoreline. The area
has been a mixed use of commercial, industrial, manufacturing, fuel storage, and
residential since the 1920s. A summary of known historical land use is presented in Table
1.
c. Petroleum Contamination History: Sites became contaminated through the uncontrolled
spills, leaks, and discharges from automotive maintenance, fuel storage, and industrial
equipment storage and maintenance. Releases are thought to have occurred between the
1930's and present. The complexity of site history does not allow for a clear definition of
parties that may be responsible.
d. Other Party Information: Kitsap County has no information regarding whether any
additional parties can be identified that will be subjugated to either cleanup judgments
rendered in court or filed enforcement actions.
e. Other Party Leqal Obliqation: Kitsap County has no information regarding whether any
additional parties can be identified that will have adequate financial resources for legal
obligations.
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charlestoll Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 3 of 15
Table 1. Information for Parcels Comprising the Charleston Beach Road Target Site (continued)
Pidduck, i j 1229 I Peninsula Past bulk fuel storage; possible
j 3-08367 j Thomas G. & I 3290 NE.~rrowhead I Charleston I Fuels stora e releas~s of petroleum and Open space Phase 1
. Karen i Dnve i Beach i facilit g waste 011 (metals, solven.ts) to and Storage completed
! I j Road i Y groundwater and SOil
.............mrm . . ..... .mmrm ... ..mm~.m ...mjmm1231 . m,' .,'m' mmm'" ..._mom mm.m',' ...m..m...mm
j 3-08368! Reinbold, I .1 Charleston Former
I Margaret M. i ! Beach garage
1m . mmmlmm 1 Road
i Wright, Douglas I 1230
3-08369 I & Janet, and I 11012 Canyon Rd. E., Charleston
I Gooch, Del and I Ste. 3, Puyallup, WA Beach
tm ... . mSc:lllmmJ .m. Road.!..m
I 3-08370
Mobley, Ronald
& Susan
P.O. Box 3010,
Bremerton
1234 State
Hwy 304
3-08371
im3629 MCCali sivd:;
Bremerton, WA 98312
3629..'McCali'E3ivd:;mmmm.m
."... Br~rn~~gQ!.YY.A~?~J?.
i 3629 McCall Blvd.,
i~E~rne rto n ,YY.A~~~J?
I 3629 McCall Blvd.,
Bremerton, WA 98312
................................................
13-08372 I Jones,C.Jack
I.m...m... .....m...Jm~H.9~~lm
I 3-08373 \ Jones, J.C.
I i (Berg)
[m~~~,~.~;~..,..j......, .~~;~'~;~~. .',..,.
I i Berg
! 3-08375 \ Enterprises &
i..,.............m.........m.m'.l..".,.. ...m..J? rq'!J n ..m.......m.m....'..,.,.....,.,.".....m'....mmm... ..........i
i 3-08376 I Ber Moll I 3629 McCall Blvd., .
j 3-0~}77 ';m ....' .,m~1 .....,..,...~..,... .J~r~rn~~qQ.!YY.A~~~J?
I 3-08378 \.m~rown, Esth~~.;~~:.~~~q~~I~~V~8312
No street
address
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
Print shop
Fuel storage,
solid waste
maintenance
facility
L. Hobby shop,
Pro Rental
Former solid
I waste transfer
, station
parking
Potential impacts from adjacent
properties .
Potential releases of paint and
printing solvents to ground
Pasibulk fuelsiorage; possIble
releases of petroleum and
waste oil
(metals, solvents) to
groundwater and soil
Potential impacts from adjacent
_.m.PE9perties
Potential releases of metals
and organic contaminants to
soil and groundwater
House
Canyon
Auto Paint
Supply
Pro Rentals'
Storage
Pro Rentals
Junk car
storage
No action
to date
No action
to date
No action
to date
action
to date
No action
to date
December 2003
Page 5 of 15
Parcel
10
3-08353
3-08354
3-08355
3-08356
3-08357
3-08360
3-08361
3-08362
3-08363
3-08364
3-08365
3-08366
Table 1. Information for Parcels Comprising the Charleston Beach Road Target Site
Property
Owner
City of
Bremerton
City of
Bremerton
City of
Bremerton
City of
Bremerton
Berg, Molly
Pidduck,
Thomas G. &
Karen J.
Morey, Richard
L. & Jacqueline
J.
Owner Address
3027 Olympus Dr.
Bremerton, WA 98310
3027 Olympus Dr.
Bremerton, WA 98310
3027 Olympus Dr.
Bremerton, WA 98310
3027 Olympus Dr.
Bremerton, WA 98310
Olympus Drive
Bremerton,WA 98310
3629 McCall Blvd.,
Bremerton, W A 98312
..........................".................................................................",........
3290 N.E. Arrowhead
Drive. Bremerton, WA
98312
3899 Chico Way NW
Bremerton, WA 98312
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
Site Operational
Location History
1127
Charleston
Beach Rd.
Former auto
repair shop
1131
Charleston Gas station
Beach Rd .".....1."
1127 .
Charleston
Be.ach Rd
1116
Charleston
Beach Rd.
Environmental Concerns
Potential releases from waste
handling and underground
tanks; petroleum, metals, and
VOl9ti1e Or..g9~.i.~~..".......".."..".
Potential spilled gasoline/auto
fluids from septic tank
j"Confirmed LUST (4"removed,
Gas station \ in-place)
'''r"Confirm'ed grolJ'ndwater and'so'il
Gas station I impacts from LUST (benzene
"l?~"(t,,~~leullJt....,,..mm..m..m ...
T a~i fompany . \ Leak from hydraulic lift tank,
! ~ha~n enance I spilled auto fluids
,................P...
. j Potential releases of metals and
F m to' organic contaminants to soil and
or er au I
repair shop i groundwater
1118 State
Hwy.3
1145
Charleston
Beach Rd.
1205
Charleston
Beach Rd.
1215
Charleston
Beach Rd.
r"TreiisureMtn.
Gold Co.
stor~g~i9.rd
Peninsula
Fuels storage
facility
Potential releasesmofme'tals and
organic contaminants to soil and
gr.9undwa~~r..m.mmmm
Past bulk fuel storage; possible
releases of petroleum and
waste oil (metals, solvents) to
groundwater and soil
Current
Site Use
Status
Phase 1
Vacant lot completed
Phase 1
Vacant lot completed
i Phase 1
Vacant lot i I t d
........m....m.. ....L.~.~mp em:mm
Vacant gas I On-goi~g
station i rem.edlal
.......+......9~tlon s.
Vacant I Phase 1
commercial i completed
~............ ....n......
Vacant Phase 1
commercial completed
Phase 1
Storage completed
5-bay auto Phase 1
repair shop completed
December 2003
Page 4 of 15
RANKING CRITERIA
A. Assessment Grant Proposal Budget
Assessment activities have been divided into five tasks:
. Project Administration;
. Site Investigation;
. Remediation Planning;
. Community Involvement; and
. Redevelopment Planning.
The estimated scope and budget for the Charleston Beach Road site assessment is presented separately
for activities associated with hazardous substances and petroleum contaminants. It is anticipated that
approximately $50,000 will be required for investigation of hazardous substances and $150,000 for
,petroleum contamination.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize scope elements and present budgets for assessment activities.
Table 2. Assessment Scope and Budget - Charleston Beach Road Hazardous Substances
Task Description Labore Travel Equip Sub. Total
contractorsd
Project Administration: project
management, monthly/quarterly
reporting, schedule and budget
maintenance, subcontract management,
project close-out, and stakeholder
coordination
....---2.-...-.........SiteTnve.stlgiitiorl":-...pre"f)-are...~i..QAPp.-.---....-..-..$.{OOo..-.-..-$26o-.-.-.._.-$'0'--'-"-"'" $'30;000-'-'----$3 {-2-S0-'"
and HSP; conduct intrusive site (engineering
investigations, soil and groundwater consultant)
sampling, and analysis, data
__.......__._._...._._..._~~Q~g.~!Il~r.!!!._?~cf...E~P_Q!:!i.~_H_._.____..._._..._.__._._._..._...._._....__.........-..-.--.........-.-.........-..-..---....-....-....-...-.-..........-.-.......----...-........-....-.-.-......-.-.-
3 Remediation Planning: prepare $500 $0 $425 $4,500 $5,375
preliminary cleanup plan; and negotiate (GIS) (engineering
with Department of Ecology consultant)
4-Comm-iJn"Hy-invoive'ment":prepare"f"acf"-"--$5-00--'---$100---...-$6-...--...-$-3;200-.-.....---..$.;3";800-..-...
sheets and quarterly newsletters; revise (public
existing community involvement plan; involvement
conduct community involvement consultant)
._._......_._._...._._.~~~!i..Qg~_;....~Qg~g~...~!~.~~_b.9.1~~!~_........._.....__..........._......_____.___...___._.._......__._.._.._._..........___...__................_______..__.......u..__..._..._......_..._..........
5 Redevelopment Planning: evaluate $500 $325 $0 $4,500
potential land-use! redevelopment (developer!
options; prepare a redevelopment plan; landuse
seek additional funding planner)
...... . ........._...M...."..._.............................................. ....................................._ ......."......................._........._M.. ...............___....... ...... ......_........................................ ....__._..H..._...._M....._.H._..._............__.
TOTAL $3,750 $625 $425 $45,200
$1,250
$0
$0
$3,000
(program
management
consultant)
$4,250
$5,325
$50,000
c Labor budget is for County staff only.
d Subcontractors are competitively procured professional services and construction companies that will
provide design, construction, and technical assistance.
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 6 of 15
Table 3. Assessment Scope and Budget - Charleston Beach Road Petroleum Contaminants
Task
Description
Total
Labore Travel Equip Sub-
contractorsf
Project Administration: project
management, monthly/quarterly
reporting, schedule and budget
maintenance, subcontract
management, project close-out,
and stakeholder coordination
.....M......................... ................._........ ............"........................................ .......................................
2 Site Investigation: prepare a
QAPP and HSP; conduct intrusive
site investigations, soil and
groundwater sampling, analysis
.gc:l.!9.~_?Q.~g~~~.Q!,9..~9E~pg~i!)g.."-.-.m-...-m........
3 Remediation Planning: prepare
preliminary cleanup plan;
negotiate with Department of
Ecology
.......--............................. ..............-......................................................................... ...... ..................... ..
4 Community Involvement:
prepare fact sheets and quarterly
newsletters, revise existing
community involvement plan;
conduct community involvement
_.._.___......_._.__...r.!!~...~...![~_g?_'....~Q.[ag~_.~!9..~~.~g.l.g.~~s........_.........._....._._.........._....._...__....____........_.__.___.__..._.....__._.................."........_"".......-......-.............--......
5 Redevelopment Planning: $1,000
evaluate potential land-use/
redevelopment options; prepare a
redevelopment plan;
.m~~~~_c:l99Lt.[2~_~I_fyQ.gi.Qg......__..............._...._......._......_..._....._.._....._......................._........_..._..................-....-.-.-..-......................-...-......-.......................--.
TOTAL
$3,750
$0
$0
$9,000
(program
management
consultant)
$91,000
(engineering
consultant)
$14,800
(engineering
consultant)
"""--.....--.................,...... ..........-
$10,000
(public
involvement
consultant)
$0
$15,000
(developer/
land use
planner)
$12,750
$93,750
$16,100
$11,400
$16,000
$150,000
$2,500
$200
$50
$139,800
Kitsap County intends to competitively procure community-based professional services to perform and
report on assessment activities, including work plan, QAPP preparation, intrusive sampling and analysis,
planning, and reporting.
B. Community Need
$1,000
$0
$300
(GIS)
1. The project is located in the Navy Yard City neighborhood adjacent to the Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard. Since the early 1900s, the shipyard has represented the primary source of jobs in Kitsap
$1,300
$100
$0
e Labor budget is for County staff only.
f Subcontractors are competitively procured professional services and construction companies that will
provide design, construction, and technical assistance.
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
$0
$9,550
$300
$350
December 2003
Page 7 of 15
County. The Navy Yard City community draws its name from its history as the neighborhood that
housed a large contingent of shipyard workers and their families. Over the past 20 years, the Navy
has changed technology and its overall mission in the Puget Sound area. This has resulted in the
loss of over 20,000 craftsman, tradesman, and service-based jobs within the Shipyard and in
adjacent service businesses. The loss of jobs lowered the demand for housing and services
resulting in a Navy Yard City neighborhood that is currently 48% non-owner occupied. Quality
industrial-commercial properties were not developed to supplement the loss of jobs, and
infrastructure has degraded from lack of an involved community. Demographic information about
the community is summarized below9:
. 33% of working age residents without disabilities are unemployed.
. 21 % of the population is disabled.
. 48% of the residences are non-owner occupied.
. 62% of residents have been in the neighborhood for less than 5 years.
. Only 13% of residents have a 4 year college degree.
. 20% of families are below 150% poverty level.
. Over 40% of families receive some form of public assistance.
The Navy Yard City neighborhood needs this project to develop new commercial/industrial
properties that will stimulate new job opportunities within the neighborhood. The proposed project
will improve aesthetic qualities, quantify environmental impacts, generate new buildable lands, and
create new access points between the shipyard and the Navy Yard City. The community
enhancements provided by the State Route 304 Transportation project have already made
significant positive impacts on the adjacent communities of west Bremerton and. will improve the
infrastructure needed in Navy Yard City to accommodate improved community transportation,
housing, and commercial facilities.
2. Considering the future availability of new infrastructure (roads, utilities) on clean or remediated
properties, and the location and direct access to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, the redeveloped
Charleston Beach Road is expected to represent an attractive location for new businesses to
locate jobs and services. Kitsap County intends with this grant to quantify environmental
contamination and negotiate cleanup requirements with the Washington Department of Ecology.
This information, combined with proposed right-of-way acquisition and roadway improvements
provided by the State Route 304 project, will be presented to potential development agents. The
County's goal is to develop a public/private partnership to establish a commercial/light-industrial
center that will support the changing shipyard mission and stimulate new small business startups in
this historically underutilized business zone.
3. Kitsap County's brownfields target sites inventory prepared in 2002, identified 8 of the top 10 sites
in the County as being within 2 miles of the Navy Yard City neighborhood. The primary community
impact is quality commercial property that is not being redeveloped, in part because of the low
economic health of the Navy Yard City, west Bremerton, and Gorst communities. This impact
results primarily from the loss of shipyard and natural resource (timber/fishing) jobs. Brownfields in
the vicinity of Navy Yard City include two former lumber mill sites, fuel storage facilities, abandoned
9 US Census Bureau Profile for General Demographic Characteristic for Garst, WA.
Kitsap County. Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 8 of 15
industrial landfills, and mining and aggregate processing sites. These sites are located principally
along the Sinclair Inlet shoreline and impact the community by limiting shoreline access, impacting
shoreline ecosystems, destructing view corridors, and deterring coordinated redevelopment of
recreational, commercial, residential and industrial facilities in the Navy Yard City - Gorst corridor.
The County's on-going brownfields initiative is addressing these issues by building partnerships
and applying State and Federal grants to stimulate restoration, reclamation, and remediation of
these sites.
C. Site Selection Process
1. In 2001, Kitsap County (working under a Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot) conducted
a county-wide, comprehensive inventory and prioritization potential Brownfield Target Sites. To
evaluate "top ranked" target sites, the County completed a semi-qualitative scoring to objectively
assess the best opportunities for brownfields redevelopment. The rationale for scoring was based
on input received from the Brownfields Project Task Force and the community during meetings
held in October 2001. Based on a review of grant requirements, specific ranking criteria, and the
relative importance of the criteria (as expressed by the Task Force and community members), the
project team developed the following initial scoring system:
. Four scoring categories, each worth a maximum of 20 points;
. Weighting of each category based on the relative importance of criteria, as defined by the task
force and the community; and
. Ranking of sites based on the sum of the total points from each category.
The scoring system provided for a subjective assessment of the property as one of the scoring
categories. The community and Task Force recommended that cleanup and redevelopment of the
top projects be pursued. The Kitsap County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the
pursuit of funds to implement redevelopment and remediation planning.
2. The site selection process (see Attachment A) considered the following prioritization criteria:
. Regulatory information related primarily to the levels of contamination and the regulatory
framework under which cleanup activities would occur. The scoring criteria provided higher
scores for sites with a higher level of contamination and a higher priority ranking, based on the
Washington Ranking Method (WARM) developed by the Department of Ecology.
. Land use related to zoning and the distribution of zoning on surrounding properties was
considered. A site that provides an opportunity for habitat restoration or mitigation was given a
high score. Critical areas that could hinder redevelopment opportunities resulted in a lower
score.
. Develop ability considered sites with existing utilities, good transportation access, existing
amenities, and adequate developable area, and gave higher scores to sites that had good
development potential.
. Site potential assessed intangibles related to brownfields redevelopment, including conditions
such visibility of the project, leveraging with other ongoing projects, property owner
participation, and linkages to other economic development goals.
Kitsap County. Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 9 of 15
3. Assessment activities will be conducted on privately owned sites. Access will be secured through
the Washington Department of Transportation right of eminent domain secured for the State Route
304 transportation improvement project.
D. Sustainable Reuse of Srownfields/Development Potential
1. Sustainability will be achieved by redeveloping historical industrial and commercial properties into a
commercial/light industrial zone that provides quality development opportunities for small business
starts. Current redevelopment alternatives include business park, light industrial, commercial retail,
and office park. Specific alternatives include light industrial manufacturing and trade shops to
support outsourced contracts within the Shipyard; a US Navy off campus conference center; and a
retail complex to support the Navy Yard City community and Shipyard workers.
2. Sustainability will be ensured through a joint planning process between the City of Bremerton and
Kitsap County. The City of Bremerton's comprehensive plan is oriented toward a community
centers approach to development and targets Navy Yard City for annexation. Kitsap County is
currently designing new water, sewer, and storm systems that will enhance the roadway and
surface improvements of the SR304 transportation improvement project.
The contaminated site assessments provided by this proposal will lead to cleanup of properties
within the target site. Site redevelopment options described in this proposal will provide for
environmental improvement through reductions in pollution via the cleanup and the improved
pollution control technologies associated with new light industrial manufacturing and trade shops.
The site development policies the County/City may often promote application of green building
technologies, reduction of energy consumption, and pretreatment of stormwater runoff using
bioswales. The stormwater collection, treatment, and conveyance system improvement will be
integrated with the State Route 304 Transportation Improvement Project, to provide protection of
the adjacent saltwater estuary.
3. Jobs will be created through service-based or light industrial business starts within the project area.
With the proximity to the Shipyard and the improvement to Charleston Beach Road infrastructure,
the project area is expected to quickly attract new business starts, provided the environmental and
cleanup issues can be addressed. These new businesses will stimulate local capital investment
and improve the local tax base, which is currently negatively impacted by under utilized properties.
4. Kitsap County is working to prevent further brownfields by identifying and prioritizing industrial
redevelopment areas through the Growth Management Act process. Most County brownfields are
within the designated industrial growth areas. The combination of County and Department of
Ecology environmental regulations provide early warning of environmental complianc~ problems
and assign responsibility for remediation of releases. This regulatory framework greatly decreases
the occurrence of future brownfields.
5. The Charleston Beach Road project is a targeted annexation area and is currently undergoing
major infrastructure and transportation improvements. The brownfields assessment will allow the
County and City to quantify cleanup liabilities and solicit private partnerships to create new
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site.
December 2003
Page 10 of 15
business starts. The project is very consistent with the County's goals for linking southern Kitsap
County with the City of Bremerton.
E. Creation and/or Preservation of Greenspace/Open Space or Other Nonprofit Purpose.
1. The State Route 304 transportation improvement project will construct an extension to the
Bremerton Gateway, a parkway into the Bremerton downtown core. The parkway construction will
replace existing paved areas and bare property with landscape buffers, bike paths, and pedestrian
walkways. It will increase landscaped areas by 15% and address stormwater and pedestrian
access issues. Building codes will require future development to maintain a minimum 15%
landscape area.
F. Reuse of Existing Infrastructure
1. Existing infrastructure is degraded. The State Route 304 transportation improvement project will
replace all street, illumination, signals, and non-motorized facilities. The County is currently
designing improvements to sanitary sewer and stormwater facilities along the project corridor,
resulting in new facilities to support development. Redevelopment will be enhanced by the new
infrastructure and the environmental benefits that it provides.
G. Community Involvement
1. Kitsap County will use the community involvement plan developed for the pilot project as a guide to
involving the public in the assessment project. This plan has been very successful in discussing
the specific goals and measures to engage the community and project participants in a process
that is educational, inclusive, and responsive. The community has been informed of key decisions
and the progress of the project and provided the opportunity to give input. The Community
Involvement Program will:
. Provide the community with the necessary information and education about the project, to
ensure informed participation as decisions are reached;
. Emphasize consensus-building that will result in support for an effective redevelopment plan;
. Foster partnerships among agencies and jurisdictions to maximize common interests and
goals, resulting in information sharing and collaborative actions to funding and implement
sustainable redevelopment opportunities;
. Set the stage for the sustainable redevelopment of sites by engaging the community in
discussing reuse and remediation methods necessary to redevelop brownfield sites;
. Keep the public apprised of the project in a consistent and timely manner;
. Identify issues or concerns of potentially affected interests, and assure that they are
addressed; and .
. Offer convenient mechanisms for the public to provide input and receive feedback as the
project progresses.
2. Partnerships and stakeholder interests in this project are extensive and highly supportive. They
include the Kitsap County Health District, the Kitsap County Economic Development Council, the
Washington Department of Ecology, the City of Bremerton, the Port of Bremerton, the Suquamish
Tribe, the League of Women Voters, the US Navy, and the Washington Department of
Transportation. Each of these partners have been involved in brownfields work to date and will be
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 11 of15
consulted as cleanup and redevelopment proceed. Letter of support from stakeholders are
provided in Attachment F.
3. The community will be informed and educated about the Charleston Beach Road assessment and
redevelopment project by continuing the on-going brownfields community involvement program
which includes:
. Project fact sheets,
. Briefing packages,
. Press releases,
. Newspaper advertisements, and
. Web-page updates.
Kitsap County will continue to involve the community in the brownfields process by:
. Continuing the task force meetings,
. Holding community information meetings,
. Continuing the on-going community involvement plan, and
. Sending direct mail fact sheets to over 200 community-based organizations and interested
citizens.
The community will also be able to interact with the County and the project team through the
county's web site.
To ensure that the EPA's public involvement goals, environmental justice, and other regulatory
requirements are met, the project team will work closely with EPA, the Washington Department of
Ecology, and the Kitsap County Health District in developing and reviewing critical study elements.
4. Kitsap County has organized a Brownfields Task Force comprised of public, private, governmental,
tribal, and regulatory representatives and public meetings served as the foundation for
development of this assessment proposal. Insights and comments obtained from the Brownfields
Task Force and public meetings served as the foundation for development of this cleanup
proposal. The Task Force consists of several community organizations that fully support this grant
proposal and the Charleston Beach Project. Task Force and community-based organization
information is provided below.
Kitsap County, Washingtoll
Brownfield Fillal Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 12 of 15
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Kitsap County DCD, Eric Baker, (360) 337-4997
Grant sponsor. Decision makers for community planning initiatives. County representative. Task
Force Member.
Kitsap County Health District, Grant Holdcroft or Jan Brower, (360) 692-3611
Jurisdictional authority for hazardous site assessments in Kitsap County. Regulatory knowledge of
cleanup requirements/programs. Task Force Member.
Port of Bremerton, Ken Attebery, (360) 674-2381 ext. 21
Industrial land owner. Charter for economic development. Grant recipient for adjacent property in
Gorst. Task Force Member.
Suquamish Tribe, Rob Purser, (360) 598-3311
Represent community environmental concerns. Interest in habitat and Gorst Creek.
Kitsap County Economic Development Council, Butch Dunlap, (360) 377-9499
Recognition of regional economic development needs and opportunities. Task Force Member.
City of Bremerton, Chris Hugo or Gene Sampley, (360) 478-5315
Experience completing Brownfields Projects. Represents largest jurisdiction within project
boundaries. Task Force Member.
Commissioner Appointment, Don Ryan, Represent South County District, (360) 876-3984
Appointed by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners to represent citizen interest.
Commissioner Appointment, Jane Reese, Represent Central County District and League of
Women Voters, (360) 377-8295
Appointed by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners to represent citizen interest.
Commissioner Appointment, Leo Vasaitis, Represent North County District, (206) 780-9934
Appointed by the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners to represent citizen interest.
Poggie Club, Dewayne Vetter, (360) 876-9593
Proponent of the Garst project and financial contributor.
Liberty Bay Foundation, Kathleen Byrne-Barrantes, (360) 697-5815
Proponent of the Gorst project.
Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, Pat McCullough, (360) 275-7384
Proponent of the Gorst project and aided the Port of Bremerton in receiving the Salmon Recovery
Funding Board grant.
EPA Region 10, Susan Morales, (206) 553-7299
Project manager for lead grant agency. Technical advisor on the Task Force.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Judith Aitken (425) 649-7135
Kitsap County Coordinator for Toxics Cleanup. Technical advisor on the Task Force.
H. Reduction of Threats to Human Health and the Environment
1. As part of this project, the City and WSDOT will acquire parcels of commercial and industrial
property. Some of these parcels have been identified in a Phase I environmental site assessment
as having current or past land use practices that suggest a high I1kelihood for environmental.
contamination from petroleum, polynuclear aromatic compounds, solvents, and metals. These
contaminants can cause significant adverse health affects. Benzene from petroleum and some
polynuclear aromatics are known carcinogens. Numerous nervous system and prenatal effects can
result from exposure to chlorinated solvents and metal contaminants. Media of concern include
soil and groundwater. Investigating the nature and extent of contamination will allow the County to
develop cleanup actions that will reduce threats to human and ecological receptors.
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 13 0[15
The goal of the assessment project is to:
. Identify the nature and extent of contamination,
. Prepare a site conceptual model,
. Quantify impacts to human health,
. Evaluate cleanup actions,
. Determine appropriate Washington State Department of Ecology regulatory process (Voluntary
Cleanup Program, Agreed Order, Independent Cleanup), and
. Prepare a Cleanup Action Plan that provides for mitigation of risks to human health and the
environment.
2. This assessment project is supported by partnerships already developed with the Washington
State Department of Ecology and the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District. These regulatory
agencies have reviewed brownfields work to date and will provide technical support during the
project.
I. Leveraging of Additional Resources
1. Environmental assessment and preliminary redevelopment planning is expected to cost between
$200,000 and $250,000. The Washington Department of Transportation has programmed $3.1 M
to acquire properties and $6M to construct improvements. Cleanup costs could vary greatly
depending on the nature and extent of contamination, but could range to $1 M. To complete
development, an additional $1.5M is needed to supplement property acquisition and >$5M will be
needed to establish new commercial or light industrial facilities within the 4.5-acre redevelopment
area.
2. Kitsap County has committed the following funds and resources to the overall Gorst Creek Estuary
Restoration Project. Portions of these monies are available to the Charleston Beach Road project:
. $30,000 to support funding pursuits
. $10,000 in in-kind services for project coordination, property transactions and stakeholder
interactions
. $450,000 in real property
3. Other funding sources available to the Charleston Beach Road project as an element of the overall
Gorst Estuary Restoration Project include:
. Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Aquatic Lands Enhancement Grant -
$681,000 for access, acquisition, and restoration. Kitsap County contributed $30,000 in cash
and $300,000 in real property as match for this grant.
. Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, Salmon Recovery Funding Board
Grant - $318,000 for habitat improvement. Port of Bremerton contributed $30,000 in match for
this grant.
. EPA Brownfields Cleanup Grants (2) $288,000. Kitsap County will match 20% of these grants.
. Suquamish Tribe; Mid Salmon Enhancement Group; Poggie Club - Over $50,000 in cash and
in-kind services.
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 14 of 15
J. Ability to Manage Grants
1. Kitsap County has existing resources, financial and administrative systems to manage this grant.
The Department of Community Development, Land Planning Group, will administer all aspects of
the grant. This department successfully managed the EPA Brownfields Assessment
Demonstration Pilot Project. Kitsap County routinely contracts with professional services firms to
provide technical expertise and will use a competitive procurement process for this project.
2. Kitsap County has been managing federal grant funds routinely for over 20 years. There are no
pending adverse audits findings relative to these funds. The County has not been required to
comply with special high risk terms and conditions under agency regulations.
3. The County recently completed an EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot Project
under a cooperative agreement with EPA Region 10. Under this grant the County met all
requirements for financial reporting, quarterly progress reporting, and brownfields reporting
measures.
4. Kitsap County received an EPA brownfields cooperative agreements in 2001 for $250,000 for
assessment activities. The agreement was completed March 2003. There are no funds remaining.
Kitsap County is currently completing a new cooperative agreement for $288,000 in brownfields
cleanup grants. The agreements will be complete in December 2003 and the project will extend
into 2005.
5. The following are the significant accomplishments generated through funding of the EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilot Project:
. Identified and prioritized over 50 brownfield sites in Kitsap County.
. Formed a brownfields task force comprised of local jurisdictions and community based
organizations.
. Developed a county-wide community involvement program.
. Completed Phase I environmental site assessments at 6 target sites.
. Conducted Phase II environmental sampling and analysis at 4 target sites.
. Leveraged over $3M in funds from state grants and property owner concessions to support
cleanup and redevelopment plans. Funds included:
- Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Aquatic Lands Enhancement Grant -
$681,OOOh
- EPA, Brownfields Cleanup Grants - $88,000 and $200,000.
- Salmon Recovery Funding Board (Port of Bremerton led project)- $318,000
- Suquamish Tribe - $50,000
- Private Mitigation Funds - $75,000
. Facilitated a property transfer between Kitsap County and a local business. Kitsap County
transferred 20 acres of mineral resource land to a local gravel company in exchange title to an
abandoned industrial site. This increased the county's tax base, expanded a local businesses
operation, (which creates permanent jobs), and established public agency control of cleanup
and redevelopment of the property as part of an area-wide brownfields redevelopment.
. Established public-private partnerships to facilitate and implement brownfields redevelopment.
h The #1 ranked project in the State.
Kitsap County, Washington
Brownfield Final Proposal: Charleston Beach Road Site
December 2003
Page 15 of 15
~
~
ATTACHMENT A
. Map and Site Selection Information
.?,EPA
Parametrix
View of parcel 3-08374 - Former solid waste maintenance faciiity
...
View of Parcels 3-08359-365 abandoned auto repair.
View of parcel 3.08377 - Junk storage/former solid waste maintenance area
View of SR304 adjacent to Charleston Beach Road.
~
c
(1)
E.
tf)
tf)
c (1) .
otf)
.~ tf)
04..
<Dtf)
(f)-o
-00>
~.-
oc
tX:"6
JG'-
~co
Q)'-
tO~
c~
0.-
~cf)
Q)~
,;:.Q)
(\10'>
.eta
O'r-'
?,-"",~B.c::..
'{eI};
~~
ATTACHMENT B
Public Involvement Fact Sheet
~,EPA
Parametrix
~J5Eil FACT SHEET
j~ KITSAP COUNTY BROWNFIELDS DEMONSTRATION PILOT PROJECT
November 2003
Project Update '
The Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) de-
fines brownfields sites as" abandoned, idled, or
under-used industrial and commercial facili-
ties where expansion or redevelopment is com-
plicated by real or perceived environmental con-
tamination."
Phase III of the Kitsap County
Brownfields Assessment Demonstra-
tion Pilot Project is complete. The
County Commissioners endorsed the
Task Force tindingsand target sites
have been selected for redevelopment
and cleanup.
To assist in the next phases of the pro-
gram, the County intends to pursue ad..:
ditional grant money in 2004 from the
EP A Brownfields Assessments and
Cleanup Grants.
There will be a public meeting on
November 19,2003 to discuss the
grant proposals and outline the next
steps of the project.
Assessment Grants-
These grants provide funding for grant recipients
to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct
planning and community involvement related to
brownfields sites. The County can apply for up to
$200,000 to assess a site contaminated by haz-
ardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants and
up to $200,000 to address site contamination by
petroleum.
-C;ranfFun-ding, "
EP A estimates that $100 million will be available
to fund up to 200 grant awards for brownfields
projects nationwide. In2001, Kitsap County re-
ceived $200,000 in EPA grants to initiate the
brownfields program. In 2002, the County was
awarded $288,000 in clean up grants to facilitate
redevelopment in Gorst
II There are three competitive brownfields grantpro-
grams offered by EP A including brownfields as-
aE pi A sessments, revolving loan fund, and clean up grant
-0 :1'\ programs. The County intends to submit propos-
Pdtdi.aetriK a1s underthe assessment and clean up programs.
Clean Up Grants-
Clean up grants provide
fimding for a grant recipi-
ent to carry out clean up
activities at brownfield
sites. The grant allows to
apply up to $200,000
per site. These funds may
be used to 'address sites
contaminated by petro-
leum and hazardous sub-
stances, pollutants, or
contaminants.
To leammore about the EP A Grant Program visit
www.epa.gov/brownf1elds:
Next Steps , "
The County is seeking comments on the grant pro-
posaIs from the community and Task Force mem-
bers at the November public meeting. Grant pro-
posals will be submitted to EJ? A in early Decem-
ber. Typically, grants are awarded by June of
2004.
Over the next six months, the County will be initi-
ating cleanup and redevelopment activities in Garst
Through partnerships with the PortofBremerton,
the state, EP A, and the Suquamish Tribe, the first
stage of the Gorst Creek estuarY restoration will
begin.
Questions?
Kitsap County is being assisted by Parametrix to plan
brownfields assessment cleanup and redevelopment
opportunities in the County. This work is being done in
cooperation with a number of interested agencies,
organizations, and citizens.
The project coordinator for the consultant team is Denise
Ledingham. If you have any questions about the project
or want to provide input on the proj ect please contact
her at:
5700 Kitsap Way, Suite 202
Brernerton, W A 98312
Phone: (360) 850-5307
Fax: (360)479-5961
E-mail: dledingham@parametrix.com
Visit the project web site at:
http://www.kitsapgov.comldccllbdpp/
Kitsap County Brownfields Demonstration Pilot Project
5700 Kitsap Way, Suite 202
Bremerton, WA 98312
Task Force Meeting
The Kitsap County Brownfields Task Force will hold
their fifth meeting in November. The meeting is open to
the public.
Date: November 19,2003
Time: 5:30 to 7:00 p.m.
Location: Givens Community Center, Port Orchard
Purpose: Update the Brownfields Task Force on
project activities, including remediation status and the
pursuit of EP A grant money for 2004,
Public meetings and Task Force Meetings will be
announced through project fact sheets, press releases,
web site updates, and newspaper advertisements.
[iB.(::::'.. ~~~'.!_.'..O"",!'
; ~f .
~
:.v"$"IOl<;lOto
ATTACHMENT C
Letter from Washington State Department of
Ecology Acknowledging Kitsap County Plans to
Conduct Assessment Activities and Apply for
Federal Grant Funds
.
SEPA
Parametrix
Il IVUJ/OJ 10: 57 FAA 4Ztl ti4~ 'Ul:ltl
vnrl UI" CIJULUbl
STATE OFWA!;HINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regiona{ Office- 3190 1601h Avenue Sf. Be/fevue, Washington 98008-5452. (425) 649.7000
December 3, 2003
Mr. Tim Brinsfield
EP A Region 10 Brownfields Coordinator
1200 Sixth Avenue (ECL-I12)
Seattle W A 98101
~
Dear Mr. Brinsfield:
I am writing on behalf of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to acknowledge
preparation by Kitsap County, Washington, of Brown fields Grant applications for federal
funding. The County is submitting grant applications for tbe following projects:
. Charleston Beach Road Site (assessment grant application)
. Countywide Identification and Prioritization of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites
(assessment grant application)
. Evergreen Auto Wrecking Yard Site (cleanup grant ll.pplication)
. Port Orchard Sand and Gravel and Cement Batch Plant Site (cleanup grant application)
Kitsap County has involved Ecology in their brownfields program as a technical advisor on the
County Brownfields Task Force. Through participation in this TaskForce, Ecology is fully
informed about assessment and cleanup activities that are proposed in these grant applications.
Should the County receive funding througb the USEP A Brownfields initiative; Ecology will
provide tbe regulatory ov ~rsight and processes to effect assessment and cleanup actions, as
required. Please feel free; to contact me at (425) 649 7135 if you have any questions.
,
lSincerelY,' ~: ~-
'~.
. 1
. r
I
udith M. Aitken .
Toxies Cleanup Program
Department of Ecology
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160111 Avenue Southeast
Bellevue W A 98008-5452
. JMA: 19
1!>~1S
~vv...
o
STATE OF WASHINGTON'
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Northwest Regional Office. 3190 160th Avenue Sf · Be/Jevue, Washington 98008-5452 · (425) 649.7000
December 13, 2002
Tim Brincefield
1200 Sixth Avenue (ECL-112)
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: Brownfield Application for Kitsap County, Charleston Beach Road
Dear Mr. Brincefield:
I am writing on behalf of the Washington Department of Ecology (Department) to
aclmowledge the Brownfield grant application for assessment activities along Charleston
Beach Road in Kitsap County. The Department, through our Toxics Cleanup Program
(TCP), is currently providing oversight of assessment activities at properties on
Charleston Beach Road. The Department is currently in discussions with the County
regarding possible remedial investigations and cleanup actions under the Model Toxics
. Control Act. With the County's cooperation, the Department will provide technical
assistance and administrative review ofthe cleanup process under our jurisdictional
authority defined in WAC 173-340..
The Charleston Beach Road corridor is located along State Route 304, just west of the
City ofBremerton. Historic uses in the area indicate the potential presence of petroleum
and other contaminants. A Transportation Improvement Proj ect is scheduled along this
section of State Route 304, and the County is currently assessing alternatives for linking
transportation improvements with site assessment, cleanup and redevelopment.
... Charleston Beach Road has the potential to support light industrial/commercial uses to
support Puget Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) and act as a Gateway to PSNS and the City
of Bremerton.
Should the County receive funding through the Brownfields initiative, the Department
will provide the regulatory oversight and processes to effect assessment and remedial
actions, as required. Please feel free to call me at (425) 649-7135 if you have any
questions.
~'M,~
Judith M. Aitken
JMA:jc
Cc: Peter Battuello, Pararnetrix
(j)~1'
o'
~,;q~~
....{~}...
.~-
~
ATTACHMENT D
Letter from Washington State Department of
Transportation Regarding Commitment to the
Project
~,EPA
Parametrix
:~.~.. ,;;.~""-"'.~!'
.~,
~~hl""'ll'll<
,?,EPA
Parametrix
ATTACHMENT E.
Letter from Washington State Department of
Ecology Regarding Petroleum Contamination Site
Eligibility
'~~
'ie!,l} ;
'Q.~hl"<)'IO-Y
ATTACHMENT F
Letters of Support from Project Stakeholders
SEPA
Parametrix
Dec-02-03 03:38P Mayor's Office
P.02
il
m
Moyor Cory Bozeman
~l1i~~;~1
'"::~,,,-"k: .
2"~~'W .' ..; .~?~):~.
~:Wda33i.: ..'
December 2, 2003
Mr. Tim Brincefield
EPA Region 10 Brownfields Coordinator
1200 Sixth Avenue (ECL-112)
~ Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Brincefield:
The City of Bremerton fully supports Kitsap County's 2004 applications for Brownfields
Redevelopment grants. With the assistance of its consultant, Parametrix Inc., Kitsap County has
conducted critical assessments of contaminated properties of interest to Bremerton's well-being
and initiated projects that will improve the environment as well as protect public health, The City
also sees the type of redevelopment that these efforts can produce as conducive to Bremerton's
enhancement as an urban community.
The City's Community Development and Public Works staffs have participated in this program
and report its great accomplishments to date. The project's planning process is one that we
have supported because we believe in its collaborative approach to achieve success. Both by
its design and efficacy, it is a model of accomplishment that warrants continued support by EPA.
As the City looks to future growth in the unincorporated urban growth areas in which some of
the priority project sites are located. correction of brownfields conditions through
environmentally-sensitive redevelopment adds to our opportunity to create quality urban
developments. The City of Bremerton looks forward to your favorable response to Kitsap
County's applications and our continuing participation as a stakeholder.
&
t?'-r
Cary Bo'zeman
Mayor
. .' THE clTr Of: PIc/Df A~fI ~PPClRTUN'~r , "'. . .
PUBLIC WORKS & UTILITIES
OirectoT's Office
. .. . .
. .
. . .
" . .'
ji.";: {~{~~~~./~~r/;;..~',~ I' j'::' ~
. .
:,I.;:"~. ,:::!~,,;.:pJ:~ ,'~:::. ; .
t:;:i:'::'~71.;; i~~.;:: ;!~':,l" . -~;::~ ", . .
December 9, 2002
Mr. Tim Brincefield
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Ave (ECL-112)
Seattle, WA 98101
To Whom It May Concern:
The City of Bremerton has had the opportunity to meet with Kitsap County and the Washington
Department of Transportation to discuss Brownfields redevelopment opportunities associated with the
SR304 Transportation Improvement Project. The City recognizes this is a unique opportunity to
"revitalize" a degraded commercial light industrial area of Kitsap County and we are supportive of Kitsap
County's efforts to create synergy between the Transportation Improvement Project and the goals for the
County's ongoing Brownfields initiative.
We recognize that Brownfields assessments will provide useful information to assist the City and the
Department of Transportation in acquiring the necessary right-of-way for improving Charleston Beach
Road. We also recognize that improving the roadway will assist Kitsap County in reclaiming underutilized
and abandoned commercial and industrial properties. This project will also provide new opportunities for
creating business and job opportunities linked to the puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the Bremerton
G,ateway.
~ The City is supportive of this project and looks forward to assisting Kitsap County with their efforts to
assess, remediate, and eventual redevelop properties along the Charleston Beach Road segment of the
SR304 corridor.
W. Eugene Sampley, P.E.
Director,' Public Works & Utilities Department, City of Bremerton
i 12/02/03
TUE 10:03 FAX 3607929710
Arvan D. Reese II
141001
(\
League of Women Voters of Kitsap
P.O. Box 1524 . Poulsbo, WA 98370
December 2, 2003
Mr. Tim Brincefield
EP A Region 10 Brownfields Coordinator
1200 Sixth Avenue [ECL-112]
Seattle, W A 98101
RE: Kitsap County Grant Application
Dear Mr. Brincefield:
{)
The Kitsap County League of Women Voters [L WV] is one oftbe participating members of the
Kitsap County Brownfields Task Force. From the beginning. with its review of more than I SO
possible sites, we have been active in the selection process, narrowing it down to 6 possible sites.
Our continuing focus on the Environment, including review oftbe Hood Canal Watershed and
active participation in the reclamation of Salmon Habitats within the County, has shown that
projects such as the Brownfields Demonstration Project ate actively contributing to the L WV
Position on Resource Management which is: "To obtain coordinated planning and ensure
environmental quality in the use of water, air and land resources."
This project, by focusing on the cleanup and adaptive reuse of endangered wetlands property with
the assistance of tangential agencies and concerns, shows the kind of careful planning and
management that the L WV continually looks for. The involvement of cooperative efforts by
affected commercial Iandowners is an added plus and should be commended.
In conclusion, the Kitsap County LWV will contiQue to participate in this project with. hopes of an
eventual reclamation of other Shoreline related projects. .
~~
e ll.~se .
President
Kitsap County League of Women Voters
1
cc: Denise Ledingbam, Parametrix
SCOTT W. LINDQUIST, MD, MPH, DIRECTOR
109 AUSTIN DRIVE
BREMERTON, W A 98312-1805
(360) 337-5235
December I, 2003
Mr. Tim Brincefield
EP A Region 10 Brownfields Coordinator
1200 Sixth Avenue (ECL-112)
Seattle, W A 98101
RE: KITSAP COUNTY 2004 BROWNFIELDS GRANT PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Brincefield:
The Kitsap County Health Dishict (Health District) is writing to express its full support for the
2004 Brownfields grant applications being submitted by Kitsap County Department of
Community Development (DCD). As the local agency responsible for protecting public health
and the environment, the Health Dishict supports programs or projects that result in risk
characterization or clean up of contaminated properties within Kitsap County.
The Health District participated as a stakeholder in the Brownfields Task Force, and finds the
activities, goals, and objectives of Brownfields assessment and clean-up projects consistent with
its concerns for public health and the environment The DCD staff and its consultants
Parametrix, Inc., have established an effective process for project implementation. which
includes a very active stakeholder and public participation component.
The Health District is particularly interested in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Evaluation Project being proposed for 2004. The potential risk ass~ciated with these types of
sites has not been adequately evaluated in Kitsap County. This project also compliments the
assessment activities currently performed by the Health District's Solid and Hazardous Waste
(SHW) Program under the Site Hazard Assessment Program funded by Ecology.
The Health District appreciates the opportunity to voice its support for the Brownfield.s projects
being proposed by Kitsap County for 2004 and look forward to participating in the project as a
stakeholder.
Sincerel~
~werRS.
Program Manager
Solid and Hazardous Waste Program
Kitsap County H.ealth District
cc: Eric Baker, KCDCD
jlbfswwqbdcfshw fjanfbrownfleldsf2Oll4Supportdoc