Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOriginal Townsite Block 8 - Assessment of Mitigation Options Surf Restaurant 1995.08.14EXIIIBIT ASSESSMENT OF MITIGATION OPTIONS ST.'RF RESTAI'RANT DECK EXPANSION a \\ t, : ao a a Preparod for Sterre Dowen SUNT RESTAI'RANT 106 Taylor Strest Port Townscnd WA 98368 Prepared by HEADWATERSMCONSI.'LTING 613lifW 52nd Strcct, Seutle WA 98107 206 7t2-36l3, FAX 783-3822 Argust 14, 1995 INTRODUCTION The Surf Restaurant, located on the waterfront in Port Townsend, Wastrington plans to expand the restaurant dining deck and construct public restrooms for the Union \f{harf project adjacent to the restaurant. The restaurant is built over the water and shades the nearshore habitat of Port Townsend Bay, in the Puget Sound. The proposed deck expansion will add 12' of deck over the 60'width ofthe restaurant. Wood is the preferred rutrti"l for the construction of the new deck. The initial construction assessment estimated the deck expansion will require two $upport piles to be erected. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have review authority over the permits conceming the Surf Restaurant deck expansion. It is necessary to receive permits from these agencies to allow construction of the deck. Typically, WDFW regulations are more strict than the COE. Therefore, satisSing WDFW requirements will usually allow permitting by the COE (pers. com. Jonathan Smith COE) Merrik I-entz Architects has submitted an application for a shoreline permit. Initid discussions and a site meeting with R. Timothy Flint (WDFW), identified some initial concerns about project impacts to fish habitat in Port Townsend Bay. These concerns are summarized in a letter dated April 18, 1995. Mr. Flint's assessment of project impacts indicated shading may reduce nearshore productivity and inhibit juvenile salmonid migration, since juvenile salmonids avoid shaded areas which their predators prefer. Mr. Flint requested mitigation to prevent no net loss of habitat for fish or shellfish per WAC 220-110-020. John Boettner (W-DFW) was consulted to identify potential mitigation options for the Surf Restaurant Deck Expansion. Based on our discussion three options were identified: l) removal of over water structure, 2) removal of piling and 3) modification of the deck to allow light penetration. Removing an existing over water structure is the preferred mitigation option. Removing shade in the same tidal zone, would directly compensate for shading caused by the deck. Removal of piling is a less preferred mitigation optioq since the structures shade little area relative to their size. Also, piling enhance habitat by zupporting barnacles and other small crustaceans, limpets, and various invertebrates that provide forage for fishes zuch as the Surf Perch. Therefore, removal of the piling would reduce shading but could impact habitat for non-salmonid fish species. In additioq piling add to the aesthetic appeal of the shoreline and provide a structure for eagles, herong and gulls to perch. Revising the deck, slch as using plexiglass or grates as an alternative construction material to wooden decks, is a mitigation option. The proposed deck and existing deck could be built using plexiglass or grates to allow an equivalent arnount of light to reach the+2to -2 tide elevation. Unfornrnately, Plexiglass could become slick and grates can catch heels and 2 trip people. These materials pose a potential safety risk to patrons and anployees of the Surf restaurant. This mitigation option is not preferred because of safety concerns and lack of documented su@ess for this type of mitigation. The goal of this report is to identi$ and et/duate potentid mitigation sites in the Port Townsend area. SITE EVALUATION Prior to a site visit, John Boettner, WDFW, and Dave Robisoq City of Port Townsend, were consulted to identify preliminary mitigation sites. A field site investigation was conducted on lrurl.e 22, 1995, to identi$ additional mitigation options. Ournership of properties was verified with Dave Robison. Potrintial mitigation sites were mapped and identified by letters @igure l). Photographs of all the mitigation sites were taken. The mitigation sites are located outside of eel grass beds and are non-vegetated. Most of the possible mitigation sites outlined in this report are located in the same intertidal zone (+2.0 to -2.0 tide elevatior! mean lower low water:0.0 feet) as the deck orpansion. The sites will have the potential to mitigate for any habitat loss caused by the deck expansion. We identified sites stritable for mitigation and evaluated the overall feasibility of the structure removal. MITIGATION SITES Site A: South Union Wharf Piling. The 14 erect piles are located on the south side of the existing Union Wbarf structure. Eight of these piles are in a row, with narrow (foot wide) boards uniting the piles on the top. Six of the piles are isolated. The boards provide additional shading in addition to shading from the piles. The site is the closest to the Surf Restaurant. Site B: Riprap end piling. A 30' by 30' collection of nearshore riprap is located between the Hastings House building and the Union Whart offWater Street. Erect piles stand near the riprap. On the field assessment day, a view of the riprap was obstructed by the high tide. Site C: Quincy Strect Dock The old ferry landing located offQuincy Street, currently called the Quincy Street Dock. The structure is associated with I I isolated piles and 2 piles connected with niurow (foot wide) top board. An abandoned building is located directly to the South. 3 Site D: Abandoned Meritime Oil Storage Tank Site. The abandoned.dock was once used to store maritime oil and is located offthe John Pope Maritime Park. Removing the overhead planking on the deck would mitigate srfficiently for the shade created by the Surf Restrurant deck orpansion. Site E: Cement Sleb Piling. A large, wood and cement piling, located to the South of the Point Hudson Compury Dock and off the northeast boundary of the John Pope Maritime Park. The structure consists of a dense cluster of piles that zupport a 4' deep cement slab. The cemert slab piling is located in deep water, outside the +2 to -2 minus tidal zone. Site F: Southwest Stete Ferry Terminal Piling. A large stand of erect piles and the bases of disintegrating piles exist to the Southwest of the state ferry terminal. The collection includes 13 tdl isolated piles, 12 pairs of piles connected by an narrow (foot wide) boards uniting the piles on the top, and approximately 60 decaying piles with only the base of the structure remaining. Site G: Abendoned Boat Ramp. A boat ramp that is no longer utilized because of lack of access. Located offKuhn Street, east of Point Wilson it is farther west than any other mitigation site. Site H: Kearney Street Piling. Five isolated piles located offKearney Street. The piling stands between the state ferry terminal and the Port of Port Townsend. Site I: Railroad Spur. A railroad spur located directly to the South of the Port Townsend public boat launch. Historically, the short section of railroad connected the Port Townsend Paper mill and the Port of Port Townsend. Site J: City Hall Piling. Twenty totally submerged (at the time of field evaluation) piles in the water across from Port Townsend City Hall. The collections of single piles are located in the nearshore are associated with the John Pope Maritime Park. FEASIBILITY The structures discussed above were evaluated for feasibility. Sites were eliminated if they were unavailable for restoration by the property owner. Sites were also examined and determined not appropriate mitigation site to replace lost habitat. The remaining sites were recommended for mitigation by the staffat Headwaters. 4 Not feasible: Owner unwilling to sell stnrcture. l) Site C: Quincy Street Doclc Not an appropriate mitigation site since the structure, an old ferry terminal, is owned by Washington State Ferry, which is unwilling to scll any of their nearshore structures. 2) Site D: Abendoned Maritime Oil Storege Tenk Sitc. The abandoned . maritime gas station and the pier associated with the structure is currently in the middle of a land acquisition. The City of Port Townsend is currently purchasing the property from the present owners, Norman Sather of Pacific Oil Products and Sylvia Thomas to enhance the John Pope Maritime public park. The city does not wish to rsrnove the pier. Not feasible: Removal is not supported by the City of Port Townsend l) Site A: South Union Wharf Piling. Fourteen erect piles located on the south side of the existing Union Wharf. The piles are owned by the crty and valued for its aesthetic contribution to the Port Townsend waterfront. 2) Site F: Southwest State Ferry Terminal Piling. The piles are owned by the city and valued for its aesthaic contribution to the Port Townsend waterfront. 3) Site I: Railroad Spur. The property is owned by the Port Townsend Paper Co. and the owner is unwilling to sell. Also, the site is not appropriate for mitigation since the spur is submerged, does not provide shade, and removal would be prohibitive. Heavy equipment would disturb and outweigh any benefits. It is an underwater structure that provides refuge and foraging habitat for fish and invertebrates. Not feasible: Not an eppropriate mitigation site l) Site B: Riprep and Piling. The structure is large (30' by 30') and heary equipment would be needed, further impacting the habitat. Also, the riprap structure is submerged at differ6nt times becauss of the tide and does not meet the shading requirement by the USFW. Also, the riprap's presence obstnrcts recreation and contributes no aesthetic appeal to the shoreline of Port Townsend. Removal of the riprap but not the piles is favored by the City of Port Townsend. Although removal of the riprap is approved by the city, the riprap is valued because it enhances aquatic habitat. Crustaceans, such as barnacles, and gastropods-adhere to the structure and graze off the algae growing on the wood, in turq providing forage for fishes. The structure diversifies habitat and provides refuge for crabs and fishes, and attracts marine birds and birds of prey. 2) Site D: Abandoned Boat Ramp. Not an appropriate mitigation site because it does not meet the shading requirement of the USFW. The cement structure covers the 5 natural substrate, does not provide shading, and is currently being destroyed by tidal action. 3) Site E: Cement Sleb Piling. The rernovd of the approxirnately massive stnrcture would be prohibitive and disruptive to habitat. Also, the piling stand is deep water and is not located in the intertidd zone (+2.0 to -2.0 tide elevation, mean lower low water : 0.0 feet) and would not directly mitigate for the same habitat as impacted by the Surf Restaurant deck ocpansion. Also, the Port Townsend Yacht Club would likely contest the removal ofthe cement and wood piling because it functions as a navigation aid and blocks waves to the marina. The structure is being purchased by the City of Port Townsend and the city does not want the structure removed. Feasible: Sites epproved by the city end most fevorable for mitigation. l) Site H. Kearney Street Piling. Five isolated piles located offKearney Street. This site is favored because it would mitigate for the shading of the proposed Surf Restaurant deck expansion and is located in the same intertidal zone as the area to be impacted. Full restoration ofthe habitat is likely. 2) Site J: City Hall Piling. Twenty piles associated with the John Pope Maritime Park. This site is favored, agairU because the piling rernoval would be relativety easy and full restoration of habitat is likely. Also, the piles do not have a function and hinder navigation. The piles are also located in the same intertidal zone as the area to be impacted by the deck expansion" so the removal would mitigate for shading caused by the proposed Surf Restaurant deck expansion. At the time of the field inventory, the piling was totally submersed by the tide. Recommendetions. It is recommended that the most appropriate mitigation for the proposed Surf Restaurant deck expansion would be to remove both the Kearney Street Piling (Site ff and the City Hall Piling (Site J). At Site FI, five erect piles would be removed and at site J twenty short piles would be removed. Twenty-five piles would sufficiantly mitigate for the shading of the deck expansion. Also, the piles are relatively close to the site to be impacted, and their removal should not disturb habitat to the degree other structural rernoval would. Full restoration of habitat is likely. These sites are both owned by the city of Port Townsend and early communication with city ofEcial indicate the city would approve their removal. 6 tu .'.1 a strV &s A**l hnt hutd o{t t+rg *.fu^y torrr rlrrDsril t D t c UilloNrr{llP grce w\*'l+' KtYsoNf ? il ?oA( ,tuvtn96to 9Al ?w or t ?'kr flililq€NP FIGURE l. Fdcotial MtigUion Sites. HEADWATERS ENVIRONME}.ITAL CONST'LTING 613 I{Sf 52nd Strcct Scmlc WA9tl07 SCALE: not to scale DATE: 7Rll95 DESIGN: MM