The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutUnion Wharf Final Report 1995t. EXHIBIT5 UNION WHARF tltlllti,itltil1,1, FIruAL RTPORT FrsnuARY 1 995 -ri F L- { v iu /-'-*-\ l-r.r rr €xrsung whad trl,e -l#,":l[H:ff:. I -+- - Figunr 2: I il l o Alternative lVharf:Flnal Modifications to e I Suggested 8y WDrW t0. \4.' : 2 B APPTNDIX B: DESIGN TTNU'S ASSESSMENT OF Et IVIRONMENTAL ltrlpnCTs OF DeSte ru AITERNATIVE WNSHINGTON DEPNNTMENT OT FISI-I AND WII.OIFE lssuEs The net water habitat impacts of Alternative A and B arc below. Aliemative B is more often referred to in the disc'ssion of habitat impacts since impacts forboth alternatives would be very similar, with "8" having slightli less impact since would shade ress area of the seabed to the west of the existing *ft'f. eti"ny summarized (and shown graphically in Figure 10, below), the identified impacs for Alternative B are: 1. A net increase of 536 SF of near-shore water covering between 0' MLLW and -10' vtLLW. (Horvever, all of this will be on piling and allow sunlight to penetrate at an angle from the south): 2. covering of a total of 324 SF of eetgrass bed by the float but an uncovering of over 1200 sF of eetgrass bed beween -t0 MLLW and -12' lvtLLW for colonization' In addition. the project results in a net uncovering of more than 875 SF of eelgrass beds ' berw-een -5', and -12' lvILLW. The project uncovers apPro.ITalely 21,574 SF of water belorv the -12' MLLW contour and approximately 22,000 SF of open water outside the lnner Harbor Line (after demorition oiit. old piei) and includes removal a[ of the existing creosote piles from the project area' ( Union Wharl: Flnal Report 18 February 1995 ./ A ixB t:l rt) i&lls:i i.';t-: !::. t ANOUNO a 3 ught sumdards io malch l89o's sryle lixturF by the fountain at u1e end ot Taylor SL Outline of Existing WhaTt Histo,ical panelS on l|lrart hislb.y --0l '-- Edge ol existing.rck Eel Grass BeS ---\ /! ---- lnlo.mauon kiosk lo ' orient boating viglo,s to lown ^ioEench I I I ) --_ __--1 for viarving beds below surf3c& - -r0- -.___._\\ \\ \\l5A'D N:j oqsrrl€r td$Pr W.AAtogcu$(@:lcp[OVcorW(aooL)(*r-qzm a+{l?) lv€. tl€€, v.1E to rrnt/*,lxuaou{ HARSOF UN€ I {rt T"-'il 30 R. t i: l- i$ io : : a ---- inr UNIO AtreRrue a&"r ZCz n\i:..,",2*4 rFuZGaL..,/ Figure 10: Areas of Seabed Covered and Uncovered with lmplementation of Attemative B Union Wharf: Final Report 't9 February 1995 Appendix B EruVINONMENTAL IMPACTS The design team has determined the environmental impacs associated with Altemative B which includes some chairges requested by the Wastrington Department of Fish and Witdlife (U;DF!V) (see disiussion below). The design team evaluated two types of impacs:impactstonear.shore[generally+l0to.l0ftMeanLowerLowWater(lvtLLwI habitat and imPacts to eelgrass Nenn-SnoRE HABITAT lMPAcrs The positive and negarive impacS to near-shore habitat between +10 and'10 ft MLLW werc determined frot rhe site plan showing Alternative B (see Frgure 8 inAppendix A)' The net change in covercd venius *.ott.t"d habitat between'10 and -30.1 MLLW was also determined. In general, the total area of near-shore and shallow sub'tidal habitat that will be uncovered * p"t of this altemative is 24,138.65 SF. The total near-shore area that would be covered as a result of new consmrction is 1,900 SF. The amount of near-shore area that would be affected within specific elevations is presented in Table l' Table 1.Attematfue B l.lear-shore lmpacts. Area (SF) Uncovered Area (SF) Covered Net Change (+/-) Elevation Above 0 ft MLLW 0 to -5 ft MLLW -5 to -10 ft MLLW -10 to -15 ft MLLW -15 to -2O ft MLLW Total 142.5 381.3 523.94 4,053.25 19,037.7 24.138.65 694.4 744 145.7 316 0.00 1,900.1 -551.9 -362.7 +378.2 +3,737.25 +19,037.7 +22.238.6 Tabte I indicates that there will be a-net increase (positive) of uncovered habitat between -5 and -10 ft MLLW and a net decrease (negativel if cot ered near-shore habitat above -5 ft tvlLLW. A total of 1,548.10 SF would be-covered, and a total of 1,047 .70 sF of near'shore area ,*ould be uncovered between t[0' and -10' tvILLW' Thus' 500'4 SF of near-shore habitat would be covered above -5'MLLW. Approximat'ely 1,143'9 SF of near'shore iuea ' Th" ,lD,l ramp would be grated wirh sreel to allow ligfu penetration O near'shore habitat' A torcl of I 5 t.g sF above 0f ItLLtv and l3g.i sF bet:weenb and -t f &lLLll/ would be covered by the grated tamp. These arek are nor included in the Area Coveredbr"o,u" impacts rc near'shore areafrom graiing the ramP arc cofttidered to be negligible' Union Wharf: Final RePort 20 February 1995 ::' Appendix B above about +2' lvtLLW rvould be covered ttom construction of a rest room and expansion of the Surf Restaurant deck. Table I also indicates that there will be a net increase of 23,090.95 SF in uncovered near- shore and shallow subtidal habitat from -10 to -20 ft MLLW. Although the WDFW aPPears to be more concerned with impacts to near-shore (+10 to -10 ft MLLUD area' a n'*i.ry of important marine resources tse and depend on shallow sub+idal area and habitats such as eelgrass and macroalgae. Uncovering shallow subtidal habitat can potentially result in an increase in the size of existing eelgrass bed, and can increase macroalgae production and densiry. These potential benefis must be considered by the WDFW in uAai,ion to the proposed measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts to near'shore areils" and the net change in habitat above -10 ft lvILLW. Eelcnnss lMPAcrs A total of about 324 SF of eelgrass could potenrially be affected by Altemative B' Of this toral. i0.00 SF of eelgrass rvould occur under the proposed steel-grated ADA ramP' Grating of rhe *-p *ould avoid covering this portion of the eelgrass bed and w'ill allow light to reach rhe eelgrass bed. Therefore, impacts to this portion of the eelgrass bed are considered to be negligible. Approximately 120 SF of eelgrass beween -5 and about -11' tvfLLW would be covered by rhl'floating dock. tnformation synthesized from recent snrdies indicates that the shadow cast by over-water and t'loating strucnres as narow as 8 Ft in width located in the intertidal and shallow sub-tidal habirats can result in the loss of important marine vegetation such as eel_erass (WDFW lener dated January' 4, 1995 to Port of Port Angeles). The proposed float is approximatelY l2 ft wide. The remaining 154 SF of eelgrass occurs within the footprint of the existing strucrure. Of this, approxirnarely i5.65 SF of eelgrass within the existing footprint will be tncovered' The remaining I18.35 SF of eelgrass rvould be covered by the walkway' Reducing rhe western edge of the wharf walkway by about 6 to 7 Ft will help to eliminate the shadow between -5' and -10' il/tLLW that is currently c€tst on the eelgrass bed west of the existing faciliry. This reduction in shadow area provides about 250 SF of addirional area above about -10' IvILLW tbr eelgrass to colonize. [n addition, sticing the wharf at an angle eliminates shading of the existing eelgrass bed west of the w'alkwa.v. allows more ligir to the eelgrass bed, and provides at least 1,200 SF of area between -10' and -12' lvlLLW for eelgrass to colonize. Therefore, almost an equal .rmount of area will be uncovered aboie -10' fvlLLW to allow for eelgrass colonization than eelgrass area covered. In addition. an additional 1,2?0 SF of area will be uncovered to allow eelgrass colonizarion and enhance use of the near-shore habitat by imponant marine resources' Union Wharf: Final RePort 21 February 1995 -{ c ApprNDtx C: PrRMtrrlNG WNSHINGTON DEPNNTMENT OT FISN AND WIUOIITC The WDFW is the agency responsible for reviewing applications for an Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) and issuing HPA permits. An HPA is required for the constnrction, or othlr o.ork. that uses. diverts. obstructs, or changes the natural bed or florv of salt and fresh waters of rhe state. The HPA application includes general plans, complete plans and specifications for the proposed work within the Mean Higher High Water (v-[FIHW) line, and plans for the protection of fish and fisheries habitat- An HPA will be required to reconstnrct the Union Whslg".,lity. The WDFW can not issue an HPA permit until the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process is complete. However. the application lor an HPA should be prepared and submined simultaneouly or shortly after the SEPA checklist and shoreline applications are submined to the Citv- C Y OF PORT TOWNSEND Compliance with SEPA is the oveniding environmental process. The SEPA guidelines p.o.rid. a standard process for the identification and evaluation of potential adverse enrrironmenral impacts of a project proposal. Information on both the natual and built environment is provided in a SEPA checklist. The SEPA checklist is circulated by the lead agenc,v- to local, srare. and ttderal agencies for review and comment. The lead agency considers all commenrs and makes a threshold determination on whether the project will have any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The lead agency makes one of three determinations: l. No probable significant adverse irnpact and issues a Determination of Non- significance. Z. Some probable significant adverse impact but proposed mitigation measures would reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts, and issues a lvlitigated Determination o f Non-signi ficance. i. Significant adverse environmental impact and determines that an Environmental tmpact Statement will need to be prepared The Cii-,- of Port Tonnsend would be the lead agency to-r the SEPA process. The informarion in the SEPA checklist and the SEPA determination issued b.'- the Cit! would be used as a tool by the srare agencies to review other permit applications. The SEPA process would be initiated firsr since SEPA review must precede and be completed before the issuance of other local or state permits. Union Wharf: Final RePort 22 February 1995 Appendix G The other critical local permit is the Shoreline Substantial Development permit. The Cirywould be the lead agencY in processing the shoreline permit appiication. The supporringdocumentation would generaily be the same for both permit applicatiors. WnsHrrvcroN DepnnIMENT oF EcoLocy Ecology is responsible for ensuring that the project complies with the Ciry of port Townsend Shoreline lvlaster Program (SMP) and the Shoreline Management Rct (SMA).Ecology indicated ttng at presenr, the rcst room and dock .*p"r,iion appears to beconsistent with the Ciqv's SlvtP and the SMA. However, verification of consistency is still needed from Ecology. In addition, Ecology is rcsponsible for issuing a 401 Water-Qtrality Certificatioq aTemporary Modification of Water Quality Criieria, and determining corsistency witb Coastal Zone lvlan€ement (CZM). The federal pennining requirements described belowincorporate issuance of a 401 Water Qrnliry Certification and the CZM consistencydetermination. Ecotogy is the agencl- responsible for issuing a Temporary Modification of Water eualityCriteria- This permit is needed at least 30 days prior to initiuting construction. Ecologytypically process these requests quickly and, although this is an important permit to obtaifit is not considered to be a critical path permit proceis. U.S. AnuY CoRPS oF ETcINEERS The critical federal permit would be the Section l0 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers (Corps)- A Section l0 permit will be iequired for the placement of in water stnrctures and constn-rction of a new pier and wharf, and potentialiy for the removal ofexisting piles. tnformation required to support an HPA application discribed above would be included in the Corps permit application The Section l0 permit Process should be on a more-or-less parallel track with the state andlocal permit processes. A Section l0 application to the iorps automatically riggers anapplication for a 401 water Quality Certification and ClWconsistency determination from Ecolog,"-. Coordination with the Corps and Ecology rvould be necessary to ensgre that all issues are addressed and that the schedule for permit approval occtss within a reasonable time frame Union Wharf: Final Report 23 February 1995 o f Y Straat cfld and confrguraliro lanc ar Allcmadvc g OFW Suooestioc 11: ttlova the no'v walhray oftrenter frorn lh€ stteel centerlino so that walh'Yay and noat fall wiihin fie shadofl ot th€ Exisdng wharl line OFW Suqdestion t2: Shonen 0|€ dock by 40' and r€locate tatnp btrardg 0ro soulh. - Wharl configuradon sirne as Allemaive I MODIFICATION TO ALTERNATIVE B SUGGESTED B &WILDLIFE (DFW) nroeceMBER 13. res4MEErING Y DEPARTMENT OF FISH a (Note: oFV/ tutodifications would be the same for Alternative A) Figure 2: Modllications to Altemative B Suggested By WDFW o lO r.l 5Union Wharf: Final RePort February 1!Xl5 Et..\: Edge of existing Light standards to match189O's style fixtures bvthe fountain at the eni ofTaylor St. Outline of Existing Whalf Eel Grass BeS Historical panels onwharf history lnformation kiosk toorient boating visitors to town Bench-' - ----7I Edge of existing .leck viewing surface c E q b€ -- -lo- I I I -4( t-T--"-'\-\- .\ \\tKEtb RSI exrau{E k/ru4w W eAToeuNow =Aff.trffi)aooL)I,W. \ee ve+ E Aro tuglu**a*r1 ,?' B '-\-- ) $'R., I I LINE F€trUNI Figure 10: Areas of seabed covered and uncovered with lmplementation of Alternative B Union Wharf:Final Report 19 February 1995 ixB ApprNDtx B: DEStc OF ENVIRONMENTAL ITI TENM'S ASSTSSMENT lvpncTs oF DestcN wnsHr^rcToN DrpnnrMENT Or FrsH AND wr.o.rprlssurs v, The net water habitat impacts of Altemative A and B are below. Altemative B is moreoften referred to in the discussi"" "ii"ui", i.p".r*ii.""i*pacts for both artemativeswoutd be very similar, with uB" rt*i"g rrigh{;i;;iri*. wourd shade less area ofit#H:;:,ff n:i:*HH',*il:ffi .ru",m*d(andshowngraphica,,yin l. l1re, increase of 536 SF ofnear_sho xi,iy; jTJ,"ffi F;d;ilii[:.":ffi ;ffi :i,nffi -l,TT.y"il[:l* 2' covering of a total of 324sF of eelgrass bed by the float but an uncovering of over1200 sF of eelgrass bed beturee" -lo; u** "iri_li; ,r,rrr* for coroniza.tion. i:#iif;:*:1r',Hii#l';ilaet uncovering ormore than 875 sF oreergrass bedsberowtr,--ri;rurii},_;:;;;.,:;.'"riJ:,,1:{E8il;'flT:y.3lii:i:,i:,ilf ' :TnHr"J#:'J'HL|]il:l'H:tlt"oropier;*i,*i".",."*o,nur"ir"?,r,.existing Union Wharf:Final Report .t9