Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPreliminary Analysis of Irondale Park proposed boat ramp5604 20th Ave NW Seattle, Washington 98107 le 206.297.2106 Fax 206.297.2301 Ail: mpds@nwlink.com 20 January 2004 Warren Steurer Parks and Recreation Director Jefferson County P.O. Box 2070 Port Townsend, Washington 98368 1256 Lawrence Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Phone 360.379.8151 Fax 360.379.0131 E-mail: madrona@olympus.net Re: Preliminary Analysis of proposed boat ramp at Irondale Park Dear Warren, We appreciate the opportunity to assist the County in developing a Master Plan for the park property located at Irondale Beach. As you are aware, a key outcome associated with the on -going public planning process for the facility has been the request from community members for additional information regarding the feasibility and potential benefits and/or impacts associated with the establishment of a boat ramp on the site. Although a thorough, in-depth technical analysis of the issues associated with the construction of a boat ramp in the park would be required as precursor to any permitting process, a brief, initial appraisal may serve to indicate whether it is feasible to consider further exploration of the proposal. In this case, feasibility would be defined as the ability to construct a facility that: Meets Identified weeds — The new ramp should allow greater and more efficient usage than found at other ramps in the area (Lower Hadlock, Oak Bay). Is Environmental Compatible — Any proposed ramp must provide thoroughly documented research and evidence on the environmental impacts of the proposal, including impacts to fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality. The analysis must also identify recommended mitigation's which will ensure that the ramp would be constructed and configured in such a manner as to be compatible with natural characteristics of the shoreline. Is Affordable in both the Short and Loner Term — The proposed ramp must be cost effective. Mitigation's, construction and costs associated with ongoing operation Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 2 and maintenance of the facility must be directly proportionate to the likely benefit derived. Should initial analysis indicate a high probability that the proposed facility would not be able to successfully meet any of the above -referenced criterions, it would be our recommendation to refrain from further exploration of the topic. However, should the initial review appear promising, further detailed research would be warranted. It is important to note that successful completion of the preliminary analysis summarized in this letter would not be a guarantee that subsequent analysis would similarly find the proposal to be feasible. Analysis of Preliminary Feasibility The following analysis is based on research and the assessment of existing information found in adopted plans and regulations, studies and the environmental record. No new materials were prepared for this letter report. Specific source references have been noted. 1. The proposed, ramp trust meet identified needs. Public comment has indicated that the Port Hadlock / Irondale area is currently under served in terms of effective boat launch facilities. Although ramps currently exist in relatively close proximity to the park site, these facilities have been identified as deficient due to a variety or reasons (please see Attachment 1 for a summary of area facilities). In order to meet identified needs and represent a net improvement in access to the water, the proposed ramp should not be subject to similar constraints. These constraints are summarized in Table 1 below: Constraints Identified at Analysis of Proposed other Area.Ramps Irondale Park Rama Unusable during Low Tides. Several of the The proposed site has been identified to existing ramps are located on shorelines have similar gentle slope characteristics.' that are characterized by gentile slopes that Use limitation similar to those found" at limit use during low tide periods. I other area sites are likely. 'Phone conversation with Amy Leitman, Marine Surveys and Assessments, December 17, 2003. Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 3 Constraints Identified at Area Silt and Sand Deposits Limit Use. Lack of Parking. Several of the area ramps have significant parking constraints or offer no parking at all. Susceptible to Storm Damage. Several of the surrounding ramps are not well sheltered from storm events resulting in damage to the facility. Lack of Maintenance. Existing ramps are not well maintained. Analysis of Proposed lrondale Park Ramp Migration of sand across the intertidal area and erosion of the existing banks are likely.2 Silt and sand will limit use of the proposed ramp and will require maintenance for on -going o erations. Adequate parking for off-peak use can be located with the park. Peak use will require additional area that can similarly be on -site. The proposed launch will not be sheltered from storm events and may suffer damage similar to that found at existing ramps. The proposed ramps would require a commitment from the County for on -going maintenance. Analysis: Preliminary review indicates that the singular advantage of establishing a ramp at the Irondale park site (as compared to other existing facilities) is the ability to accommodate on -site parking. 2. Environmentally Compatible. The best potential location on the subject site for a boat ramp is located on the southerly portion of the property. This portion of the site offers the best access to the water as the beach is steeper and water deeper a few yards from shore. Although deeper than other portion of the site, the slope remains relatively flat. The construction of a boat ramp in the southerly portion of the site would have the following likely environmental impacts: • Potential adverse effect to existing habitat values. A portion of the site has been identified as a sand -lance spawning site. There is also an identified surf - smelt spawning site on the WDFW property. The establishment of a ramp Conversation with Hugh Shipman, Shorelines Specialist, DOE on -site, December 11`h, 2003. Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 4 may impede sediment and nutrient transport along the beach to and from the spawning sites. • Potential adverse effect on existing eelgrass meadows. It is anticipated that the reconfiguration of the adjacent WDFW property beach will result in the expansion of the pre-existing eel grass meadows in the intertidal zone and a general increase in plankton and forage fish habitat. The impact of ramp construction and on -going maintenance (sand and silt removal) may have an adverse effect on the health of the eelgrass meadows. Analis: It is likely that the construction of a boat ramp on the park property will have an adverse effect on the shoreline environment. However, the severity of these effects cannot be determined at this time from available information. Additional study is warranted to assess the relative magnitude of environmental impacts associated with a potential boat ramp facility. However, it is unlikely that these studies can be initiated (or would be meaningful) until after completion of the proposed WDFW beach restoration due to that projects significant, albeit positive, alteration to the immediate shoreline environment. Short and Long Term Affordability. A key consideration in evaluating the potential establishment of a boat ramp in the Park is the cost to construct and operate such a facility. Several variables need to be confirmed to allow for the preparation of a detailed estimate for construction cost. These variables include a detailed analysis of the seabed to determine slope, sand migration patterns and existing habitat values. At present, based on available information, a preliminary estimate can be prepared for planning purposes using costs associated with other recent projects'. It should be cautioned however that these estimates are very preliminary — additional research will be required to obtain more accurate cost projections., Grant funding is available to establish boat ramps in Washington. Potentially, a portion of construction expense could be defrayed through a successful IAC grant 3 Phone conversation with Reid -Middleton Shoreline Group Staff, December 22, 2003 Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 5 proposal. However, ramp construction will require approval from a number of agencies including Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WFW). As you.are aware WFW is embarking on a significant restoration effort on the adjoining parcel. WFW has expressed concern regarding the potential adverse effects on their efforts that may occur as a result of the establishment of a ramp on the park site. Descriptio Quantity l Units I Unit Cost I Subtotal. Ramp— Grading, concrete ramp, 1 $ 50,000 retaining structures, etc. 1 sq.ft. $70 Float — 6 ft wide x 70 ft $ 29,400 Piles $ 12,000 4 ea $ 3,000 Pavemen — 1/2 parking and sq.ft. $ 27 000 approach Stormwater Management — for $ 15,000 impervious surfaces, wash down Water Service —for wash down (use $ 7,000 pre-existing connection in Moore Street ROW) A & E Design costs, project $ 15,000 management Entitlements — Environmental $ 25,000 studies, permitting Estimated Project Total $ 180,400 The post -construction operation of the boat ramp will present on -going operation and maintenance costs to the County. These costs are summarized below: Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 6 Ramp Maintenance: The ramp will require periodic removal of sand and silt deposits. The frequency and estimated cost of this removal is not known at present. Additional study will be required to determine drift patterns when the WFW restoration is completed on the adjoining parcel. Float Maintenance: Floats established in a marine environment have a limited life span. Exposure to the elements, wind and wave action can rapidly wear materials necessitating replacement. In addition, winter storms can severely damaged floats and ramp facilities. The proposed site is exposed to storms from the southeast. The areas most significant storm events occur with predictable frequency from this direction. An alternative that could prolong the life of the float system would be to remove it during the winter. This would entail additional removal / reinstallation expense but would significantly increase the life of the floats. Security: The need to locate the ramp on the southerly portion of the park site (to provide access to the deepest water) presents a significant security problem. The proposed ramp will not be visually accessible from surrounding homes. The lack of visual connectivity is an invitation for vandalism and unlawful activities. Potential solutions include the location of a care -taker facility on site, an increase in Sheriff patrols of the area, the establishment of area lighting and/or the construction of a lockable, security fence surrounding the boat ramp facility. Fee Collection / Monitoring: It is likely that a portion of the costs associated with the operation of the ramp can be recovered through the establishment of a launch fee (similar to the $5 fee currently charged at Port of Port Townsend ramps). Although the collection of the fee is typically accomplished through an "iron ranger" or drop box, these facilities must be checked (and funds removed) at least once per day and more frequently during periods of intensive use. Failure to remove funds in a timely manner is an invitation to crime. This is especially applicable to the proposed ramp due to it's visually isolated location. Employee costs associated with fee collection are exacerbated by the anticipated Letter to Warren Steurer 20 January 2004 Page 7 peak times for ramp use, with likely highest use of the facility occurring during weekend and holiday periods. AnWysis; The proposed ramp will require a significant capital expenditure to construct. It is possible that expense to the County can be reduced through successful grant applications. Post -construction operation and maintenance will required regular expenditures for the County. As typical for facilities of this type, the service life of the ramp will be limited and will require reinvestment over time to ensure continued efficient operation. Conclusion Based on the preliminary analysis prepared to date, it does not appear that the subject property is well suited to the establishment of a boat ramp facility. Further investigation does not appear cost-effective or warranted. An alternative strategy to address identified boating access deficiencies may be to investigate other locations which are better -able to accommodate a new boat ramp while concurrently working with existing ramp operators to review opportunities to upgrade existing facilities. Please feel free to contact me directly should you wish to discuss the analysis and/or the conclusions raised herein. Sincerely, � L Ric rd M. Sepler, AICP Principal 14� O 00 M Q, co 3 0 4" co CIS r co an ; Cd b a Cd an ° o 3 4r O 3 N U + cts sue, y N co O ti O b �' cn co o 0 0 co cts C, O Cd '� 3 ' +cd cd o 0 z O H° a E- a U° o un o E A .J� M �•� -�4 C bq Cd x 0 o 0 o d 4. a cn p; ,� p 0 Q a, GO) W a �'to �. Cd .b co cn In V � cdin U N 0 U aD cd E O a a. 4� 0 4 +r�+ cd cd ° N U cd 'C7 W 'G cd � cd Cd p tz `�' a •� 4. O 0O b bA � �. o O q t4 . En d �. ^C7 cd 4. E ccn o cd t a cn 0 0 � 2 P 0 4� 4-. O cd co cn a° H°��3 ».9J Fa ��H ct W l 00 U a x o � O GU v� f� Qn un 0 0 f� o o `� — � 2 � % © � 40 , 2kn® k 2 . c ° ��2 > ■ § & c § g 2 2 § k k c k M 2 2 2 2 7 � 7 7 0 4 co Cid cr C % . . '. > ® 2 0 2 2 c . » 2 2 k .0 � k J 2 En a 2 E k 2 2 � ° � � �