[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
0 2PHA2R25121 8BI6E.,88H PARK, 8H4A2R2S4O8R8V298904 6f8"248HI2P, 4FI0N8O2Y66Y4A4N184 P8fA0AH RlE6�T6P6P6A2TT8�N 6@2N NAVIGATION ;4M0NR2O8V2gMkN2T6 DE2$1442N 252T0UDY 1989 DER FILE 2# 22Zl; 2C729 ME # 867339 Grant Task 207-P8E.800 4C o m0a FW4" EW C=VlrmUd Irmo owwwn of 4bvuvmm4w 4f4twxlm. Prepared by: atria Of pmwv" "Own. &rm of 86"w"s mwmgwmt. Division at cNew Zme xwocowt mw ft 0&19 CmA2m Depa-twn of Plamlng. Z2onE- NORTHWEST ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS R.D. #1. P.O. BOX TIDIOUTE, PENNSYLVANIA 16351 SHADE'S BEACH PARK HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA BEACH RESTORATION AND NAVITGATION IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN STUDY JUNE, 1989 DER FILE # CZ1: C7E ME # 87339 Grant Task # 87-PE.06 COASTAL Funded and Cordlnated through Department of Environmental Resources. Prepared by: Office of Resource Management. Bureau of Resources Management, Division of Coastal Zcis management and the Erie county department of Planning. ZONE NORTHWEST ENGINEERING, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS R.D. #1. P.O. BOX Q TIDIOUTE, PENNSYLVANIA 16351 INDEX DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA A- 1 'Summary A- 3 Climate A- 4 Geological Conditions A- 5 Bluff Stability & Reservoir A- 6 Shoreline Stability A- 9 Soils A-13 Vegetation A-14 Transportation A-15 Utilities A-16 Hydrology A-17 Wildlife & Fishes A-21 Public Demand for Fishing and Boating Access A-25 Site A-29 Harbor Design A-31 Sanitary Facilities A-33 Phasing A-35 Operation & Management A-36 User Conflict A-37 Funding UPDATE OF U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS INITIAL APPRAISAL REPORT AT HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA 1. Subject 1. Authority 1. Study Purpose and Scope of Work 1. Area of Consideration 2. Problem Descriptions 2. Historical Shoreline 2. Plan Investigation 3. Benefits 4. Costs 5. Associated Costs 5. Economic Analysis 8. Itemized Cost Estimate 10. Cost Sharing 11. Environmental Considerations 12. Local C'ooperation 12. Conclusion APPENDIX ECONOMIC APPENDIX EA- 1 Introduction EA- 2 Without Plan Condition EA- 2 With Plan Condition EA- 2 Allocation of Recreation Points EA- 6 Demand from Supply Areas EA- 9 Demand at the Project Site EA- 9 Benefits EA- 9 Economic Efficiency EA-10 Itemized Cost Estimate EA-12 Allocation of Associated Costs EA-13 Appropriation of Project Costs EA-14 Cost Sharing: Section 107 Funding Only EA-15 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs EA-16 Project Benefits and Ratios EA-17 Beach Replenishment Analysis EA-17 Without Plan Condition EA-17 With Plan Condition EA-18 Evaluation of Benefits EA-20 Economic Efficiency (Section 103 & 107 Funding) Maps and Photographs Public Meetings Inventory of Facilities Cost Comparison of Access Sites Erie'County Soils Mapping Subsurface Exploration Correspondence Environmental Considerations Design Analysis 0 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 0 0 i SUMMARY Public fishing and boating access to Lake Erie, east of the City of Erie to the New York State border, is severely limited. Private ownership of most of this 20 miles shore line and the natural bluffs limit the number of access areas available in this area of the coastal zone. However, a small tract of land located in Harborcreek Township, Erie County, owned by the Township, is being utilized for limited public access and has been identified as having a potential for much greater use. Redevelopment of the Shades Beach site could significantly increase the public boating and fishing opportunities in this portion of Lake Erie together with providing a beach for swimming and other recreational uses. A study prepared by Young and Lahr, in 1982 which was funded by the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program, pointed out that public boating demands on Lake Erie are high. Fishing pressure on Lake Erie has also increased dramatically with the improvements in water quality and the development of an active trout and salmon stocking program. While the existing access facilities provide limited but significant recreational opportu- nities, they are not adequate to meet the demand for recreational boating and fishing access to Lake Erie waters. This Study defines the Shades Beach site redevelopment as proposed initially by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their 1985 Initial Ap- praisal Report on Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements at Harborcreek, Pennsylvania. The chosen redevelopment alterna- tive is both desirable and feasible provided that sources of funding become available. A-1 The redevelopment concept proposed will provide adequate parking and access roads as well As safe shelter, launching and retrieval for small boats (22 feet + and less). Furthermore, the site will provide recreational swimming and enhance the picnick- ing and ball fields areas already present at the Park. The site improvements could be phased and the initial investment of $1,645,358 for facilities including a breakwater, boat ramps, parking, service roads, sand beach, user fee toll booth, beach house with comfort station and floating docks would provide most of the desired benefits. This Study indicates that redevelopment of the Shades Beach Park would result in a significant benefit to the fishing, boating public and beach users, particularly those individuals residing close to the eastern shore of Lake Erie. Specific benefits to be realized are: 1. Safe and convenient boat launching and retrieval will be realized. 2. An increased number of boaters and anglers can be accommodated. 3. Adequate parking will be provided. 4. Boating distance will be reduced for anglers to their favorite and productive fishing areas located near the site. 5. An important additional safety consideration is provid- ed since this facility will greatly reduce the time required for a boater to remove his boat from the Lake when sudden storms occur. 6. Driving distances will be greatly reduced for many Lake Erie recreational users. 7. A small sandy beach will be provided which will enhance the overall use of the Park. A-2 CLIMATE The climate at the Shades Beach Park is strongly influenced by Lake Erie and is typical for the Lake shore within a ten to fifteen mile area. The relatively warm waters of the Lake tend to moderate the. daily and seasonal temperature extremes of the air mass moving down from Canada. This prolongs the growing season and limits killing frosts in the fall and spring. The cool breezes off the Lake during the summer add to the attrac- tiveness of the site for recreational use. These same conditions tend to prolong the fall season and permit boating and fishing activity into November, much later in the year than would be expected at an area of this geographic latitude. The average annual precipitation is 37.2", which is relatively evenly dis- persed over the year. The prevailing winds, which are mainly from the northwest and southwest, with the former predominating, are capable of creating violent storms with waves reaching heights of 5' to 8' in a very short time. The storms that do the most damage to the shoreline are those from the northwest. A-3 GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS The underlying strata of the Shades Beach access area is a veneer of glacial lake deposits comprised of shale fragments, gravel, sand and silt, all resting on bedrock of Northeast Shale. Northeast Shale is a thinly bedded silt stone of marine origin from the late Devonian Age. Few fossils are contained in the Northeast Shale layers. This shale tends to break up as flaggy or platey pieces, while the interbedded clay shale tends to break up as -chippy or hackley fragments. The Northeast Shale beds are near horizontal and are not folded or faulted to any measurable degree. A-4 BLUFF STABILITY & RECESSION The Shades Beach Park site is located along a coastal sec- tion of Lake Erie which is subject to light erosion problems according to the International Lake Erie Regulation Study Board's Report on the Regulation of Lake Erie Water Levels, which was prepared in 1981. A survey conducted by Coastal Research Associ- ates, Inc., titled A Geotechnical Investigation of the Coastal Bluffs of Erie County, PA concluded that the recession rate of the bluffs in the site area is minimal. The rate of bluff reces- sion is approximately one-half to 6 inches per year. The major reason given for such a low rate of bluff recession is that the bedrock of underlying shale, which is well exposed along much of this coast, protects the bluffs by absorbing wave energy. Harborcreek Township has a Bluff Setback Ordinance which limits development in such areas. A-5 SHORELINE STABILITY The existing beach area is now littered with cobbles due to a severe storm. This beach was once a mixture of fairly clean sand, shale and cobbles but only the cobbles remain on the sur- face of the beach at this time. Beach depth is generally shallow because the bedrock lies only a few feet below the surface. Reference is made to the soil report conducted by John Cernica & Associates which is included in the Appendix of this Study. The eastward littoral drift along the Lake Erie shore, which is caused by prevailing winds, tends to cause beach accretion on the western side of the existing groin and beach depletion on its eastern side. The proposed breakwaters, which shall extend out into Lake Erie approximately 300' from shore, will aggravate the condition of deposits caused by littoral drift in the vicinity of the proposed beach. Furthermore, the possibility that some littoral drift accretion could occur at the harbor entrance at the proposed boat launching ramp surrounded by breakwaters was considered during the planning and design of the facilities. A 125' long detached breakwater is proposed to protect the beach area and to capture sand from the littoral drift to help maintain the beach. However, it is estimated that approximately 70 tons of beach nourishment will be required annually. The nourishment shall be for cosmetic and aesthetic values as well as to replace sand which is depleted, above the water line, due to normal erosion. The detached breakwater and the portion of the A-6 _L" shaped breakwater from shore to the bend shall significantly improve the stability of the shore line in the beach area. The shore line contained within the breakwaters enclosing the harbor shall be stabilized as a result of the construction. Virtually the entire beach area will be covered with the concrete boat launching ramp with the exception of a minor portion on the westward side within the breakwaters. The shore line East of the breakwaters, in the vicinity of the outlet of Eightmile Creek, will be protected by the harbor structure. The littoral drift will cause deposition of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of material in the vicinity of the detached breakwater and beach area. An estimated 50 cubic yards of accre- tion is expected at the harbor opening on an annual basis. These projections' are based upon conversations with personnel from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. All deposited material must be removed and placed back into Lake Erie on the west side of the proposed breakwater project. The cost for this annual activity of removing deposited material has been included in the operation and maintenance budget for the overall project. This removal and replacement of deposited material captured by the breakwater construction is necessary to avoid shore line problems east of the project area. Serious consideration was given to extending the "L" shaped breakwater on an angle towards shore to eliminate deposition of material at the mouth of the harbor. Due to the close proximity A-7 of the outlet of Eightmile Creek to the harbor entrance, this is not considered to be feasible in this case. A breakwater exten- sion to protect the harbor opening from accretion would most likely trap sediments moved by Eightmile Creek into Lake Erie and have the opposite affect of its intended purpose. Thus, with the relatively minor amount of accretion that must be removed annual- ly from the harbor entrance, compared to the more significant amount of accretion which must be removed from the beach area, it is cost effective to allow some accretion at the harbor entrance and its subsequent removal. Construction of the access road improvements should not adversely effect the shoreline, bluff or down drift erosion. The access road penetrations through the bluff are contained within the area protected by the proposed breakwaters. Thus, i t i s believed, any effect of bluff stability, shoreline erosion and down drift erosion will be mitigated by the protection afforded by the harbor rubblemound breakwater. A-8 SOI LS The soil information for this study was obtained from the Soil Survey, Erie County, PA, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). A soil map has been included in the Appendix of this Study and indicates the distribution of soil types on the property site. Beach & River Wash (Ba). This miscellaneous type is made up of unassorted sand, gravel and small fragments of flagstone. These soils are a result of the outlet of Eightmile Creek immedi- ately east of the proposed project. Some of the larger beaches along Lake Erie are located near the mouths of streams that empty into the Lake. In some areas there are narrow beaches along the entire Pennsylvania Lake front. River wash forms temporary islands or bars in or along streams that have steeply sloping beds. Before sediments are deposited on the beach, they are transported by streams and are then dropped into the waters of Lake Erie. There they are reworked by wave action and are then washed onto the beach. During storms the beach material is again reworked and is carried eastward by shore currents. In its place new sediments are deposited by waves. During the winter a well defined beach is often altered greatly by storms. Beach and river wash is not stable enough to maintain a cover of plants. It consists largely of material weathered from the underlying shale. It also includes some sediments of sand- A-9 stone, granite and quartzite that were carried into the area by glaciers. No soil profile has been developed. This miscellaneous land type has no value for agriculture but it provides valuable areas for recreation. The af f ects of beach depletion can be minimized by installing structural protec- tion through non-structural means such as replenishment with similar beach materials. Birdsall Silt Loam, 0%-2% slopes (BdA). The profile for this soil is a very poorly drained to poorly drained silty and deep material. They are inextensive and occur in small, level to gently sloping areas. The parent material was Lacustrine depos- its of glacial origin consisting of stratified silt and clay, mixed with some sand, laid down in still or slack water. Bird- sall soils are slowly permeable to air and water. Surface and internal drainage are very poor. During wet seasons shallow water remains in the depressions for several weeks. Included with this mapping unit are a few small areas of Lorain silty clay loam and Lorain clay, which are not mapped separately in Erie County. These include soils that are very poor drained, in the lower part of the profile is calcareous. This soil, unless improved by drainage, is best suited to perma- nent sod or woodland. Berrien Fine Sandy Loam, 15%-250/01' slopes (BcD). The profile of this soil is similar to that of the Berrien Series except the surface layer is only 6" thick. The soil has uniform slopes that A-10 are mostly less than 200' long. Surface drainage is good to excessive and internal drainage is moderate. . The parent material was acid, lacustrine sands that were sorted and deposited by water. These soils are low in clay, consequently plant nutrients leach downward readily. A firm layer, or pan, that is slowly permeable to air and water is 20"- 30" below the surface. At depths of 40" to 72" is gray calcareous material that is also slowly permeable to air and water. When saturated with water, this material is known locally as quicksand. Escarpments (Ec). This miscellaneous land type occurs on steep slopes that have formed as a result of stream cutting or Lake shore erosion. The areas are on the Lake Erie plain and on terraces. In general , the slopes range from 30% to 60% and are between 50' and 200' long. The degree of erosion varies. The top of the escarpments have a cover of soil but, at the bases of eroded slopes, there are outcrops of rocks. In some places the soil material is underlain by quicksand. Northeast Shale. Northeast Shale is a thinly bedded medium light gray silt stone interbedded with medium gray shale. it tends to break up as flaggy or plately pieces, while the inter- bedded clay shale tends to break up as chippy or hackley frag- ments. The Northeast Shale beds are very close to horizontal and are not folded or faulted to any measurable degree. A-11 Preliminary investigation of the depth to shale bedrock was made as a part of the report prepared by John N. Cernica & Asso- ciates for this project. The soil probing and analysis was contained above the shoreline to aid in determining excavation and rubble mound breakwater quantities for the engineer's con- struction estimate. It was beyond the scope and budget of this report to analyze the bearing capacity and layer depth of the shale upon which the rubble mound breakwater would be supported. Research was made into the cost to obtain a barge and drilling rig and to investigate the bearing capacity of the shale layer to support the breakwater. The estimated cost ranged from $20,000 to $25,000 according to Linniger Drilling & Pumps Company, Inc., Greenville, PA and John N. Cernica & Associates of Youngstown, OH. The reason the costs are so high is that a barge would have to be rented and set up over each boring location and this ex- pense was prohibitive under the line item budget for foundation investigation. It is deemed essential that a full analysis of the bearing capacity of the shale, which would support the breakwater, be conducted prior to construction. It must be ascertained whether there is adequate bearing capacity of the shale to support the loads. No construction should take place until this has been accomplished. A-12 ,VEGETATION Immature scrub woodlot extends from Pennsylvania traffic Route 5 almost to the bluff overlooking Lake Erie. It is young, dense woodlot covering both sides of Eightmile Run and is made up of numerous immature tree species: Sumac, Maple, Slippery Elm, White Birch, Eastern Cottonwood, Quaking Aspen and White Pine. Intermingled in the higher tree species there is a dense ground cover, consisting primarily of thistles, scrub brush, shrubs and wild grapevines. There is also an area of cleared field consist- ing of a grassy knoll with a few, large, more mature deciduous trees. The remainder of the property is bluff and beach, an area of little or no vegetation. A-13 TRANSPORTATION The principal arterial roads in the vicinity of Shades Beach are Interstate Routes 79 and 90, which make this site readily accessible not only from Pittsburgh and northwestern Pennsylva- nia, but also from neighboring Ohio and New York. Other arterial roads serving the access site are Pennsylvania traffic Routes 89 and 5, U.S. traffic Route 20 and U.S. Route 17. Pennsylvania traffic Route 5 borders the property. Numerous local public roads also serve the property. These connect Route 20 and Route 5. The accompanying vicinity map, found in the Appendix, shows the larger connecting roads for the Study area. The location map indicates the local road system and its relationship to Inter- state 90 and Pennsylvania traffic Routes 5 and 20. A-14 UTILITIES The site currently has access to gas, electric and telephone service. New potable water and sewage services would be required at the project site to meet development needs. These services could be provided by constructing a new well and sewage system in the Park rather than use public utilities. Public sewer is several miles distant as is a public water supply. To extend these utilities into the Park would be excessively expensive. There is no foreseeable need to provide gas service to the site. However, new electric and telephone service would be desirable for the convenience of the users. Telephone service would provide a certain safety aspect to the site and allow communications between the user fee collection booth and the Township to aid in coordination of activities. Lighting of the beach, boat launch area and parking lot would be highly desirable but a lighting feature was not included in the plan due to cost considerations. A-15 HYDROLOGY There are no intermittent or continuous streams crossing the Shades Beach Park. There is a culvert which collects the runoff from the bluff area directing it immediately west of the "L" shaped breakwater out to Lake Erie. Eightmile Creek is immediately east of the Park area and captures a portion of the site runoff. Presently, a substantial amount of runoff follows the roadway through the bluff which terminates near the existing groin. The designated flood plain is the beach area and a narrow strip of land along Eightmile Creek. Any additional runoff created by the proposed project can be directed either to Eight- mile Creek or directly to Lake Erie by pipe and will not create flooding problems. So long as such waters are not directed over the bluff face or surface, no erosion or bluff stability problems are anticipated. A-16 WILDLIFE AND FISHES The Lake Erie waters and shore line in the vicinity of the proposed Shades Beach improvement project are inhabited by a diverse fish and wildlife fauna. Regional tributary streams, near the site, are stocked annually with non-native Coho Salmon and/or Steelhead Trout by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and area sportsmen cooperative nurseries. These streams include Twentymile Creek, Orchard Beach Run, Sixteenmile Creek and Twelvemile Creek, all located east of the project site. Other non-native salmonoids stocked in tributaries further west on Pennsylvania shore line and to the east in the New York waters of Lake Erie are Chinook, Salmon and Brown Trout. Lake Trout, which are native to Lake Erie, are also being stocked each year in the main lake near the New York-Pennsylvania border in a cooperative effort amount the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With the exception of the Lake Trout, each of the salmonoids are anadromous, and can be found in large numbers near shore during the fall as they return to the tributary streams to spawn. Steelhead trout continue to enter the streams through the winter, with a second, larger spawning run peaking in the spring. During the summer, all the salmonoids congregate in the deep cold waters located several miles offshore at the point known as the "Mountain". A-17 other fish species inhabiting the waters near the study area include Walleye, Yellow Perch, Smallmouth Bass, White Bass, Freshwater Drum, Rock Bass, Brown Bullhead, Channel Catfish, Stonecat, Carp, White Sucker, Redhorse Sucker, Rainbow Smelt, Emerald Shiner, Spottail Shiner, Trout Perch and Gizzard Shad. It is likely that White Perch, White Fish and Turbot also venture through the region periodically. Numerous other lesser abundant species can also be found in these waters. Two species of fish which have been collected in the general area from Presque Isle Bay east to the New York State line are listed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as threatened and endangered. The Eastern Sand Darter is listed as threatened and the Lake Sturgeon is listed as endangered. Any redevelopment activity at the site is not anticipated to cause any significant impact on either of these species. Many species of water fowl can be seen intermittently in the waters adjacent to the study area, particularly Canada Geese, Red Breasted Merganser and various duck species such as Scaup, Canvas Back, Redhead, Ring Neck, Golden Eye, and Buffle Head. Ring Billed Gulls, Herring Gulls and Common Turns are abundant as well as various shore birds including Sandpipers and Killdeer. The shore line of the study area is characteristic of the first stages of succession of cultivated land with its annuals, briars, Sumac and Cottonwoods, and is inhabitated by numerous song birds and probably Woodcock and Ringed Neck Pheasant. A-18 Mammals inhabitating the shore line in the study area year round include Cottontail Rabbits, Woodchucks, and other small .rodents and insectivores such as Moles, Shrews, Voles, Mice and Woodrats. Other mammals which probably pass through the area are Oppossum, Skunk, Raccoon, Mink, Weasel and White Tail Deer. The area is also marginally suitable as Squirrel habitant. The area adjacent to Eightmile Run which is immediate east of the property provides suitable habitat for various frogs, toads, salamanders, snakes and turtles. One specie of reptile, the Blandings Turtle, is classified by the Commonwealth as endan- gered. It has been collected recently east of the Borough of North East, however, any redevelopment activity at the site would not be expected to significantly impact this species. Because of the small size of the study area and the tran- sient nature of most of the fauna which inhabit it, development of the proposed facility should cause minimal detrimental impact on the existing fish and wildlife. A small but insignificant amount of spawning habitat for shallow water spawners such as Smallmouth Bass, Yellow Perch and Rock Bass could be disrupted. Eightmile Creek is not accessible to andramous salmonoids and provides no spawning habit for any other Lake Erie species. This is due to the small waterfall and bluff at the mouth of Eightmile Creek making upstream access near impossible for such species. The region is not suitable as a nesting area for water fowl , but serves primarily as a feeding and resting area. As such, any impact on water fowl is likely to be beneficial as-the proposed A-19 breakwater will provide protection during the late fall and early spring when boat use will be minimal and water fowl migration is at its peak. Potential impacts on the resident mammal population can be minimized by leaving a buffer zone between the parking area and the land s to the east, west, and south to traffic Route 5. These buffer zones would consist primarily of the present forested areas. A-20 :PUBLIC DEMAND FOR FISHING & BOATING ACCESS. Pennsylvania Lake Erie waters receive high levels of recrea- tional angling and boating use. Erie, Pennsylvania's third largest city, is located near the center of the State's shore line, and Pittsburgh, the State's second largest city, is located 130 miles south"of the Lake with direct access by way of Inter- state Route 79. An angler and boater survey conducted by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission revealed that approximately two million hours of recreational angling and boating use were ex-. pended on the State's Lake Erie waters from June 1981 through May 1982 (Young and Lahr, 1982). Anglers traveled to the Lake from 51 of the State's 67 Counties, @9 States and Washington, D.C. The vast majority of this use (1,866,200 hours) occurred in the waters situated be- tween the East Avenue launch ramp located in the City of Erie and the Ohio State line. These west side access areas are often over-crowded, particularly during the fall salmon and trout season. The major reason for this is that adequate and safe boating access east of East Avenue launch ramp is severely limit- ed. Presently, the only public boating facilities in this east- ern region, which constitutes nearly 30% of Pennsylvania's 43 miles shore line, are located at Lakeside Park, Shades Beach, Twelvemile Creek and the existing facility at North East. The existing deficient launch ramps at Shades Beach and North East, which are similar in design, are unprotected from the main Lake and can be used at times of minimal wave action. Launching and A-21 retrieval, which must be done one boat at a time, is slow, labo- rious and dangerous, particularly during sudden storms which may occur on Lake Erie. The ramp at Twelvemile Creek, which is also unprotected, is in very poor condition and is often impossible to use. The nearest protected harbors are at Presque Isle, eight miles to the west and at Barcelona, NY, 20 miles to the east of the Shades Beach site. The Shades Beach area is a prime location for angling, although most is available only by use of a boat. Some shore angling is presently done, but the physical nature of this site and the lack of suitable fish habitat within casting distance does not encourage shore fishing, particularly for more important game fishes. Walleye, Coho and Chanook Salmon, Steelhead, Lake Trout, Yellow Perch, Small Mouth Bass and White Bass are abundant in the waters-off the site during the spring, summer and fall. Salmon, stocked annually in tributary streams located near the site, are abundant relatively near shore during the fall spawning run, as are Steelhead Trout which are available from fall through late spring. A plan entitled "Strategic Plan for Lake Trout Management in Eastern Lake Erie" was developed during the early 1980's by the Lake Trout task group for Lake Erie under the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. This plan was initiated primarily by Pennsylvania and New York to replenish stocks of Lake Trout in the deeper waters of Eastern Lake Erie from Presque Isle eastward to the A-22 general area of Angola, NY. Approximately 150,000 Lake Trout yearlings supplied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were being stocked in this portion of Lake Erie by helicopter each spring. The ultimate objective is to stock up to 400,000 year- lings annually, with the expectation that at least 50% of this number will eventually be provided through natural recruitment. The overall objective is to attain an annual adult popula- tion of 200,000 Lake Trout by the year 2000 to approximate the size of the stocks that early records indicated were available in the 1880's. An angler exploitation rate of up to 30% is antici- pated, which extrapolates into a very significant addition to the fishery available nearby the Shades Beach study site. These deep off-shore waters are also inhabited by other salmonoids during the summer and can be pursued by boating anglers equipped with down-riggers. Each of these species is highly preferred by Pennsylvania's Lake Erie sport anglers (Young and Lahr, 1982). The proposed facility, which could accommodate boats of up to 25' in length, would allow anglers to launch at this location and avoid a 20 miles round trip boat distance from the Erie area. In conjunction with this overall eastern base and fishery, there is an apparent need for mooring sites for charter boats which also must make the long trip from the Erie area to the deep water to utilize the summer and fall fishery. Unfortunately, the Shades Beach Park site is not conducive to building a mooring site on the basis of benefit/cost ratios and economics. A-23 Fishing license sales, both Statewide and in Erie County, have drastically increased over the past decade. Likewise, boating registration in the State and Erie County have more than doubled since 1968. These trends are expected to continue and will cause increased pressure on the existing limited boating and fishing faciliti.es. An inventory of fishing and boating facilities for Lake Erie along the Pennsylvania shore line may be found elsewhere in the Appendix. Although this inventory in itself does not address the specific needs for boating and fishing facilities, it does illus- trate graphically that the ratio of existing facilities per mile of shore line is substantially less for the area from the City east to the New York State line than the area from Erie west to the Ohio State line. Specifically, there are two times as many public car stalls per mile to the west as compared to east, 1.4 times as many public car/trailer stalls per mile to the west and there are 5.3 times as many public launch ramps to the west than to the east. This last item is even more significant as it is the presence of protected launch ramps which increased boating safety by providing better and quicker boat retrieval from the Lake when storms occur. This inventory was taken from "Feasibil- ity of Boating Access Development on Lake Erie, North East Town- ship, Erie County", which was prepared by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering, in December of 1983. A-24 SITE The primary reason supporting further development of the existing access area at Shades Beach Park are its location, the area's need for public access facilities and the site's public ownership, recreational zoning and immediate availability. The location is readily accessible to local and non-local users from main highways and it lies approximately half way between Erie and Barcelona, NY where the greatest need for safe access to the Pennsylvania waters of Lake Erie exists. The site is presently zoned and used as a public recreation- al facility and no changes are anticipated. Because of i ts apparent public ownership, a redevelopment project could be implemented at an early date as no land acquisition efforts for land use zoning changes would be necessary. A title search is recommended to verify public ownership. The difficulties of access development at the Shades Beach Park navigational improvements and beach restoration project are common to most shore front lands east of Erie. 'They are: (1) existing high bluffs, (2) shallow Lake water depths, (3) rough fast moving storms on Lake Erie, (4) the prevailing northwest winds, which at times cause a set up that is a tide-like phenome- na which can raise water elevations two to three feet on the east end of the Lake, (5) possible beach accretion to the west and depletion to the east of any structure in the Lake which may cause maintenance expense and (6) channel dredging which may be needed at the breakwater entrance to maintain adequate water depth also may cause a continual maintenance expense. A-25 An existing roadway through the bluff on the immediate east edge of the proposed harbor will provide a convenient access point to the boat launch ramp. Traffic movements will be criti- Cal during times of peak boat launching activity, as well as their retrieval, and it is apparent that a separate exit, through the bluff, must also be provided. Peak day usage of the boat launch ramp was estimated to be 600 total movements including launching and retrieval. The traffic pattern necessary to accom- modate these movements dictates that the exit maneuvers from the boat launch ramp not interfere with the entrance movements. A partial pathway is already existent in the bluff at the point where the proposed launch ramp exit would be located. The final design of access roadways and parking was not a part of this report and the accompanying plans and specifications for beach restoration and navigational improvements. However, a conceptual scheme had to be developed in order to provide budget information regarding benefit/cost ratios together with logistics of vehicular movement to and from the boat launch ramp. A sketch of the parking facility and access road improvements may be found elsewhere in this Appendix. The shallow water depth of Lake Erie is manifested at the Shades Beach Park boat launch ramp. Soundings were taken throughout the proposed site for the breakwater and the related areas. A contour map was developed and this is included in the drawings. During times of extreme low water levels on Lake Erie, it will be difficult if not impossible to launch craft with A-26 significant displacement. A profile is indicated on the con- is struction drawings of the floating docks with relationship to the low and high water data and the bottom of Lake Erie at this point. Accretion caused by littoral drift and the resulting opera- tion and maintenance costs have been considered for the project. It has been estimated that in excess of $10,000 per year will be expended by the Township to relocate the accretion which would occur near the beach and to redeposit this material immediately east of Eightmile Creek. This cost figure also includes the necessary channel dredging needed at the breakwater entrance to maintain an adequate water depth. These costs have been included in the benefit/cost ratios for the project. . In addition to the access road and parking improvements, other site specific details are needed to take full advantage of the proposed navigation and beach improvements. In order to recover costs of constructing the facility, a user fee charge must be assessed. Therefore, a collection booth or shelter must be constructed to accommodate the individuals who will be collecting the launch ramp fee. A beach house is necessary to allow for changing and showers. Sanitary facilities would also be incorporated at the beach house with on-site sewage disposal. Another consideration should be the lighting of the boat launch area and parking lot. A picnic pavilion would be desira- ble as would-be playground equipment and turf recreation areas. A-27 The existing picnicking facilities could be expanded upon and improved. None of these details have been included in cost esti- mates nor are they necessary to the navigation improvement and beach restoration project. Access roadway improvements include new gravel base and a double surface treatment of chip and seal. The parking lot would be a gravel surface structure. The access and parking construction would require some maintenance on behalf of the Township. Costs for such maintenance have been included in the project budget. Although it would be desirable to have a bitumi- nous surface on both the access road and parking lot it is not deemed cost effective at this time. With proper consideration of the specific points discussed in this site analysis, the location was found to contain no significant obstacles to develop. The concept for rubble mound breakwaters and the associated boat launch ramp and beach were based upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' report for Section 103 and Section 107 Initial Appraisal, dated August 21, 1985, at Harborcreek, PA. Options considered in that report led to the design concept indicated on the drawings and discussed in this report. A-28 HARBOR DESIGN The harbor opening is proposed to face east, since easterly winds occur only 5% of the time. This orientation should provide the greatest protection from storms and sedimentation in the launching area and harbor mouth. The configuration of the harbor area was planned so that the maximum protected water area is achieved with the least length of breakwater. Floating docks with bridges and bulk head abutments are deemed essential to allow the necessary boat movements to coordi- nate with the vehicular traffic patterns and flow to accommodate peak day usage. Each launch lane is 15' wide and five series of floating docks each serves two launch ramps. Launch cycling, during peak use days, shall require full utilization of all ten launch lanes. Forty feet of floating dock will accommodate two boats in each lane. The boat closest to shore would be launching while the boat, in the same launch lane, previously launched would be moved out towards the water end of the floating dock while the vehicle and trailer is being parked. This allows launchings to occur at approximately 15 minute intervals to accommodate the full 600 launch/retrieval movements per day during peak day use. Retrieval movements would be similar where the boat in a launch lane nearest to shore would be awaiting arrival of the pickup vehicle and trailer allowing room for another boat to pull up against the floating dock. A-29 Both the proposed access and exit roads from the boat ramp area are partially protected by the proposed b reakwaters. A small amount of shore protection at these road entrances to the harbor may be necessary. Rip-rap may be used to protect the built-up roadway near the launch ramp. A-30 SANITARY FACILITIES Sanitary facilities can be provided near the parking area and boat ramp. It is envisioned that these facilities would be a part of the proposed beach house. A single structure with sepa- rate usage area for men,and women would probably be the cost effective solution. They could be equipped with flush waste facilities, shower and sinks. Since a public water supply is not available at the site, a low yield well and distribution system could be developed. Heaviest use of the proposed sanitary facilities is expected on weekends during the summer and fall with peaks during the salmon fishing season in late summer and early fall. Holiday weekends would undoubtedly result in highest usage of park fea- tures. For design purposes we estimate a maximum average daily use of approximately 750 persons. The following minimum number of fixtures are recommended for the public restrooms and beach house: Men: 1Flush toilet enclosed booth 2Urinals 2Sinks 2Shower stalls Women: 3Flush toilets enclosed booths 2Sinks 2Shower stalls Because public sewerage facilities are not currently avail- able and on-lot disposal is probably not a viable alternative, A-31 lor purposes of this study sanitary facilities could be either of two options. A self-contained trailer unit, encompassing a beach house and sanitary requirements, including vacuum pump and hold- ing tank could be utilized. The contents of the holding tank would be periodically emptied and removed to a facility approved by the Erie County Department of Health. The other option is to construct a small aerobic treatment system consisting of a pack- aged plant installed below ground and discharging its effluent through sand filters ultimately to Eightmile Creek. This system would be similar to those installed for small commercial enter- prises where no sewer system exist to serve such a development. A-32 PHASING Phase I The first activity should be the financing of the project because without funds to support the construction, this project will not become a reality. It is unlikely that the Township could afford to make the improvements without the assistance of grant monies. Thus, all sources of potential revenue must be explored including Section 103 and Section 107 Federal Funding Assistance which this project is categorically eligible to be funded under. It appears that other sources of revenue will also be needed in terms of grants and loans to retire more than $600,000 of debt to be incurred I and recovered by user fees. Refer to the FUNDING paragraph found at the end of this Section in the Report. Phase II The second phase of the project would be to survey and design the roadway and parking lot improvements. At this time the beach house and user fee toll booth would also be included in the design work. It is believed that this design effort will be necessary in order to assure Section 103 and 107 funding support. Phase III The third phase would be to obtain all necessary permits and approvals for the entire project. This includes not only the permits and approvals for the breakwater and beach restoration projects but also for the traveled surfaces, public water and sewage facilities. A-33 Rhase IV This phase should be the construction of the breakwater itself. Although a relatively short construction time table will be allowed for the contractor to install the breakwater, many activities must be undertaken. beforehand. Quarry selection, rubble blasting, testing and approvals will undoubtedly take several months. Once the rubble mound breakwater is in place, the area will provide quiet water necessary for other construc- tion activities. Phase V The next phase would consist of beach sand nourishment, launch ramp construction, clearing and grubbing, excavation and grading of the access road and parking lot. This will be fol- lowed by the building construction and installation of floating docks. Completion of the project would consist of replenishing top soil and seeding of disturbed areas, installing necessary guiderails, signs and other appurtenances. A-34 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE After completion of construction and opening of the facili- ties to the public, an active maintenance program must be imple- mented. Maintenance costs would probably be borne entirely by Harborcreek township. It is proposed that the daily operation and maintenance duties such as cleaning, cutting grass, opening and closing the gate and policing may be assumed by the Township. The Township would also be responsible for the annual beach nourishment, removal of sediments tr apped by the breakwaters and maintenance of the harbor opening. Maintenance of the launch ramp, floating docks, access roads and parking lot are also included in the Township duties. Total maintenance and operation costs could fluctuate con- siderably due to a large number of unknown variables. An annual budget figure of $20,000 per year has been established as noted on Page EA-15 of the Appendix. The Township, acting as contrac- tor, has most of the necessary equipment and capabilities to handle the work required with their own staff. It may become necessary from time to time to require the services of a contrac- tor to assist in dredging. A-35 USER CONFLICT Experience has shown that the only significant conflict between boaters and shore fishermen occurs at times of maximum activity for both uses. At other facilities, according to the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, this has only been a problem during salmonoid season. Since there are currently no significant salmonoid runs close to shore at Shades Beach and into the stream, Eightmile Run,.we see no specific potential user con- flicts. Should user conflicts occur after development, it is probable that they can adequately be controlled 'by use of exist- ing regulatory and enforcement authority. No walkway is proposed upon the rubblemound breakwaters to facilitate fishing activity at this time. It would be unsafe for fishermen to attempt to use the breakwater as an access out to deeper water. Thus, posting the breakwaters will be necessary. If, in the future, a walkway is constructed upon some of the breakwaters, control of user conflict may be necessary. A-36 FUNDING The results of this study have emphasized that a project as proposed at Shades Beach is financially viable and deserves to be given a high priority. However, there is currently insufficient funding available to initiate the construction and related en- deavors. Even if this project were spread out or phased over several fiscal years, the Township could not afford to fund the total development without funding assistance from other sources. Sources which could provide financial assistance are as follows: Federal Coastal Zone Management, administered through DER Section 103/107, administered through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Energy Impact Program, administered through the Department of Community Affairs National Park Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund, administered through DER State Department of Environmental Resources (See administra- tion functions above) State Legislature Local Erie County Township of Harborcreek A-37 0 UPDATE OF U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS INITIAL APPRAISAL REPORT AT HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA 0 0 ' Nordiwest Engineering Im. Civil Engineers and Surveyors SUBJECT: Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements Design and Engineering Study at Harborcreek, PA, in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Initial Appraisal Report on Beach Resto- ration and Navigational Improvements. AUTHORITY: This report was prepared under the authority of an -agreement between Erie County, PA and Harborcreek Township and done so in accordance with the Statutes, rules and regulations of the Feder- al,, State and local governments. Financing for this study was prov-ided by- a Federal Coastal Zone Management, Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources with funds provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. STUDY PURPOSE & SCOPE OF WORK: This Planning, Design and Engineering Study addresses the need for the restoration of the Beach Area and development of a safe harbor at Shades Beach in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Initial Apprai-sal Report on Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements at Harborcreek, PA", dated August 21, 1985. The focus of effort has been directed towards a design which is economically feasible under Section 103 and 107 Federal Funding Assistance. AREA OF CONSIDERATION: The area studied in this report is the beach and boat launch area of Shades Beach Township Park at Harborcreek, PA. Maps indicat- ing the location of Harborcreek and Shades Beach Township Park are found in the Appendix of this Report. Harborcreek Township is located on the Lake Erie. shoreline, about 80 miles southwest of Buffalo, NY and about 15 miles east of Erie, PA. The Township grew from a population of 12,038 in 1970 to 14,644 in 1980. Shades Beach Township Park is bounded by Lake Erie on the north and Eightmile Creek on the east. The west and south borders of the Park abuts private property. The Park has groves, picnic facilities, playground equipment, a bath house and maintenance building, swimming beach, boat ramp. Photographs of the Park are shown in the Appendix. R.D. 1, P.O. Box Q, Tidioute, Pennsylvania 16351 Telephone (814) 484-3504 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS: The" lake shore in the beach area is characterized by a 70' high nearly vertical bluff with shale base. In general, the shore in this area is without a sand beach except for a small, eroding beach at the study site. Although Presque Isle, a large peninsu- la approximately 12 miles west of Harborcreek offers miles of beach area, there still exists demand for a local beach. Refer to the Economic Appendix, Page EA-19 for demand justification. The Shades Beach boat ramp and launch are shown in the Appendix. The ramp is located immediately east of the existing groin. The ramp is composed of concrete with sand and large cobbles present above the water line and the ramp is in generally poor condition. The launch mechanism was a steel dol,,ly on wheels which rolled near the shore line on two rails. The rails were located west of the boat ramp but were subsequently removed due to deterioration and storm damage. The limited facilities in Harborcreek comprise the only existing public boat launch between the Lakeside Park Boat Launch Ramp in Lawrence Park Township (about 7 miles west) and the Dewey-Western Pennsylvania Beach Access Area in Northeast, Pennsylvania (about 8 miles east). Since the area off shore Shades Beach is an excellent fishing area, there is excess demand for boat launching facilities. Of special interest is "the mountain", a deep (110'- 125') depression in Lake Erie five miles off Shades Beach. Around the first of August each year, Coho Salmon congregate in this area and it becomes a very popular spot for the fishermen. HISTORICAL SHORELINE: It appears that from 40' to 90' of beach width has been lost since 1939 aerial photography and a 1983 survey of the park. A sketch depicting this shoreline recession may be found in the Appendix. PLAN INVESTIGATION: The Army Corps of Engineers, in their August 21, 1985 initial appraisal report, considered three alternatives. Each option consisted of an "L" shaped rubble mound breakwater connected to shore and improvements to the existing groin. One variation of the base concept was to utilize 27 reinforced concrete shanties, which the town of Harborcreek obtained for a.nominal charge, which would be filled with concrete and used as the core for the rubble mound breakwater. Another option was identical to the base plan but also would include a detached breakwater and re- stored beach. 2 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements The Corps of Engineers economic assessment was that the "L" shaped breakwater together with the groin improvements, off shore breakwater and beach restoration was cost effective. It is the intention of this report to refine the study regarding the recom- mended improvements made by the Corps of Engineers in their previous evaluation. The selected plan includes a 124' detached breakwater and a restored beach, an "L" shaped rubble mound breakwater connected to shore and construction of a rubble mound breakwater over the existing groin. The off shore breakwater and "L" shaped break- water help trap-and sustain a beach. The beach would abut the "L" shaped breakwater and would be 50'wide by 385' long. An initial placement of 1640 tons of sand would be required with an estimated annual nourishment of 70 cubic yards. The breakwater itself would provide shelter for a new launch ramp. This is detailed on the construction drawings. The con- struction of launch ramps and related appurtenances are not a permissible federal expense under the authority of Section 107 but a ramp was included so that the breakwater could be sized proportionally. The breakwater crest heights are 6.5' above low water datum (LWD) at the East breakwater, 8.0' above LWD at the "L" shaped breakwater and 7.5' above LWD at the detached break- water. The East and "L" shaped breakwaters enclose a launch area approximately 70' by 220'. The benefits and costs of the plan have been refined as a part of this engineering evaluation. The benefit/cost ratios have dimin- ished since the initial appraisal report prepared by the Corps of Engineers. This is due, in part, to the fact that the Corps developed their estimates based upon limited field survey data and, as thus, quantities were subject to conjecture. Also, in developing this final report, associated costs for access road and parking improvements have been included. These associated costs are necessary to make the overall project a viable safe harbor with boat launching facilities which shall require improved access and parking to take full advantage of the launch ramp to meet the anticipated demand projected by the Corps of Engineers. BENEFITS: The benefits and costs of the proposed plan were compared to the benefits and costs of taking no action. If no action is taken, the existing boat launch facility would continue to offer some limited recreational opportunities. The town has closed the beach to swimming and shall not open it until the beach is re- stored. Therefore, under the no action plan, no swimming was envisioned. The proposed plan would improve recreational boating opportuni- ties and also provide a local swimming beach. Recreational benefits are quantified by assigning an accepted dollar value to a unit-day-of a certain quality of recreation multiplied by the 3 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements expected number of unit-days of use. The derivation of these benefits is covered in detail under the economic analysis. COSTS: The construction cost estimate by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers, in their 1985 report for this project, was $791,000. This estimate was prepared on the basis of extremely limited prelimi- nary survey data including U.S.G.S. topographic maps and visual inspection of the site. The cost estimates in this report have been based on accurate elevations taken by standard survey meth- ods which result in an accurate quantity takeoff for the naviga- tion improvements and beach restoration portions of work depicted on the drawings. The current cost estimate includes contractor's plant, labor, materials, overhead and profit at estimated 1989 price levels. The current cost estimate for the project is $1,645,358 including associated costs. This estimate cannot be compared to the Corps of Engineer's estimate since the Corps did not include associated costs in their figures. The cost estimates for the selected plan are found in the Econom- ic Analysis. The benefit to cost ratio for navigation improve- ments was calculated to be 1.17 while the beach restoration benefit to cost ratio was found to be 1.29. Refer to the Econom- ic Appendix for specifics regarding derivation of the benefit to cost ratios. It is unlikely that Harborcreek Township could support the total project cost solely from local funds. Federal funding assistance may be used to offset a portion of the project cost. Specifical- ly, Section 103 and/or Section 107 funding could be used to support the direct costs related to the navigational improvements and/or the beach restoration. Furthermore, other grants could conceivably be obtained to offset a portion of associated costs such as access road improvements, parking lot upgrade and expan- sion together with other necessary related facilities. This report also assumes, as did the previous Corps of Engineers report, that the boat launch ramp costs would be offset by a user fee. Additionally, a substantial portion of the parking lot improvements was considered in this report to be recovered by user fees. The analysis of the plan raises a legal question regarding fund- ing under Section 103 and Section 107 because it is both a navi- gational improvement and beach restoration project occurring simultaneously. This distinction would not cause a problem if each project feature were required for both purposes. In this instance, however, the portion of the "L" shaped breakwater, which runs parallel to shore, and the improvements to the exist- ing groin are not required for beach restoration. Similarly, the detached breakwater and beach fill are not required for naviga- tion improvements. Therefore; the analysis of the plan compares the benefits and incremental costs of a navigation project pre- 4 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements suming the beach restoration features are constructed simultane- ously. Pl:an costs are apportioned by purpose so that a benefit/cost justification for each Authority can be prepared. The costs shown for beach restoration include the costs of beach fill, offshore breakwater, the construction of the perpendicular to-shore arm of the "L" shaped breakwater and related associated costs for access, parking and facilities related to the beach restoration. Cost shown for navigation improvements are simply the remainder of the costs. ASSOCIATED COSTS: In order to realize the navigation benefits to the plan, con- struction of a boat ramp, access road improvements, additional parking area and a user fee collection booth would be required. The construction cost of these facilities are the associated costs which are the total responsibility of the Township as they relate to Section 103 and 107. Costs such as these, which are not part of the proposed federal project, but which are necessary for the full use of the proposed project, are called associated costs. Federal guidance requires that associated costs be included in the benefit/cost analysis. However, an offset equal to those costs may be taken if it can be shown that the annual associated costs would be entirely recouped by user fees. In the case of the improvements at Shades Beach, a user fee for launching has been assumed. The fee collected will offset the cost for the boat launch ramp and appurtenances, the user fee collection booth, and a portion of the parking lot improvements. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: Two measures of economic efficiency were used in both the Corps of Engineers study and this report. The first measure of econom- ic efficiency is the benefit to cost ratio (B/C). The B/C ratio is the ratio of average annual benefits to average annual costs. A B/C ratio in excess of 1 implies economic feasibility. The B/C ratios for navigation improvements and beach restoration are 1.17 and 1.29 respectively. The derivation of economic efficiency may be found in the Appendix of this report. The plan, having a B/C ratio in excess of 1, is economically feasible. The other meas- ure of economic efficiency is called "net benefits" and is the difference between average annual benefits and average annual costs. The net benefits for navigation improvements and beach restoration are $9,878 and $16,700 respectively. Refer to the Economic Appendix for the calculation of net benefits. Accompanying this report are plans and specifications for a specific project which is an element of the overall improvements required at Shades Beach. Detailed are the rubble mound break- waters, beach sand nourishment, a boat launch ramp with appurte- nances and navigational lighting. The estimated costs for this project can be reasonably determined based upon accurate quantity takeoff coupled with estimated costs for each respective work 5 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements item. This project includes Section 103, Section 107 and associ- * ated costs work. The project does not include access road im- provements, parking lot upgrade and expansion and related facili- ties which would all be associated costs. The non-project costs are based upon conjecture since no detail survey or construction des-ign was prepared for these elements. The estimated cost of the concrete boat launch ramp, maneuvering area, and floating docks with concrete bulkheads is $355,041. The ramp provides 10 launching lanes, each 15' wide, with each launch area adjacent to a floating dock. The launching area geometrics was dictated by existing topographical features and the need to provide access for all boat movements on peak boating days. The ability to move traffic in and out of the launch area, including both watercraft and street vehicles, was studied to assure the practicality of the entire system. The Corps of Engineers, in their August 1985 report, noted that Harborcreek intended to charge $1.50 for use of the boat ramp. However, considering additional project costs and inflation since the Corps report, it will be necessary to charge $2.50 for the use of the boat launch to recover the capital costs. The Corps of Engineers expected that there would be 31,,230 launches per year based upon their studies. Peak boating days must be accom- modated by the boat launch in order to assure that full annual usage can be realized. This, in turn, led to the adding of the floating docks to assure that 300 or more launches (with retriev- als) could be accommodated. The Corps originally envisioned 13 launching lanes without docks but this could not be accommodated without diminishing the beach area. Incidentally, the beach is only approximately one-half the area that the Corps of Engineers originally conceived. Assuming a $2.50 launch fee and 31,230 movements per year, the ramp would generate $78,075 of annual revenue. It is not antici- pated that a user fee would be assessed at the beach but it could be used to offset lifeguard or other costs. Annual administra- tive, operative and maintenance costs will amount to $20,000, including beach sand replenishment costs. Refer to the economic analysis, Page EA-15, within the Appendix, for estimates regard- ing annual costs. A net $58,075 annual debt retirement payment would be realized if the full theoretical usage of the boat ramp is realized. For example, using $58,075 for the annual payment of debt retirement, an 8.50% for the interest rate, the following principal amounts may be obtained for the time periods indicated: LENGTH OF LOAN PAYMENT AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL 20 Years $ 549,536 30 Years $ 624,060 40 Years $ 657,031 6 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements The average annual benefits, benefit to cost ratios and itemized cost estimate for this project, including associated costs which are not incurred with the navigational improvement and beach restoration project element, are tablized on the following pages. Associated costs are included in the benefit/cost analysis, however, an offset equal to the user fee annual associated costs are not included. User fees are assumed to offset a total of $624,060 of the entire project. AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS ITEM AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFIT .Navigational Improvement $66,520 (Section 107) Beach Restoration $73,785 (Section 103) NET BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO: NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT BEACH RESTORATION $9,878 $ 16,700 BENEFIT TO COST RATIOS NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT BEACH RESTORATION 1.17 1.29 7 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Project Costs (Navigation Improvements) Excavation 240 C.Y. 10.10 2,424 Armor and Toe Stone 10,900 Ton 49.30 537,370 Filter Fabric. 392 S.Y. 5.30 2,094 Navigation Light Fnd. L.S. 7,000.00 7,000 SUBTOTAL $ 548,888 Contingencies (15%) 82,333 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 45,000 TOTAL $ 676,221 (Beach Restoration) Excavation 778 C.y. 8.20 6,380 Sand Replenishment 1,640 Ton 7.75 12,710 SUBTOTAL $ 19,090 Contingencies (15%) 2,864 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 4,000 TOTAL $ 25,954 (Boat Launch Ramp) Fill 5,286 C.Y. 8.00 42,288 Flatwork Concrete 650 C.Y. 240.00 156,000 Concrete Bulkheads 157 C.y. 200.00 31,400 Floating Docks- 1,650 S.F. 40.00 66,000 SUBTOTAL $ 295,688 Contingencies (15%) 44,353 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 15,000 TOTAL $ 355,041 8 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE is ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL OF PROJECT COSTS $1,057,216 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASSOCIATED COSTS (Access Road Improvements) Earthwork 30,000 C.Y. 2.50 75,000 Drainage L.S. L.S. 17,500.00 17,500 Base ' 18,333 S.Y. 4.80 90,302 Surface Treatment 18,813 S.Y. 1.50 28,220 SUBTOTAL $ 211,022 15% Contingencies 31,653 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 36,401 TOTAL $ 279,076 (Parking Lot and Buildings) Earthwork 30,000 C.Y. 2.50 75,000 Drainage L.S. L.S. 17,500.00 17,500 Base 22,333 S.Y. 4.80 107,198 Fee Collection Booth L.S. L.S. 4,000.00 4,000 Bathhouse & Sanitary L.S. L.S. 30,000.00 30,000 Facilities SUBTOTAL $ 233,698 Contingencies (15%) 35,055 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 40,313 TOTAL $ 309,066 TOTAL OF ASSOCIATED COSTS $ 588,142 TOTAL PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED COSTS $1,645,358 9 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements COST SHARING: The project entities consisting of navigation improvements (breakwaters) and beach restoration (initial sand placement) could theoretically become eligible for both Section 107 and Section 103 Authority Federal Funding Assistance. This funding will require a feasibility study resulting in a detailed project report prepared under the authority of the U.S. Army C.O.E.. The current cost sharing policy for recreational navigation projects (Section 107) is 50% federal funding and 50% non-federal. Sec- tion 103 cost sharing for beach restoration, including associated costs, presently provides for a 50-50 percent cost sharing. The current federal rules for cost sharing on these types of projects is subject to change periodically. For Section 103, beach restoration costs, the federal government will not participate in land acquisition, easements or right-of- way costs. The work directly related to navigation improvements and beach restoration appears to be contained entirely within lands owned by Harborcreek Township and Lake Erie. A title search is recommended to verify Township ownership of lands associated with the project area. Associated costs related to the access roadway improvements will require, as a minimum, grading permits from adjoining property owners in the 300' long section of road- way nearest to the breakwater area. Such grading permits could probably be obtained at no cost to the Township. Cost sharing is based upon two permutations of federal funding assistance. In the first case, Section 107 federal funding for navigational improvements only has been considered. In the second case, both Section 103 and Section 107 federal funding has been considered for both beach restoration and navigational improvements respectively. The following tables summarize what the federal and local share would be for all Park improvements discussed in this report. COST SHARING ESTIMATE (SECTION 107 FUNDING) ITEMS FEDERAL SHARE LOCAL SHARE Section 107 $ 296,464.00 $ 296,464.00 Associated Costs 428,370.00 TOTAL $ 296,464.00 $ 724,834.00 COST SHARING ESTIMATE (SECTION 107 & 103 FUNDING) ITEMS FEDERAL SHARE LOCAL SHARE Section 107 $ 159,484.50 $ 159,484.50 10 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements Section 103 191,593.00 191,593.00 is Associated Costs 319,143.00 TOTAL $ 351,077.50 $ 670,220.50 In each of the above cost sharing tables, costs recovered by user's fees are estimated to be $624,060. Costs recovered by user's fees are used to offset associated project costs which would otherwise be borne by the Township. Therefore, the total first cost for',the entire project is $1,645,358 less $624,060 equaling $1,021,298. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: Information has been obtained from existing literature and coor- dination with federal, State and local agencies charged with administering fish and wildlife resources, cultural resources and land use plans in order to characterize the resource base of the project area. Project coordination was initiated in June and July, 1984, by the Corps of Engineers contacting these agencies through correspondence. In February of 1989, these agencies were again sent letters advising them of the proposed project together with conceptual plans of the breakwaters and boat launching facilities. The U.S. Department of Interior - Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, the Federal Highway Admin- istration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Office, the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commis- sion and the Erie County Department of Planning were contacted, both in 1984 and 1989. Copies of correspondence received may be found in the Appendix. Most agencies were supportive of the recreational benefits of the project. Major concerns expressed by the various agencies about the project include: consistency with the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Policies; a need for navigational assistance facilities; impacts to littoral drift and associated impacts to fish habitat, erosion and continued fishery access to Eightmile Creek, project construction and maintenance scheduling; adequate fishing access, and use of clean construction and beach nourishment materials. An environmental compliance summary may be found in the Appendix of this report. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission initially indicated in their responses that archaeological resources may be affected by the project. They proposed that a survey or limited testing of the area be undertaken to locate potentially signifi- cant archaeological resources in their 1984 letter. Their March 8, 1989 letter concluded that a Phase I Archaeological Survey was needed to determine if any on-land or submerged prehistoric or Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements historic cultural resources existed on the site and, if so, to identify them. Additional information was submitted to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and they responded on June 8, 1989. Their conclusion was the the proposed project should not affect National Register eligible or listed historic or archaeological properties. The present assessment of project implementation benefits real- ized include: man-made resource, desirable community and region- al growth, community cohesion, business and industry, employment and income, public facilities and services, property values and tax revenue, and aesthetics. Probably minor to moderate initial adverse impacts would occur to natural resources, air quality, water quality,-noise and aesthetics. No displacement of people or farms would occur as a result of the project. Adverse impacts are reduced by incorporation of envi- ronmental design measures required under contract documents. Continued environmental coordination shall be necessary during the permitting phase of the project to assure minimal negative environmental impact during the construction and operation of the facilities. LOCAL COOPERATION: The construction of the project appears unlikely unless Section 107, Navigation Improvements, and possibly Section 103, Beach Restoration, federal funding assistance grants are available. To meet the funding provision of these types of federal assistance programs, Harborcreek Township will be required to furnish cer- tain assurances. The local cooperation agreements document the responsibilities of federal and non-federal agencies for a project such as the Shades Beach Improvement. The specific requirements for local cooperation are found in the Appendix. CONCLUSION Based upon the analysis in this report, there is justification for federal involvement in a project at Shades Beach which would include beach restoration and navigational improvements. A feasibility study resulting in a detailed project report, prepared under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shall be necessary to qualify for Section 107 and/or 103 grant funds. The report prepared herein was funded by a Federal Coast- al Zone Management Grant, administered by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Coastal Zone Management Division. A portion of this report contains the basic elements required for a feasibility study prepared under COE guidelines. This will minimize efforts to prepare a detailed project report which could result in Federal grant funds becoming available for the project. There appears to be sufficient demand such that the improved facilities ' overall project costs would be partially offset by a reasonable user's fee for boat launching. Assuming that Section 107 Federal funding for a recreational navigation project could 12 Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements be captured, and with the possibility of also obtaining Section 103, Beach Restoration Federal grant funds, the local share could be between 40% and 44% of total project costs. Providing that some additional grant funds could be made available, from other entities, Harborcreek Township may be in a position to make a firm commitment to this project. This study has found, both through inventory and an analysis as well as a review of other current studies, that a strong need for additional boating access facilities are warranted in Harborcreek Township. The options for improving the existing facility have been reviewed. Construction methods and design alternatives have been investigated, the physical feasibility of these proposals have been analyzed and a scheme that is physically valid and workable has been selected. The costs necessary to develop and maintain the proposed facility were examined and found to be reasonable when compared to other similar development costs. Other important factors are; the study site is apparently under public ownership, no further property acquisition should be nec'essary, the proposed use is the same as the current use and involves only an increase in the level of that use and the land is presently zoned recreational. These facts and findings lead us to the conclusion that this site offers definite potential to provide needed boating and fishing facilities together with beach improvements on Lake Erie. There- fore, the following steps should be taken actively to obtain funding for redevelopment of Shades Beach Park: (1) Conduct a title search to verify public ownership of the Park. 2 Prepare, under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a detailed project report to determine if Section 107/103 funding may be applied against project costs. Verify deep water wave heights and period, wave transmission through the breakwater and related diffraction effects. Ascertain whether or not it is essential to extend the breakwaters to the bluff so that they will not become out- flanked. (3) Conduct a full subsurface investigation of the shale layer which will bear the load of the breakwaters. Removal of soft weathered shale, if present, shall be necessary. (4) Design access roads, parking facilities and appurtenant structures. (5) Obtain all necessary permits. (6) Obtain financing (grants and loans). (7) Construct facilities. 13 ECONOMIC APPENDIX INDEX EA- 1 Introduction EA- 2 Without Plan Condition EA- 2 With Plan Condition EA- 2 Allocation of Recreation Points EA- 6 Demand from Supply Areas EA- 9 Demand at the Project Site EA- 9 Benefits EA- 9 Economic Efficiency EA-10 Itemized Cost Estimate EA-12 Allocation of Associated Costs EA-13 Appropriation of Project Costs EA-14 Cost Sharing: Section 107 Funding Only EA-15 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs EA-16 Project Benefits and Ratios EA-17 Beach Replenishment Analysis EA-17 Without Plan Condition EA-17 With Plan Condition EA-18 Evaluation of Benefits EA-20 Economic Efficiency (Section 103 & 1,07 Funding) HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA ECONOMIC APPENDIX SECTION 103/107 NAVIGATIONAL IMPROVEMENT & BEACH REPLENISHMENT ANALYSIS NAVIGATIONAL IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS (Section 107) INTRODUCTION: The waters of Lake Erie within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are intensively used for recreational boating and boat-fishing. According to the 1985 preliminary report prepared by the Cor-ps of Engineers, nearly two million hours of recreational angling and boating use were expended on Pennsylvania's Lake Erie waters from June 1981 through May of 1982. The vast majority of this recrea- tional boating was concentrated from the City of Erie to the Ohio State line. The reason for this concentration, west of the proposed project in Harborcreek Township, is that adequate and safe boating access east of the East Avenue launch ramp, in the City of Erie, is severely limited. The study that references these facts is "Feasibility of Boating Access Development on Lake Erie Northwest Township Erie County, Pennsylvania Fish Commis- sion, Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering, Harrisburg, PA, Decem- ber 1983. The proposed construction of a breakwater at Shades Beach Park in Harborcreek Township, Erie County, PA would serve boating needs west of the City of Erie. The project site is a 40 acre Township Park located approximately seven miles from the east boundary of the City of Erie. The limited facilities present at Harborcreek comprise the only existing public boat launch between the Lake- side Park marina (about 7 miles west) and North East, PA (about 8 miles east). Lake Erie waters, off the Pennsylvania shore, are very productive and a very popular sport fishing area. Excellent sport fishing for Walleye, Pike and for Coho and Steelhead Salmon exists in the general vicinity of Shades Beach. Good near shore fishing for Pan Fish and Bass, in addition to incipient Lake Trout fishing in the area are also important fishing features. Yearling Lake Trout are stocked in Pennsylvania waters each spring. The area off shore Shades Beach is an excellent fishing area. it provides quality fishing for Pan Fish and Bass in shore, it provides superior deep water fishing for Coho Salmon in the months of August and September when the Salmon seek the deep, cool waters of the Lake. Five miles off Shades Beach there is a large depression in Lake Erie with a depth of approximately 125 feet. This area is termed "the mountain". Commencing August EA-1 each year, Coho Salmon congregate in this area and it becomes an extremely popular spot for fishermen to troll. Ccho fishing extends through September when the fish migrate closer to shore. WITHOUT PLAN CONDITION: The present launch ramp, located on the east side of the beach, is primitive and a very limited launch facility. Since this launch facility does exist, recreation point-Is do exist under the "Without Plan Condition". WITH PLAN CONDITION: The proposed plan to improve navigation includes a 180 foot wide launch ramp with five floating docks, each dock shared by two launch lanes. Using a design standard of 15' to launch/retrieve one boat, the entire ramp has an instantaneous capacity to handle ten boats. Additional short term mooring is provided at each floating dock to increase allowable movements at each lane to accommodate trailering activities. It has been justified that a ramp can launch/retrieve 60 boats per day (each beat is both launched and retrieved) equating to 30 total boat movements per lane or 300 total boats accommodated per day. ALLOCATION OF RECREATION POINTS: This portion of the report is based upon an analysis made by the Corps of Engineers in their 1985 economic assessment. Fiscal 1985 values have been updated to Fiscal 1989 factors. A case could be made that the "Without Plan Condition" recreation points are conservatively high. There is no justification, at this time, to revise downward the "Without Plan Condition" points which would result in minor increases for average annual benefits and improve the benefit to cost ratio slightly. The points analysis together with the resulting Benefit/Cost ratio is pre- sented in the format used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for determining eligibility for funding under Section 107. It is known that the existing ramp is used both for fishing and general recreational boating with boat-fishing being the predomi- nate use. As boats are used for specialized fishing, Salmon and Walleye, and general fishing, recreational points have been assigned to three recreational activities: specialized boat fishing (Salmon and Walleye); general boat fishing (Pan Fish and Bass); and recreational boating. The following table presents the allocation of points under "Without" and "With" condition for each activity under each of the five evaluation criteria, as well as the net increase in points and the associated unit daily value (UDV) given in Fiscal 1985 values. EA-2 RECREATIONAL PLAN NET ACTTVITY CONDITION CHANGE "Without" "With" Without-With Plan Specialized Boat Fishing Recreation Experience 16 14 Availability of Opportunity 1:) 3 0 Carrying capacity 2 14 12 @0 Accessibility 10 C, Environmental Quality 14 12 Total 19 57 38 Associated IJDV $14.16 $17.23 $3.07 RECREATIONAL PLAN NET ACTIVITY CONDITION CHANGE "without" "With" Without-With Plar General Boat Fishing Recreation Experience 5 10 5 Availability of Opportunity 0 Carrying capacity 14 12 Accessibility 10 110 0 Environmental Quality 2 14 12 5 @ Total 22 29 Associated UDV $ 2.68 $ 4.18 $1.50 RECREATIONAL PLAN NET ACTIVITY CONDITION CHANGE "Without" "With" Without-With Plar Recreational Boating Recreation Experience 5 10 5 Availability of Opportunity 3 3 0 Carrying capacity 2 14 12 Accessibility 10 10 0 Environmental Quality 2 14 12 Total 22 51 29 Associated UDV $ 2.68 $ 4.18 $1.50 EA-3 FISCAL 1989 POINT VALUES: SPECIALIZED FISHING & GENERAL RECREATION (Dollars) POINTS Activity 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 so 100 Specialized 13.50 13.85 14.20 14.55 14.90 16.25 17.65 19.05 20.40 21.80 23.15 Fishing General 1.95 2.25 2.60 3.00 3.45 4.15 4.45 4.80 5.15 5.45 5.80 Recreation The points as allocated on the previous page receive the above assigned dollar values which results in determining the UDV for each specialized activity. Interpolation from the above table is used with point totals to find the associated UDV. The demand usage multiplied by the associated UDV results in the net bene- fit. Dividing the net benefit by the associated costs results in the Beneflit/Cost (B/C) ratio. EA-4 Specialized Recreation (Fishin_q.) Points: Nineteen points have been awarded to the project site under "Without Plan Condition" for specialized recreation (fishing). Accessibility has been awarded ten points since there is reasona- bly good highway access. Environmental quality was assigned two points because of the rustic condition of the present site and, primarily, because the existing launch facilities are unprotected from wave action which limits their use. Carrying capacity was assigned two points since the existing fac-I'lity has extremely limited capacity. Three points were awarded for availability of opportunity as there are several ramps within one hour and two within 30 minutes travel time. Finally, two points were awarded for recreation experience primarily due to frequent interference at heavy use periods. Under the "Without Plan Condition", 54 points were awarded to the project site. Recreation experience, carrying capacity and environmental quality received significantly more points under the "With Plan Condition". Availability of opportunity and accessibility points remain unchanged. Recreation experience was awarded 16 points since the proposed facility would have exten- sive use with only limited interference due to crowding. Carry- ing capacity was awarded 14 points because the proposed ramp will -al be large and provide near optimum facilities. Environment quality was awarded 14 points as the project site should have high aesthetic quality. The resulting change in s 'pecialized recreation boat fish-Ing points from "Without Plan Condition" (191, to "With Plan Condi- tion" (57) amounts to 38. This produces an increase in the associated UDV from $14.16 to $17.23. The resulting increase in the UDV for this activity is $3.07. General Recreation (Boat Fishing) Points: The site was awarded 22 points for existing condition general recreation (fishing) use. Due to the variety of general activi- ll-ies available at Shades Beach Park, five points were awarded for recreation experience. Three points were awarded for available opportunity due to other ramps in the general vicinity. Two points were awarded for carrying capacity while ten points were awarded for accessibility. Two points were awarded for environ- mental quality for the same reasons as are listed under Special- ized Recreation Points. Fifty-one points were awarded to the site under the "Wit-111 Plan Condition". Ten points were awarded for recreation experience as several general activities are available at the Park site while the availability of opportunity remains unchanged with three points. Carrying capacity was awarded 14 points since the EA-5 proposed ramp w i I I be 1 arge and can accommodate ten boa t@s s it mu 11 - Is taneously with a design standard of 15 feet per boat launched/re- trieved. The ten points awarded for accessibility remains un- changed while the environmental quality was awarded 14 points because the project site will have high aesthetic quality with no factors that lower its quality. The resulting change in General Recreation Points ,'Fishing) from "Without Plan Condition" (22) to "Wit'h Plan Condition" (51) amounts to '49 points. This produces an increase in the associat- ed UDV from $2.68 under "Without Plan Condition" to $4.18 under "With Plan Conditions", an increase in the UDV of $1.50. General Recreational Boating: The allocation of recreational points to recreational boating under "Without Plan Condition" and "With Plan Condition" is the same as the allocation to General Boat Fishing discussed above. Twenty-two points were allocated under "Without Plan Condition" and 51 points under "With Plan Condition" for a net increase of 29 general recreation points. The associated UDV is $2.68 under "Without Plan Condition" and $4.18 under "With Plan Condition" for an increase of $1.50. DEMAND FROM SUPPLY AREAS: Demand for boat launchings at Shades Beach Park boat launch was developed by the Corps of Engineers by estimating a demand from a primary supply area (the nearby Townships of Harbor0reek and Lawrence Park and part of the Township of North East) and a secondary supply area (the rest of Erie County, PA). To allow for long distance users who travel from more remote supply areas (Pittsburgh and elsewhere) an additional 5,000 boat days have been added for the specialized fishing available at the project site. The basis for the demand estimates is an Ohio SCORP peak boat participation rate of 3.0 peak boat days per household; adjusted for 2.5 persons per household, producing a resulting peak boat day participation rate of 1.2 peak boat days per capita. The per capita rate is assumed to include 0.6 for recreational boating, 0.3 for general boat fishing and 0.3 for specialized boat fish- ing, as applied to the project area. A utilization factor was used to accommodate variation in demand with increasing distance from the project site and variation for peak/nonpeak days. The estimated demand is the product of the supply area's population (1980) multiplied by the appropriate participation rate for the specific boating activity and the utilization factor for that supply area, all divided by 2.5 persons per boat. The following tables present calculations of estimated demand for each boating activity and summarizes the resulting demand figures by supply area for peak and nonpeak days. EA-6 Calculation of Demand for Recreational Boating Days for the Harborcreek 107 Project by Type of Recreational, Boating Activity Demand = (Population (Participation Rate/Capita) (Utilization Factor) (People/Boat) RECREATIONAL BOATING Primary Supply Area Peak Days (22,103) (.6) (.9) 4,774 (2.5) Nonpeak Days (.3) (Peak Days) 1,432 Total Days @6,206 Secondary Supply Area Peak Days (257,677) (.6) (.1) 6,10-4 (2.5) Nonpeak Days (.3) (Peak Days) 1,855 Total Days Both Supply Areas Peak Days Nonpeak Days .3,287 Total Days 14,245 RECREATIONAL BOAT FISHING: General Fishing Primary Supply Area Peak Days (22,103) (.3) (.9) 2,387 (2.5) Nonpeak Days (.3) (Peak Days) 716 Total Days 3,103 Secondary Supply Area Peak Days = (257,677)@(.3) (.1) 3,092 (2.5) Nonpeak Days = (.3) (Peak Days) 92)8 Total Days 4,020 Both Supply Areas Peak Days 5,479 Nonpeak Days 1,644 Total Days 7,123 EA-7 Calculation of Demand for Recreational Boating Days 1"or the Harbor- eek 107 Project by Type of Recreational Boating Activity I Ut Demand = (Po pulation (Participation Rate/Capita) (Utilization Factor) (People/Boat) RECREATIONAL BOAT FISHING: Specialized Fishing Primary Supply Area Peak Days = (22,103) (.3) (.9) 2,387 (2.5) Nonpeak Days = (.3) (Peak Days), 716 Total Days Secondary Supply Area Peak Days = (257,677) (.3) (.1) 3,092 (2.5) Nonpeak Days = (.3) (Peak Days) 928 Total Days -4,020 Both Supply Areas Peak Days 5,479 Nonpeak Days 1,644 Total Days 7,1223 Total Recreational Boating Demand By Boating Activity: Harborcreek, PA 107 4OSupply Area Primary Supply Area Recreational Boating 4,774 1,432 6,206 General Boat Fishing 2,387 716 3,103 Specialized Boat Fishing 2,387 716 3,103 Total 9,548 2,864 12,412 Secondary Supply Area Recreational Boating 6,184 1,855 8,039 General Boat Fishing 3,092 928 4,020 Specialized Boat Fishing 3,092 928 4,020 Total 12,368 3,711 16,079 Supplemental Supply Area (1) Specialized Boat Fishing Total Demand Recreational Boat Fishing 10,958 3,287 14,245 General Boat Fishing 5,479 1,644 7,123 Specialized Boat Fishing 5,479 1,644 12,123 Total 21,916 6,575 38,491(2) NOTE: (1) 5,000 estimated boat days from remote supply areas (beyond Erie County, PA) (2) Includes the above 5,000 boat days from remote supply areas EA-8 DEMAND AT THE PROJECT SITE: The projected demand from all supply areas was compared to the estimated seasonal use in boat launch days at the proposed im- proved Shades Beach boat launch site. The boating and boat fishing season extends from mid-April to mid-November, a period of 31 weeks containing 65 peak and 152 nonpeak days. Using a daily capacity of the proposed ramp being able to launch and retrieve 300 boats per day, with a utilization rate of 0.9 for peak days and 0.3 for nonpeak days, the estimated use under the "With Project Condition" amounts to 31,230 boating days including 17,550 peak days and 13,680 nonpeak days. Demand from all supply areas was estimated to be '38,491 boat days. Based upon the foregoing, it may be concluded that the proposed plan will gener- ate the estimated 31,230 boating days. The 131,230 figure was used to calculate the average-annual benefits for the project. BENEFITS: Project benefits were calculated by multiplying projected use at the project site (17,550 peak boat days and 13,680 nonpeak boat days) by the weighted change in the capital UDV. The weighted change was calculated using the change in UDV for each boating activity (specialized boat fishing, general boat fishing, recrea- tional boating) presented under the ALLOCATION OF RECREATIONAL POINTS portion of this report. The following weights were used: SpecialiZed Boat Fishing = 0.4; General Boat Fishing = 0.2; and Pecreational Boating = 0.4. The resulted weighted change in the UDV is $2.11'3. IMultiplying this value by peak and nonpeak boat days produces the benefits of each. The average annual total benefits contributable to the project amounts to $66,520 as tabulated below. Average Annual Recreational Benefits Associated With Construction of a Breakwater at 'Shades Beach Park, Harborcreek Township, PA (Spring 1989 Price Level) WEIGHTED CHANGE PROJECTED AVERAGE ANNUAL ITEM IN UDV ($) BOAT DAYS BENEFITS ($) Peak Days 2.13 17,550 37,382 Nonpeak Days 2.13 13,680 29,138 Total Days 66,520 ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY: The plan proposed for navigational improvement incorporating a rubble mound breakwater has a first cost of $1,021,298. Average annual costs amount to $56,642. The plan has net benefits of $66,530 and a B/C of ratio of 1.17 and i-s economically justified. EA-9 ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Pro,iect- Costs (Navigation Improvements) @xcavation 240 C.y. 10.10 2,424 A ,'@.rmor and Toe Stone 10,900 Ton 49.30 537,370 Filter Fabric 13192 S.Y. 5.30 2,094 Navigation Light Fnd. L.S. 7,000.00 7,000 SUBTOTAL $ 548,888 Contingencies (15%) 82,333 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 45,000 TOTAL $ 676,221 (Beach Restoration) Excavation 778 C.Y. 8.20 6,380 Sand Replenishment 1,640 Ton 7.75 12,710 SUBTOTAL $ 19,090 Contingencies (15%) 2,864 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 4,000 TOTAL $ 25,954 (Boat Launch Ramp) Fill 5,286 C.Y. 8.00 42,288 Flatwork Concrete 650 C.y. 240.00 156,000 Concrete Bulkheads 157 C.Y. 200.00 31,400 Floating Docks 1,650 S.F. 40.00 66,000 SUBTOTAL $ 295,688 Contingencies (15%) 44,353 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 15,000 TOTAL $ 355,041 EA-10 ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT TOTAL OF PROJECT COSTS $1,057,216 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASSOCIATED COSTS (Access Road Improvements) Earthwork -D0,000 C.Y. 2.50 75,000 Drainage L.S. L.S. 17,500.00 17,500 Base 18,333 S.Y. 4.80 90,302 Surface Treatment S.Y. 1.50 28,220 SUBTOTAL $ 211,022 15% Contingencies 31,653 Permits, Engineering, & T Administration Inspection 36,401 TOTAL $ 279,076 (Parking Lot and Buildings) Earthwork 30,000 C.Y. 2.50 75,000 Drainage L.S. L.S. 17,500.00 17,500 Base 22,333 S.Y. 4.80 107,198 Fee Collection Booth L.S. L.S. 4,000.00 4,000 Bathhouse & Sanitary L.S. L.S. 30,000.00 30,000 Facilities SUBTOTAL $ 233,698 Contingencies (15%) 35,055 Permits, Engineering, Administration & Inspection 40,313 TOTAL $ 309,066 TOTAL OF ASSOCIATED COSTS $ 588,142 TOTAL PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED COSTS $1,645,358 EA-11 ALLOCATION OF ASSOCIATED COSTS: BEACH VISIT DAYS: 17,280/YEAR Persons/Car: 2.5 Vehicular Movement-Is: 6,912/year BOAT DAYS: 0-1,230/YEAR Persons/Boat-Vehicles: 2.5 Vehicular-Movements: 12,492/Year ACCESS ROAD: Beach Restoration: (6,912/6,912+12,492) 35.62% Navigation Improvements: 64.'38% 35.62% x $279,076 = 99,407 (Beach) 64.308% x $279,076 = 179,669 (Boat Launch) PARKING FACILITIES: Tow vehicle and trailer require twice the parking area compared to beach use vehicles. Beach Restoration: (6,912/6,911'-'+12,492+12,492) = 21.67% Navigation Improvements: 78.33% 21.67% x 40,047 8,678 (Beach) 78.33% x 40,047 31,369 (Boat Launch) SUMMARY: Beach Restoration: 99,407 + 8,678 = 108,085 Navigational Improvements: 179,699 + 31,369 211,038 EA-12 APPROPRIATION OF PROJECT COSTS NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS: Detached breakwater and "L" shaped breakwater from shore to bend are considered essential to beach protection. Thus, these costs have been prorated to beach restoration. Breakwaters, excavation and filter fabric: Beach 123,433 c.f. or 53.51% Navigation 107,255 c.f. or 46.49% Navigation Light Foundation: 100% navigation improvements (7000 x 1.15) + (7000 x 1.15/548,888+82,833)(45,000) 8,623 Pro-Rated Costs: 6716,221 - 8,623 = 667,598 Beach Total: 5 3 . 51 1/10' x 667 598 = -3@57 232 Navigation: 46.4906 x 667,598 = 310,366 8,623 Total Navigation Improvements: 318,989 EA-13 %'-'OST SHARING SECTION 107 FUNDING ONLY Detached Breakwater: 29,024 c.f. All Breakwaters: 230,688 c.-;F. BREAKWATER COST FOR NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS: (201.664/230,688) 5137,0370 $ 469,761 EXCAVATION 2,424 FILTER FABRIC 2,094 NAVIGA TION LIGHT FOUNED'ATION 7,000 SUBTOTAL $ 481,2719 CONTINGENCIES (159101) 72,192 PERMITS, ENGINEERING, Tor,j & INS-1'1C:C-1ION ADMINISTRATI 1 39,457 TOT111L 9-92,928 FEDERAL SHARE: 50% x 592,928 = 296,484 LOCAL SHARE: 1,021,298 - 296,464 = 724,834 EA-14 ANNUAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: NAVIGA_rl.IQN IMPROVEMENTS LAUN"-"H RAMP ATTENDANT 1000 hours/year @ $4.50/hr. 4,500 LITTORAL DRIFT REMOVAL @ HARBOR 50 C.Y. @ $410.00/C.Y. 500 ROAD, PARKING & LAUNCH MAINTENANCE (L.S.) 2,000 A 0 M I N I '_- T RA T T;-@ t@ 1.'000 SIUIBTCT@ A%IL_ $ 8,000 BEACH RESTORATION BEACH SAND N(DURISHMENT 7 $ 7 5 // c . Y 5 4 3 !_T -FTORAL DRIFT REMOVAL 1000 C.'(. @ $-io.00/c.Y. 10,000 ROAD, PARKING & BEACH MAINTENANCE (L.S.) 1,000 ADMINISTRATION 457 S B T 0 T AL $ 12,000 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE: 20,000 EA-15 APPROPRIATION OF PROJECT COSTS ITEN TOTAL NAV.INPR. BEACH RESTOR. ASSOCIATED RECOVERED Ojv usqr@z PH) 31 Q AT EPS L .G,@T T i',,K FIFND 3,623 3,623 'CAT RARP 1@5',041 35. 1 7 18 L S 3 0 9 ,A 5 Alcc,,@s ROAD T 0 TA i'145,1H PROJECT BENEFITS & RATIOS (Does not include costs recovered by fees) ITEM TOTAL NAVIGATION REACH IMPROVEMENTS RESTORATION PROJECT FIRST COSTS 1,021,298 DIRECT COSTS 318,989 3183,186 ASSOCIATED COSTS 211,038 108,085 PROJECT APPLIED COSTS 530,027 491,271 (1) ANNUAL FIRST COST (0.08646) 45,826 42,475 (2) INTEREST DURING CONSTR. (0.005313) 2,816 2,610 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 8,000 12,000 AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS $ 56,642 $ 57,085 AVERAGrE_ ANNUAL BENEFITS $ 66,520 $ 73,785 NET BENEFITS $ 9,878 $ 16,700 BENEFIT/COST RATIO 1.17 1.29 (1) Based on 8.5% interest rate and a 50 year project life. (2) I.D.C. based on a 3 month construction period with two equal payments: one at the mid-point and one at the end of con- struction. EA-16 BEACH REPLENISHMENT ANALYSIS (SECTION 103) The proposed beach'restoration project at Shades Beach in Harbor- cree',-, Township, on Lake Erie, Erie County, PA is located on a project site of 40 acres. This Township Park is located approxi- mately seven miles from the eastern boundary of the 'City of Erie. It is the only public beach between Presque Isle State Park, twelve miles to -the west, and Freeport Beach, eight miles to the east. Shades Beach Park is a well developed facility with s ' port `F@elu-s, a playground, two pavilions with kitchen facilities for group picnics, as weil as individual picnic facilities. WITHOUT PLAN CONDITION The existing beach is small and o-F very poor quality at present. The beach is t-he remnant o' -what was once a large, attractive and very popular beach. It has been eroded and most of the sand fill has been removed. The beach is largely covered with loose pieces J of shalle apprcx-matel 'y softball size. The beach is small and [email protected],;_rt,@-ractive in its present condition and has been closed to swimming by Harborcreek Township. It will remain closed to swimming until a reconstructed beach is established. Given its p re s e n tcondit'lon, and the fact that it is closed t o swimming, the il\rmy Corps of Engineers allocated Zero recreational points to --he project site under the '"Without Plan Condition". WITH PLAN CONDITION: The prcposed plan calls for reconstruction of the beach to an _roipprc,xi.mate dimension of 40 feet long by an average of 48 feet wide between the =edge of water and bluff. This will produce a beach with a surface area cf 19,200 square feet. Beach fill should be clean, medium size sand. A limited amount of annual ricurishment, approximately 70 cubic yards is anticipated. the "With Plan -ondi@icn", the Army Corps of Engineers have U allocated general recreation points to the project site for recreational beach use. Ten points were allocated for recrea- _.tc:nal Criteria as there are several general activi- such as swimming, picnicking, hiking, playgrounds, etc. Eiaht points were allocated for availability of opportunity as there are two competing beaches within a one hour drive of the Site. Twelve points were allocated under carrying capacity as the beach will be quite large and well integrated into a de- velo'Ded and well maintained Township park. Ten points were allocated for accessibility, fourteen points were awarded for environmental quality due to its picturesque and attractive set- ting with no environmental liabilities. The above allocation produces a total of 54 general recreational points which converts to a UDV of $4'.27. Since there was zero recreational points under the "Without Project Condition", the full $4.27 accrues as a benefit to each user visit to the reconstructed beach. EA-17 General Recreation Points for Restoration of a Beach at Shades Beach Park, Harborcreek Township, PA I Recreational Beach General Recreation Points Activities Without Plan With Plan Net Increase Recreation Experience 0 10 10 Availability of- 0 8 8 Opportunity Carrying Capacity 0 12 12 Accessibility 0 10 10 Environmental Quality 0 14 14 Total 0 54 54 Associated UDV 0 $4.27 $4.27 General Recreation Points and Unit Day Values (UDV) (FY 89) POINTS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 so 90 100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UDV 1.95 2.25 2.60 3.00 3.45 4.15 4.45 4.80 5.15 5.45 5.80 EVALUATION OF BENEFITS: The recreation beach benefits at Shades Beach Park were evaluated in two steps. Potential demand for visitors to the Park was estimated and this demand was compared to the capacity of the beach under the plan condition. Also, after having verified that there is adequate demand to absorb the capacity at the proposed reconstructed beach, average annual recreational beach benefits were calculated. Supply and Demand: Swimming demand estimates at Shades Beach Park require determina- tion of a probable supply area which reasonably could be expected to supply visitors to the reconstructed beach. The Corps EA-18 of Engineers determined that the primary supply area for the proposed project consisted of the Townships of Harborcreek and Lawrence Park and one-half of the Township oil North East. This 'was based upon site visits and knowledge of nearby beaches. In general, this consists of a zone within a six mile radius of Shades Beach Park. Tqhe population of the primary supply area was 2.2,103 persons in 1980. A secondary supply area consists of the rest of Erie County, 1980 population of 257,677 persons. Potential demand for recreational beach use at Shades Beach Park has been estimnated using the Ohio SCORP peak participation rate 0f 18 visits per season per capita. This value, multiplied by the population of each supply area and a utilization factor, which allows for diminished use in the secondary supply area because of increased travel distance from the project site as well as an increased availability of alternative beaches, pro- duces estimated peak potential demand for recreational beach use at Shades Beach Park. Nonpeak potential demand had been estimat- ed to be 30% of peak demand by the Corps. The following table presents potential peak demand data for the project site. Total potential peak demand was estimated to be 82,189 visits per season. Allowing nonpeak demand to equal 30% of peak demand, nonpeak demand is an additional 24,657, visits per year. Total potential demand (Peak plus nonpeak) amounts to 106,846 visits per season. The peak participation rate is the number of times an individual expected to swim cn a pealk day, weekend, or holiday during the swimming season based upon Ohio SCORP data. The utilization factor is allowance for i,nclement weather, availability of alter- native beaches and increased distance from Shades Beach. POTENTIAL PEAK DEMAND FOR RECREATIONAL BEACH VISITS AT SHADES BEACH PARK SUPPLY POPULATION IN PEAK PARTICI- UTILIZATION POTENTIAL AREA SUPPLY AREA PATION RATE FACTOR DEMAND Primary 22,103 1.3 0.9 35,807 Secondary 257,677 1.8 0.1 46,382 Total 82,189 Capacity at the reconstructed beach is constrained by the size of the beach being only 19,200 square feet. Using a design standard for beach use per capita of 100 square feet per person, coupled with a turnover rate of 2.0 per day, with 34q0 peak days per season and assumed n2qonpeak use of 3012q% of peak demand, the capacity at the reconstructed beach is estimated to be 14,976 visit days. This is 18% of the-estimated total potential demand and approxi- mately 42% of potential demand from the primary supply area. It EA-19 appears that there is more than adequate demand to absorb the capacity for recreational beach use existent in the proposed plan. The calculation oqf recreational benefits is a chain multi- plication process including the following variables: instantane- ous capacity (192) persons); turnover rate (2.0); increase in UDV ($4.27) and the number of peak days per season (30). The result- ing value, $49,190 constitutes peak day recreational benefits. However, the Corps of Engineers' nonpeak use equivalent of 30% of Peak Ulay use will t-!icsqt 'ikely be exceeded due to potential de- mand. We believe it would be appropriate to use 500,60 as a nonpeak value in this instance due to excessive demand. Assuming nonpeak use equivalent to 50-0 of peak day use, nonpeak day benefits were estimated to be $24,595 and total recreational beach benefits were estimated be $73,765. ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY: The overall plan to improve Shades Beach Park with adequate access roads, parking fia"Cilities, appurtenant structures, beach restoration and breakwater with boat launching ramps are assumed @@c be eligible for Section 107 (Navigational Improvements) fund- ing anqd possibly the addq@tion of Section 10.3 (Beach Improvements) federal funding. It is further assumed that the beach improvements would be constructed simultaneously with the naviga- tional improvements regardless of whether or not Section 103 federal funding assistance was available. Section 007 and Sec- tion 103 fundinq does not, impact the calculation of net benefits nor the benefit to cost ratio for the project. However, federal funding significantly impacts the local share costs for the project. An itemnized cost estimate for each aspect of the project has been prepared. The cost estimate may be found in the main body of the report under the Section ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. EA-20 AVERAGE ANNUAL COSTS, BENEFITS, NET BENEFITS, & BENErFIT/COST RATIO (SPRING 1989 PRICE LEVELS) TOTAL INCREMENTAL INCREMENTAL ITEM COST SECTION 107 SECTION 10131 Project- First Costs $ '11,0221,298 $ 530,027 $ 491,271 r S t- C' c s t s 4 5; , 8 2) 6 42,475 -,816 2,610 M. 8,000 12,000 A t"Nerarge Annual Costs 56,642 57,085 ,".'Verase Arnual Berelc@ts 66,520 73,785 Net Seneflts 9,878 16,700 S.e@ne`:@it'/Cost Ratio 1.417 1.29 I C, T Based on an 0 1/2- interest rate and a 50 year P-Cject life. ILDC' based upon a 3 month construction period with -0io equal payriierts, one at mid-point and one at the end C`@ Construction. EA-21 0 MAPS AND PHOTOGRAPHS 0 0 [email protected] rVAG 11CAC. K A-P [email protected] a If At It p"'.111. If LINE I Mr oir IJ..Vt LIN Ut-LU 1-ILLD ...... . TRAILS f PLIAMPIL. VA ti I A I 'NO Loh, IAIIQ ".11D ROAD COUNTVI A/00 SIMOF I?C--ACJI Rw@,e H;i P V Al F F LANE: ERtE I q 3q lq3q @&Sr PUrefry %6 A Pc i vA r,-- pk4plEltTy PARCEL 1 14 F:' 511ADES BEAP-H qgl( LEGEAjh 514ADU BcAcw Ar "ARBopcem, PA 0 RDAb TO Rac-meuTch SCALE FEE-T Peopgkv bvE :77 all eel," 'I" 'afts; woo, @MV-0, Pho@c 3- Lf-cl^j (Ndf e. Aa4 IaS4 24' war. imapprA dcr dur,&y La.-Ae, //U r'levis 4 d p@ q (BOA-FHougE To-%C DEMOU-SWED) C)-),CYIjYA- _N41 ir t.1 '4 L ,-119 IL V1 17 I nI- I ART, "t'j- 34; 42 15' ......... - - - - --------- c- -7 17 11 CIDRTH .-Cp 33-6 -------------- 042C 0426 ()005 7 f 8024 C@ L X0 '4 "?rborcre e r@ N- Z, 2-ow 1008 1006 1006 00 C'N ol e L E 053 7 8022 -7ATE GAME -ANDS '40. CD CD NI io 4" KE r ,V-1n. 43, tf@ * U7 60 %'c fey Mayvil L A lvr @l '-Zz auqu ZZ'; 2 PIn6 aW 0 CKUAi @I,- t'v rip, vyj-')::@ 14 uk (vi,) Ch -b- c" ID WIN. i c' J, C- wevela q@- T- @ '-- '_4 zi: -S .'kZ= OH I PE st- d6- - W Ith Yl It , Tv @,,, <@ @KE ONTARIO CANADA FFALO S-zo N SHADES SEAC-tk cv I (D cn MDY ARE \01 N -17 AMESTOWN RIE NEW YORK 1 S..6 p S-6 MEADVILLE LEVELAND US-322 OZ s 0 W L-SON WARREN 1-9 AKRON I- SOS S- 24 YOUN EW us- 2 US-62 CANTON \j - PITTSBURGH cr w us, /-70 VICINITY MAP MILES -I- - WHEELINGG SCALE 47 37 'PROXIMATE MEAN LAKE ELEVATION 572 42 IF 35 > 75d, if 4.2 if if if 4 @,3 I A I J UJI, 679 if Yj 6 72 A 7 Tw ev 9 1 e 6 674 All R Cs 0 R, 41?e U S G S 7!/z NN, N. uAo L C- z coo I ;;@@i,dearhsadville 90 lfz@ c t4 c Hope Ch -@lelk on OA AMI -4 .. .......... . . ..... . . . . . ............... . .......... ..... . ...... I . -J. I . ..... . ......... M . . .. .. .. .. ....... .... ... .... ........ . :3 cn m 00 m AP Fi 771 I . . .. ....... .. 1 21 > C, c) L>1 Z-@@ EQ/il-)&- lb, v> Z: ......... . IT, SEC m tTj ve, - --- ----- S F'- F 27 AZE-r ;r7.2,7 'ZOO f.Q. F .9,'F.33 :50.K P, . ....... .... Z 2,33-7 ...........- 5a rt 1-3, 3 411,sen;@ RIA _.fQ.V- C DIM 4(_ 7. A Lt C- 9 .1 4-CE T 7 ;-7--" 7:.7 @7 17" v 44: 7 luj /* --- ---- iZ j7 T 4.17"--7 W.. . . ... ............ .a L Ittfa rl 7 77 . . .......... m ..... ..... .. cl .......... Ir oq ;K T Z7 SLOPC --Z c OT Alpxr-%-ry Z41 -m-lLer' sq-ces -7 PARKIMei SPAZES AFmA J, JBOAr TP.AILU9 SPAces CAR., SPAai'-5 6, Soo 50. 3. 200 Ydil AgauA L T'- Y 6, B 3 S@; yds. Fok ofreami@,isNa PARWNC@ Lor -5 AND Acf-taS -t-D Ag'r--@ PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS According to the "Initial Appraisal Report" by the Corps of Engineers, the boat launch has a capacity to launch and retrieve 300 boats per day. This is a peak usage and would only be encountered on peak days. Also, it is assumed that there is a peak deployment of boats within the peak day, therefore, only a fraction of the total number of boats that can be launched and retrieved in a day is needed for parking spaces. Boaters can be separated into several categories according to when they will be using the facility and a percentage of the total amount of users can be estimated for each category on a peak day. Below is a listing of these categories. Category Time o-F Usage % of Users All day boaters/fish- 5 AM - 10 PM 5% ermen (trips, distant fishing waters) Morning fishermen 5 AM - 9 AM 30% Day fishermen/Recrea- 9 AM - 5 PM 20% tional boaters Afternoon/Evening 12 Noon - 8 PM 20% boaters/f ishermen Evening boaters/fish- 5 PM - 10 PM 25% ermen Combining the different categories and overlapping the time periods, a maximum of 70% of the ramp capacity can be used for the parking requirements. This amounts to 210 parking spaces needed for the boat launch. The proposed beach capacity is figured from a total area of 19,200 square feet divided by 100 square feet per person, which comes to an instantaneous capacity of 192 people. No turnover rate is applied due to the fact that when people leave the. beach they normally take their car with them. Using an average of two people per car, 96 parking spaces are needed. 0 PUBLIC MEETINGS OCTOBER 4, 1988 MARCH 291 ,1989 0 for RESTORATION OF SHADES BEACH i -01 October 4, 1988 7:30 P.M. HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL BUILDING 1. Marvin L. Akerly 2. Paul Groney 3. Jim Murphy- 4. Joyce Ferringer 5. Richard Feninger 6. Eleanor Musgrave Public Meeting for, design Restor-ation of Shade's Beach October, 4, 1988 7:30 P.M. HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL BLDG. u cz, Q@>f/ C'@7/ c@7@7 7:45 opened Vice Chairman Akerly Shades Beach Restoration To: Paul Groney, Twp. Engineer Joyce Ferringer Dick Ferringer 1) Preliminary Plans 2) Reason here to rec comments. Consists of 1985 requirements (generally, based upon) U.S. Corp initial appraisal study Purpose: feas-ibility of project navagational improvements, some direction re: type of project costs, etc. Results: Yes, if there is need for navigational and recreational area. Boat Ramp - enclosed harbor rec benefits also After Study - Twp. pursued design phase - twp. rec C2 grant to fund bulk of this phase. Breakwall over existing wall - with an arm. Small breakwater and (concrete) slab shall (provide a safe harbor for launching and receiving small craft). Boat launch 220' wide. Joyce - one road over hill Price of particular design Corp 1985 - 800,000 for improvements to bluff No boat launch pads in this $ amount Joyce - Road capable handle traffic today $1 million R? Construction $ ? Mo CZA are allotting $ for constr. designed contract to build breakwaters estimated $1,000,000 off shore drilling leases couple years to start 6 - 8 yr. to complete 37 21 70, -2 on 727- 77' @7 r.2 -7d P7 7@97V @q '7,/ GA rd- cy- PATH OF PUBLICATION OF NOTICE IN THE ERIE MORNING NEWS COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS: COUNTY OF ERIE EDWARD M. MEAD, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is co-publisher of the Times Publishing Company, which publishes: THE ERIE MORNING NEWS a daily newspaper of general circulation, established January, 1957, and published at Erie, Erie County, Pennsylvania, and that the notice of which the attached is a copy cut from said newspaper, was printed and published in the regular edition of said newspaper of the following dates: ON THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1988 Affiant further disposes that he is duly authorized by THE TIMES PUBLISHING CO., publishers of THE ERIE MORNING NEWS to verify the foregoing statement under oath, and affiant is not interested in the subject matter of the aforesaid notice allegations in the foregoing statement as to time, place, and character of publication are true. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1988 NOTARY PUBLIC A Public Meeting will be held on October 4, 1998, at 7:30 P.M. at the harborcreek Township Municipal Building, 5601 Buflata Road, Harborcreek, to receive public comments concerning a proposed harbor and beach restoration project at Shade's Beach in Harborcreek Township. A design study is being performed for proposed improvements at Shade's Beach which will result i a safe harbor and boat ramp. This study is beig funded through a grant from the Coastal Zone Management Division of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and Harborcreek Township. Eleanor II. Musgrove. Secy. Harborcreek Township (9-6040 N 26;T-30) NOTARIAL SEAL CHARLENE A FUMI, NOTARY PUBLIC ERIE, ERIE COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 30, 1991 Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries PUBLIC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. - 3/29/89 - ATTENDANCE E.A. 297 Kraus Dr. S Caldwell, 2006 Cook C. Ande , 6916 Clark Road R- Edwards, 744 Belle Rd. George Reynolds, 3640 Ridge Parkway 7 3564 Sandie T. Hughes, 5016 Buffalo Road SHADES BEACH RESTORATION Bill Balzer Jim Butler Jim Erickson Robert H. Whitney David Skellie - County Planning Dept. David K. Bossart Mary Pat Beal - Breeze Pete Rostatto' 5757 E. Lake Road Dale Pierce R. Edwards Roy Emling Richard Langer Harry McQueeney ?ILL. Ac -T7J-7 0-1 @', e7l SHADES BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT Public Meeting #2 March 29, 1989 Minutes After discussing the conceptual design of the entire project and then both the permitting and construction phases of the project, much discussion was generated. The following comments were raised as suggestions and concerns regarding the completed beach and safe harbor areas: 1. Concern was expressed for the capability of launching larger boats at the facility. It was suggested that the facility should be capable of handling, at a mirii- mum, a boat of 28 feet in length. A water depth of 7 feet seems inadequate to handle this size of craft. 2. Discussion was raised regarding the design water leNel and future lake levels. The U.S. Army Corps of Erigi- neers should be contacted regarding this matter. 3. Temporary mooring hook-tips would be desirable inside the harbor to allow boats to safely wait to enter the launch area to remove their boats. 4. It would be desirable to construct an anchoring area east of the breakwater to allow boaters to leave their crafts in the water overnight without having to haUl the boat from the water and relaunch it again the following morning. 5. It was stated that adeqLta:te lighting throughout the entire park area (i.e. harbor, beach, access roads and parking area) would be essential to allow for a safe and attractive facility. 6. It was suggested by Dave Skellie, Director of the Erie County Department of Planning that the overall project be approached in several phases to facilitate financing for the project. This undoubtedly will have to be pursued. 7. Strong support was given for such a project. In fact, several members of the audience expressed the opinion that such a facility would produce a regular user base that would extend throughout the entire tri-state area, including all of northwestern Pennsylvania. (3-IM-N-22) A PuWic Meeting will be heto on Wednesday, March 29, 1989, at 7:30 PA. at the Haroort-n-K Townshic Municipal Building. S601 Buffalo Roca. Harvr- cree-Jr. PA to mceive ovolie: comments concerning a s)n>. I Posed harmt, and beach resTo- ration Proiect at Shade's Be= in Harcorcreek To-n-@, smic which is currmetly uncert design. INVENTORY OF FISHING AND BOATING FACILITIES FOR LAKE ERIE ALONG THE PENNSYLVANIA SHORELINE This section is an excerpt from the "Feasibility of Boating Access Development on Lake Erie, North East Twp., Erie Co." prepared by the PA Fish Commission in December 1983 Inventory of Fishing and Boating Facilities- for Lake Erie Aloncr the Pennsylvania Shoreline The following -tables and map provide an inventory of the existing public access areas along Lake Erie and information on the facilities provided. Although this inventory in itself does not address the specific needs for boating and fishing facilities, it does illustrate graphically that the ratio of existing facilities per mile of shoreline is substantially less for the area from the city of Erie east to the New York state line than the area f rom Erie west to the Ohio state line. Specifically there are two times as many public car stalls per mile to the west as east, 1.4 as many public car-trailer stalls per mile to the west and there are 5.3 times as many public launch ramps to the west than the east. This last item is even more significant as it is the presence of protected launch ramps which increase boating safety by providing better and quicker boat retrieval from the lake when storms occur. 1. RACCOON CREEK PARK 33. PRESQUE ISLE YACHT CLUB 2. EAGLEY ROAD 34 GEM Crr@ MARINA 3. VIRGINWS BEACH 35. PAASCH MARINA 4. CROOKED CREEK 36. WEST STATE STREET 5. ELK CREEK WEST BANK 37: ERIE MARINE 6.ELK CREEK EAST BANK 38. BROCKWAY MARINE 7. GODFREY RUN 39. EAST STATE STREET 8. TROUT RUN 40. M 1 CALLISTER a SONS LTD. 9.WALNUT CREEK 41. BAYSHORE MARINE IO.HANSEN IS BAIT 42. NORTH a SOUTH PIERS 11. WEST POINT 4a JOHN E. LAMPE MARINA 12. SWAN COVE 44. EAST AVENUE LAUNCH RAMP 13. NIAGARA BOAT RAMP 45. FOUR MILE CREEK 14. FERRY. SLIP 46. LAWRENCE PARK FWING CLUB 156 PRESQUE ISLE MARINA 47 SHADES BEACH 16. WEST PIER 48. TWELVE MILE CREEK (SHOREWOOD) 17. EAST PIER 41a SIXTEEN MILE CREEK 18. LONG POND, DUCK POND, BIG POND a 50. FREEPORT YACHT CLUB HORSESHOE POND. 1. CHARLIE'S BOAT LIVERY I'a CRYSTAL POINT 52. ORCHARD BEACH PARK ASSOCIATION PARK 20. LAGOON'S BOAT RAMP 1 53. NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA (DEWEY 21. LAGOON IS BOAT RAMP 2 ROAD BOAT LAUNCH) 22. STEFANS BOAT LIVERY 54. TWENTY MILE CREEK 23. LAWRENCE PARKING 24. ERIE YACHT CLUB NOTE: 25. CASCADE STREET RAMP FACILITIES FROM I I TO 44 ARE 55 266COMMODORE PERRY YACHT CLUB LOCATED IN THE PRESQUE ISLE 54 AND ERIE CITY AREA. 51 27CHERRY STREET MARINA 52 49 28. BOB'S WHARF N 50 29.CHESTNUT STREET RAMP 3CL WATERWORKS RAMP 45 47 48 3I.ERIE OUTBOARD CLUB 46 32.ERIE PUBIC DOCK HA ORTHE T PRESQUE OREHEADVILLEf*41 cp 7 9 10 ISLE RB CR. 8 i LE 6 E r z a: 0 4 0 WEST MILLCR U) 2 OSWANNALLE z 3 z N JUL w AVONIA z Ru 9 GIRARD SPRINGFIELD XISTING FISHING 8 BOATING MAP PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA. A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 MILES >- - 3mm- Elm NORTH EAST TOWNSHIP , ERIE COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA a z z SCALE w FIG.10 a. Im 0) cl 1. 0 _00 6_0 _0 ------ C4 ------ C-i _800,000- LU) 01 _7L -------- ------ STATE 40 .000 40.0 0 0.0c 0 000 ERIE_ : OUN' ry-----.- 7, _77 77: 0 SAL ph-= 11 C%j ------ - -cc c cc oc 00 a, a. a -_- ==7 IRO. o_a_ MTE _77= 00 .... ........ 7 noo ------ E E y RI OUN"r 40 QOQL,@@ ------ OTDRB OAT I RE@ MNI 0A -32- RAMPS & LIFTS WEST ERIE PAST Ju=ber of Ra 10 16 2 (17-Lifts) (4-Lifts) rotal Humber of Public Ramps 7 14 1 Number of Boats that Could Be Launched 11 26 2 at Same Time (Not Including Lifts) 'Number of Ramps Per Mile of Shoreline .45 4.2 .12 ..Number of Public Ramps Per Mile of Shoreline .32 3.7 .06 1-Miles of Shoreline 22.1 3.8 17. PARKING Number of Car-Trailer Stalls 324 631 196 I Number of Car Stalls 354 1,060 195 r Car-Trailer Stalls per Mile Shoreline 14.7 166.1 11.5 I Number Car Stalls Per Mile Shoreline 16.0 278.9 11.4 Number Car-Trailer & Car Stalls Per Mile 30.7 445.0 22.9 Number Public Car-Trailer Stalls 189 42Z 135 Humber Public Car-Trailer Stalls Per Mile 8.6 111.1 7.9 Shorefine" Number Public Car Stalls 224 590 90 Number Public Car Stalls, Per Rile Shoreline 10.1 155.3 5.3 Number Public Sites W/Comfort 7acilities 6 9 4 "'---Iber of Public Sites 4 22 4 Number of Private Sites 6 15 6 Y = Yes N = No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (West of Erie) Ramps Parking Fishing Marina Comfort Station 14 P. 0 tA W S-4 @4 U -2 C -A Cd I z 'D -21 2 k Ou 0 r4 'tn 0 a 0 tA (A Cd 0 H Area Name 0 r4 0 0 rl >4 40 U4 >4 tl@ d d a4 C2 >@. 8 A k 'R >@ 2 it Raccoon Creek Park N 1 121 12% N Y N 25 35 N Y Y N Y N N N N N Y N Y Old Ranq iUnt sW e 2 Eagley Road N Y N 35 20 N Y Y Y N N N N N N Y N Y 3 Virginia's Beach Y 1 151 Y Y Y 40 40 N Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y N 4 Crooked Creek N N N N N N N N N N N N N 5 Elk Creek West Bank N N Y Y N N N N N N N N N Y 6 Elk Creek East Bank Y 1 201 17/. Y Y Y 50 30 N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N 73 Y Y $3. $3V lip- da. 7 Godfrey Run N rN Y Y N N N N N N N. N N 8 Trout Run Y I/ 1 10, Y Y Y 25 30 N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 30 Y Y lip- I N N 9 Walnut Creek Y,1 6 121 t2% N Y N 129 169 Y @Y Y Y Y JY N N N 13 Y Y y :;lip y = Yes N = No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (West of Erie) Ramps Parking Fishing Marina Comfort Station 0 tn W +j z -H cd lu 41 W tn 4j u > Area Now 0 cd tn w g -r4 t 0 .,4 2 0 8 0 r-4 "4 >4 u 114 Hansen's Bait N Y Y 20 30 N Y Y N N N N N N N N -Y tOTALS FOR LCH 4TEH 4 9 117' NIA 3 7 4 324 354 1 9 9 4 5 3 2 1. 175 6 3 4 6 [4 Y = Yes N = No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (Erie) RaRps Parking Fishing Marina Comfort Station 0 +j N CA U U r-4 Area Name En 0 0. g R r4 0 0 U West Point N Y N 0 10 N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y 12 Swan Cove N, Y N 0 30 N Y -Y N N N N N N N Y N Y 13 Niagara Boat Ramp Y I IS' 10% N Y N 40 20 N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Y 1 271 10% 14 Ferry Slip N Y'. N N 30 N Y Y N N N N N N N N 'Y IS Presque Isle Marina Y 2 1- ist i N Y N 60 60 N Y Y N Y Y Y N N @00 Y Y y 1P. 16 East Pier N Y N 0 30 N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y 17 West Pier (Channel) Y, 2 561 15t N Y N 30 80 N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Y N NJ ISA Long Pond N Y N 0 10 N N N N N N. N N N N N Y y Yes* No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY Wri e) Ramps Parking Comfort Fishing Marina Station 0 W u) 0 7- u > Area Name U) 0 (U 4) 6 H W >4 a4 u >4 Duck Pond N Y N N 10 N Y Y N N N N N N N N y 8C Big Pond N y N N 1.0 N N N N N N N N N N N y [RD Horseshoe Pond N Y N 0 20 N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y L'i Crystal Point, N y 50 N y Y N N N N- N 20 Lagpon's Boat Ramp #1 Y 1 12' H% N Y N 18 40 N y y y y N N N Y N 21 Lagoon's Boat Ramp #2 Y 1 241 14% N y N 45 20 N Y y y IN Nq N N Y N 22 Stefan's Boat, Livery N Y N N 30 N y N N Y y .23 Lawrence Parj(:t@ y 3 121 lot N Y N 20 20 N y y Y N N N N N N Y ,o-- IIWO.- 24 firle Yacht Club Y 4 1 oist s y y N 75 80 N Y N N Y y y I' I-amp Y Y S1131 Y Y Ips Y = Yes N = No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (Erie) Ramps Parking Fishing Marina Comfort Station Cd @4 0 in 0 4j 1-4 0 in 64 Cn U v z r4 11 19 '41 U Area Name 14 tn 0 0 Cd r: P4 0 An r4 d) 0 >0. ti@U U .25 scade St. Ramp Y 1 451 14% N Y N 35 20 N Y Y N Y N N N N N N Y 26 Commodore P erry Yacht Club Y 1 Y Y N 25 20 N Y N N Y Y N Y N 139 N Y Lift Slips 27 Cherry St. Marina Y I Y Y N 1S 50 N Y N L@ft N Y Y y y Y 240 Y Y Y S] ips 28 Bob's Wharf N y N 10 20 N N N N N Y Y N N 30 N Y slips .29 Chestnut St. Ramp Y 2 121 10% N Y N 40 20 N Y N N Y N. N N N N N N Y 30 Waterwork's Ramp Y I @0' 10% N Y N 20 10 N Y Y N Y N N -N N N N 31 Erie Outboard Club Y 1 201 10% N Y N 3S 10 N. Y N N Y N N N N N N Y @N I @N .32 Erie Public Dock N Y N 0 100 N Y Y Y 'ar N N N N ]N N Y @op Presque Isle Yacht Clu Y I I oist Y N 5 10 N Y N N Y Y y y y 190 lp 90 N 1.1-p Y Y = Yes N = No ERTE WORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTM ( F r i 0 - Itamps Parking Fishing Marina Station Cd r 0 14 .,A ri 0 M r-1 in ul +.) 0 0 V-4 -:@ u 41 r4 Area Name tn Ij Ln (A 1@ W 0 41 to tn (A C@ rL 0 9 Qj *C-Ll. A9 >2 8 UO 34 Gem City Marina Y I Y N N 10 N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 38 N If( ist S Ips 35 Paasch Marine N Y N 4 10 N N N N N Y N N Y 8 N Y S ips 36 West State St. Y I Y N On N Y N N Y IN N N N S4N Y 11C ist I Street Sl ips 37 Erie Marine Y I '@Y N 20 30 N JY N N Y Y N N Y 60N 110 i-st 21 t S ips 110 i sts Y Y N Y 100N 38 Brockway Marine Y' 3 Y N 10 30 N Y Y N Y Y Slips 39 East State St. N Y N N On N Y Y N N N N N N 8 N Y S,--ree S] ips 40 McAllister & Son Ltd. Y 2 Y Y N 20 30 N Y@ N N Y Y Y N Y 9SY Y Y 110 -sts 2 SO :t. Slips 41. Bayshore Marine N Y N N 50 N N N N N Y Y Y Y .75 Y Y Y slips 42 North & South Piers N Y N 30 N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N Y Y y es N No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (Erie) P.-Imps Parking Fishing Marina Comfort Station @A ri ri 0 Ln in +j 0 0 tA k En u 4j ;z z (u H cd lu En u r-4 r-4 k 0 +j Area Name 0 0 w 10 1A $A ri 13 Jolm Lampe Marina Y 2 Gr% 15% y Y N 73@ 137 N Y N N Y Y Y Y N115 Y Y Y lip- 44 East Avenue Launch Ramp Y 1 241 20%N Y N 60 30 N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N y TOTAL FOR EACH IT04 21 16 367' N/A 637 0 631 cl 0 32 21 8 24 13 11 8 9 9 6 22 15 17 lifts Y '@N Y = Yes N = No ERI E t o INVENTORY S'-'?Pls P'T'L-jrie@CC'SS Ramps Parking Fishing Marina Comfort I Station >1 0 Id V-1 tA Ul 4 A IA 0 in 1-4 En U Area Name (n W (A 3) 1-4 1@ W 0 (D Cd M tn 9 0 0 0 W 0 H IV ll@ U 0 U0 L4 C2 45 Four Mile Creek N N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y 46 Lawrence Park Fishing Club Y 1 IY N 20 30 N Y -Y N Y Y N N N 55 N Y Iift S.ips 47 Shades Beach Y -Ra4 1-ft lY N 40 10 N Y Y Y Y IN N N N N Y N Y 48 Twelve Mile Creek N N Y N 2S 10 N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y (Shorewood) 49 Sixteen Mile Creek N Y' N 30 20 N Y Y N N IN N N N N N.. Y Freeport Yacht Club y I Y IY N 36 SO N N N N N Y N N N 28 Y Y Y 1, i. f t Slips 51- Charlie's Boat Livery y 1. 161 Y N N 20 N Y Y N Y y y Y N Ips Y 100 S!asoi S $1 1 1 $I Olt ly Y es Beac FY N Y_ Ll- LN Fvee Creek M [N jorewoo( Mi1, r, V 52 Orchard Beach Park Assn. Pk. IN I. Y N S 5 N Y N N Y N N N N N N Y i Lift 11 11 . 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 Y = Yes N = No ERIE S11ORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (E- at of Erie) Ramps Parkin Fishing Marina Comfort 9 Station @A (1) rl 11-4 -r4 0 Cd (A tn 4j 4) @4 0 in P En u P 4) .9 0 z r-q 1@1 u 4j @4 Area Name in Ln 0 M 0 0 Cd (n (A r, 9 d) 0 0 r-4 W%0 > u g2 L14 2 cm "Now 53 Northeast Access Area Y 1 121 13% N Y N 40 50 N Y N N. Y N N N N N Y Y 54 Twenty Mile Creek N N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y TOTALS FOR EACH 1TDf 6 2 28' NIA 2 9 0 196 195 0 9 7 1. 5 3 1 1 o 98 4 2 6 4 3 SUPS L fts 0 COST COMPARISON SHADES BEACH VERSUS OTHER 0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED ACCESS SITES 0 COST COMPARISON PER PARKING SPACE AND LAUNCH RAMP LANE OF LAKE ERIE ACCESS SITES (Dollar Figures in 1989 Dollars using EKR Construction Cost Index History Tables) Site Rate Elk Creek Walnut Creek Lampe Marina Korth East Shades Beach$ West Bank (Alt. 3 Nod.) Boat Launch Site Description Ramp Lanes 1 6 4 6 10 Ramp Width 12 feet 72 feet 53 80 feet 180 Length of Road 1,400 feet 1,450 feet 1,500 feet 1,590 feet 2,500 No. of Parking Spaces 100 297 210 283 241+144tt Comfort Facilities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Breakwater Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lighting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- - - - - - ------- - ---- Reference DA Johnson P.F.C. files P.F.C. files P.F.C. Northwest A Assoc., Final Con- Final Con- Estimated Engineering Corry Study tract Cost tract Cost Cost Estimated Estimated Cost Cost ------------------------------------- - ----------------------------------------------- - ---- - - ------ - ------- - - Work Item Access Road & Parking 290,980 530,300 271,830 582,350 558,142tts Comfort Facilities 119,610 286,740 268,820 107,060 30,000 Lighting 1,700 78,620 31,460 17,150 1,000 Boat Launching Ramp 43,390 58,580 105,580 355,041 Channel Improvements 45,120 42,910 161,470 Breakwaters 312,500 1,076,970 1,920,760 1,338,090 669,221 Total Cost 813,300 2,074,120 2,654,340 2,150,230 1,626,404 ------------------------------- - ---------- - --- - --------- - Cost Per Launch Rajp Lane 813,300 345,687 663,585 358,372 161,940 Cost/Per Parking Space 8,133 6,984 12,640 7,598 6,720 - ------ - --------------------------------------------------- - ----------- - - - --- --- tBeach sand not included t*241 Trailer spaces + 144 parking spaces for beach and park use MCost includes user fee collection booth 0 ERIE COUNTY SOILS MAPPING 0 9) VANIA -SHEET NUMBER23 N ee a 3 WaB- @4_ WdA VV Rae k, a 17 y Wd6 Bb Aa @O jAaB3 c C14 a woo 0 Ri@; _@w bB,, 'A A; m 0 5000 Feet (Joins sheet 28) 20 000 @ I - I L I ERIE COL-NTY, PENNSYLVANIA 61 ve.qetables and fruits. The parent material was acid, Ia- This soil is suited to vineyards and fruit trees. It is 0 ,me sands that were sorted and deposited by water. too droughty for high yields of small grains and per- -nese soils -are low in clay; consequently, plant nutri- manent pasture. gement. Maintain good ents leach downward readily. A firm lay@r, or pan. that The soil needs careful mana, is slowly permeable to air and water is 26 to 30 inches be- tilth by adding organic matter often. plow only when thd low the surface. At depths of 40 to 72 inches is gray, soil contains plenty of moisture and after the danger of calcareous material that is also slowly permeable to air. freezing has passed in spring. and water. When saturated with water, this material is Because of the risk of erosion and the moderate inter- known locally as quicksand. . l1al drainage, this soil is in capability unit Hew-2. The Berrien soils are in the same catena as the well- Berrien fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, drained Ottawa soils, the somewhat poorly drained to severely eroded (BcB3).-Tlie profile of this soil resembles poorly drained Rimer soils, and the very poorly drained the profile described for the series, but the surface layer Wauseon soils. is lighter colored and is less than 4 inches thick. The soil The native vegetation consisted of an oak-beech-maple also contains less organic matter and is shallower. Where type of forest. Now, aspen, goldenrod, little bluestem, the soil has been cultivated, yellowish-brown sand is povertygrass, broomsedge, cinquefoil, and sheep sorrel mixed with the surface soil. crrow in idle areas: ZD This soil is suited to vezetables and fruits. It is too C Typical profile of a Berrien fine sandy loam (culti- droughty for high vields c@f small,grains and permanent -vated) pasture.' The soll layers over the p:@n are thin. In spring thev reniain wet ]on- enough to delay the planting of 0 to 7 inches, dark-brown fine sandy loam; strong, medium, crops. granular structure; friable when moist; pH 6.2; abrupt, This soil heeds careful mana-crement. Maintain oood smooth lower boundary. 7 to 9 inches, yellowish-brown very fine sandy loam; mod- tilth by adding organic matter often; plow only when the erate, coarse, subangular blocky structure; friable when soil contains plenty of moisture and after the danger of moist; p1l 6.0; clear, smooth lower boundary. freezing has passed in spring. Divert sur Zn face water from 9 to 20 inches, yellowish-brown very fine sandy loam; mod- erate, medium, subangular blocky structure; friable when adjoining higher areas. 'D F moist; pH 6.0; diffuse, smooth lower boundary. Because of the effects of erosion and the moderate in- 20 to 28 inches, dark yellowish-brown very fine sandy loam ternal drainage, this soil is in capability unit IIIew-21). with common, coarse, prominent mottles of reddish brown Berrien fine' sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes and olive brown; moderate, medium. subangular blocky (BcQ.-The profile of this soil resembles the profile de- structure; friable to firm when moist; pH 5.8; clear, smooth lower boundary. scribed for the series, but the surface soil is only 6 inches 28 to 34 inches, variegated dark reddish-brown and dark thick. The slopes are uniform and are generally less than yellowish-brown fine sandy loam; strong, coarse, blOcky 300 feet Ion-. Surface drainage is (rood, and internal structure; hard when dry, firm when moist, and nonsticky drainage is mmoderate. whe wet; pH 5.8; clear, wary lower boundary. Tlji!@soij 34 to 40 inches. dark-brown loamy sand; single grain (struc- is suited to ve(retables and fruits. It is too tureless) ; pH 6.0; abrupt, wavy lower boundary. droughty for higji vields of small p-rains and permanent 40 to 60 inches+, gray sandy clay; massive (structureless) ; pasture. very hard when dry, plastic when wet; calcareous. This soil needs careful management. Maintain good In forested areas the surface is covered with leaf litter tilth by adding organic matter often; plow only when from mixed hardwoods. In these areas there is a layer there is plenty of moisture in.the soil and after the danger of leaf mold about one-half inch thick- and a clear, smooth of freezing has passed in sp@ing. boundary between the leaf mold and the mineral soil. Because5of the risk of erosion and the moderate internal Berrien fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (BcA).- drainage, this soil is in capability unit IIIew-2. The profile of this soil resembles the profile described for Berrien fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, the series. In most places, how-ever, the surface layer is severely eroded (BcC3).-Tbe surface layer of this soil is I to 3 inches thicker. A.Itliouali the soil is level to nearly lighter colored than that of the profile described for the level, moisture infiltrates rapiAly and there is little pond- series and is less than 4 inches thick. In addition, the soil ing of surface water. Internal'drainage, is moderate. contains less organic matter and is shallower above the pan layer. Where the soil has been cultivated, part of the This soil is suited to vegetables and fruits. It is too droughty for high yields of small grains and permanent yellowish-brown sand from the subsoil has been mixed pasture. In spring the soil remains wet long enough to with the surface soil. delay the planting of crops. This soil is best suited to grasses and legumes. Choose This soil needs careful management. Maintain good hay mixtures that tolerate short droughts and moderate tilth by adding organic matter often; plow only wheE the internal drainage. The soil is too aroughty for high Soil contains plentv of moisture and after the danger of vields of permanent pasture. freezing has passed in sprin'g. Because of the effects of erosion and the moderate in- Because of its moderate internal draina- e this soil is temal draina e this soil is in capability unit IVew-1. capability unit IIw-1. Berrien fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Berrien fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (B'6).- (BcD).-The profile of this soil resembles the profile de- The profile of this soil is the same as the profile described scribed for the series, but the surface layer is only 6 for the series. The soil has uniform slopes that are gen- inches thick. The soil has uniform slopes that are mostly Illy less than 500 feet long. Surface drainage is good, less than 200 feet long. Surface drainage is good to exces- I internal drainage is moderate. sive, and internal drainage is moderate. SOIL SURVEY SERIES 1957, NO. 9 This soil is suited to grasses and legumes. Choose hay mixtures that tolerate short droughts and moderate in- ternal drainage. The soil is too droughty for high yields of permanent pasture. Because of the risk of erosion and the moderate internal drainage, this soil is in capility unit IVew-1. Berrien fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded (BcD3).-The surface layer of this soil is lighter colored than that of the profile described for the series and is only 5 inches thick. IN addition, the soil con- tains less organic matter and is shallower above the pan layer. Where the soil has been cultivated, part of the yellowish-brown sand in the subsoil has been mixed with surface soil. This soil is suitable as woodland. Because of the effects of erosion, it is in capability unit VIIe-2. Birdsall Series The Birdsall soils are very poorly drained to poorly drained and are silty and deep. They are inextensive and occur in small, level to gently sloping areas. Their par- ent material was lacustrine deposits of glacial origin. It consisted of stratified silt and clay, mixed with some sand, laid down in still, or slack, water. Where they occur in the same fields with better drained soils that are cultivated, these wet soils present a manage- ment problem. They are darker than the better drained soils and can be identified easily by their very dark gray- ish-brown to very dark gray surface soil. The Birdsall soils are slowly permeable to air and water. The Birdsall soils are in the same catena as the moder- ately well drained Williamson and Collamer soils and the somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained Wallington soils. Originally, willow, aspen, and other bog plants grew on thes soils. This vegetation was replaced largely by a white or black ash-red maple type of swamp forest. Aspen, willow, and sedges still grow in idle areas. Typical profile of a Birdsall silt loam: 0 to inches, very dark grayish-brown silt loam; moderate. fine, granular structure; frinble when moist; pH 5.4; diffuse, smooth lower boundary. 10 to 18 inches, yellowish-brown silt loam with many, fine distinct mottles of grayish brown; moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure; hard when dry, firm when moist, and sticky when wet; pH 6.0; gradual, smooth lower boundary. 26 to 36 inches, dark grayish-brown silty clay laom with com- mon, medium distinct mottles of yellowish brown; weak, medium, subangular blocky structure; hard when dry, firm when moist, and nonsticky when wet; pH 6.4. The color of the surface soil ranges fro very dark grayish brown to very dark gray. The color of teh sub- soil ranges from yellowish brown through grayish brown to gray. Birdsall silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (BdA).--The profile of this soil is the same as the profile described for the series. Relief is level to nearly level. Surface and internal drainage are very poor. During wet seasons shal- low water remains in the depressions for several weeks. Included with this mapping unit are a few small a of Loarin silty clay loam and Lorain clay, which are mapped sepearately in this county. These included s are very poorly drained, and teh lower part of the pro is calcareous. This soil, unless improved by drainage, is best suited permanent sod or woodland. With adequate artificial drainage, it can be used in a rotation that includes r crops. Because of the severe limitation of wetness, this soil in capability unit IVw-1. Birdsall silt loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes (BdB).--T profile of this soil resembles the profile described for t series, but the surface layer is only 8 inches thick. Reli- is gently sloping. Surface drainage is moderate, and ternal drainage is poor. This soil, unless improved by drainage, is best suited permanent pasture and woodland. with adequate artificial drainage, it can be used in a rotation that include row crops. Keep the natural drainageways open. Diver surface water from adjoining higher areas into suitable waterways. Because of the severe limitation of wetness, this soil is in capability unit IVw-1. Canadice Series The Canadice series consists of deep, poorly drained silty soils tht have a subsoil of silty clay loam or silty clay. The soils have a strong, well-developed structure. They occur in old glacial lakebeds. The parent material was laid down in still, or slack, water. It contains sediments weathered from bedrock of acid shale in addition to limestone material carried by glaciers and deposited in the lakes by streams. This material was laid down in alternate layers of silt and clay. Because they are high in silt, these soils dry out slowly in spring and become wet early in fall. Below a depth of 8 inches, the layers of silty clay loam and silty clay are slowly permeable to air and water. The Canadice soils are in the same catena as the moderately well drained Caneadea and the very poorly drained to poorly drained Birdsall soils. The native vegetation consisted of a beech-red maple type of forest. Now, wild crabapple, aspen, sumac, gold- enrod, velvetgrass, and povertygrass grow in idle areas, Typical profile of a Canadice silt loam (cultivated): 0 to 8 inches, brown to dark-brown silt loam; moderate, medium , granular struture; friable when moist, pH 5.6; abrupt, smooth lower boundary. 8 to 14 inches, yellowish-brown silty clay loam with common, medium distinct mottles of grayish brown and dark brown; strong, thick, platy structure; friable when moist; pH 5.4; clear, smooth lower boundary. 14 to 24 inches, silty clay loam with a prominent coating of gray clay on peds; interiors are light olive brown with many, fine, distinct mottles of dark brown to strong brown; strong, medium, blocky structure; firm when moist; pH 5.8; clear smooth lower boundary. 24 to 30 inches, silty clay with a prominent coating of gray clay on peds; olive-brown interiors; strong, coarse, blocky structure; firm when moist, hard when dry, and plastic when wet; pH 6.5; diffuse. wavy lower boundary. 30 to 38 inches, silty clay with a gray coating on peds; olive-brown interiors; strong, very coarse blocky structure; hard when dry, firm when moist, and plastic when wet; pH 7.2; diffuse wavy lower boundary. ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES SIGNIFICANT TO ENGINEERING TABLE2 ERIE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PAGE 1 OF 9 --- Engine line USDA Range Range n Optimum Maximum D le IT": Percentage passing sieve --- classific available Reaction Collosi Sod Series 111.1h .1 alion Texture in moisture rhy and Surface greater moisture Range Shtink-swell Potential map Se.-I 'dr k (typical) 1 (2.0 (No. Unified I AASHO permeability capacity in tor density Symbol b g, .", ' profile) than No* 4 No. 10 No. 40 200 potential table (fee 3 inches (4.1 mm) MM) (0.42 mm) 0.074 mm) (typical profile) (inches per hour) @ inches per PH compaction (pounds pet sleel/conciele (feel) Inches) (Delcen in. of depth) (percent) cubic toot) Alden 0 5+ 0-7 0-5 95-100 85-100 85-100 80-100 ML, CL A-4,A-6 silt loam 0.63-2.0 .18-25 6.1-7.3 - - low high/moderate (mapped only with Ellery 7-30 0-5 90-100 85-100 85-100 60-100 ML, CL A-4,A-6, silt loam to < 0.2 .17-22 6.1-7.3 14-18 105-115 moderate high/moderate in EaB) A-7 silty clay loam 30-60 5-15 70-90 65-90 50-80 40-65 GM, GC. A-4,A-6 gravelly loam < 0.2 .10-15 6.6-7.3 11-15 114-125 moderat high/low ML, CL Allis 0-1 11-31 0-30 - 60-100 50-100 45-90 45-90 ML, CL, A-4,A-6, shaly silt < 0.2 .08-14 4.5-5.5 14-20 114-122 moderate high/high CM, GC A-7 loam to shaly (AaA,AaA3,AaB, shale silty clay AaB3,AaC,AaC3, AaD,AaD3,AaE) 30+ - ----------------------------------------------- FRACTURID SHALE BEDROCK ------------------- t --------------------- - ------------------------------- Beach and Riverwash ----------- ------- -------- ----------------- -------- TOO VARI@131E TO k5TIHATE-REQUIRhi ON-SITE IWESTICATI)IN ---------- - -- --------------------- - ------------- (Bra) Beach sand, stabilized -------------- - --------- ----------------------- TOO VARIkBLE To ISTIRATE-REQUIREi ON-SITE Ih[ESTIGATI)N -------- - -- Bb) ------------------------------------ Berrien 1-2 5+ 0-7 - 95-100 90-100 80-95 20-30 SH A-2 fine sandy 0.63-2.0 14-.16 6.1-7.3 - - low high/low loarn (BcA,BcB,BcB3, BCC,BcC3,BcD, 7-40 - 95-100 90-100 80-95 15-30 SM A-2 very fine 0.63-2.0 .12-14 6.1-7.3 - - low high/low BcD3) sandy loam tc fine sandy loam 40-60 - 100 95-100 90-95 65-75 MI, A-4 siit loam < 0.2 .12-14 7.4-7.8 - - low high/low Birdsall O-j 6+ 0-10 - 90-100 90-100 85-100 80-95 ML, CL A-6,A-7 silt loam o.63-2.0 .16-20 5.1-6.5 - - mderatc high/moderate (BdA,BdB) 10-60 - 95-100 90-100 85-100 65-90 HL, CL A-6,A-7 silt loam < 0.2 .10-14 5.1-6.5 10-18 90-100 moderatt high/moderato Or- J..' r967 W4 WX "111 on engineering Report ON SUBS W ACE EXPLCRATION FOR THE SHADES REACH RESTORATION PROJECT HARBORCREEK TOMSBIP ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2 34 L SUBMITTED TO Northwest Engineering, Inc. R.D. 1, P.O. Box Q Tidicute, Pennsylvania 16351 Attention: Mr. Mark J. Carey DATE April 28, 1989 J JOHN N. CERNICA & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO JOHN N. CERNICA & ASSOCIATES consulting enginneers TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................ 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION: Subsurface Exploration ................. 2 3 Laboratory Testing ..................... 4 Boring Layout .......................... 5 Tabulation of Test Reaults ............ 6 Grain Size Analysis .................... 7 - 9 Boring Logs.. ........................... 10 - 13 CONCLUSION ....................................... 14 JOHN N. CERNICA & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINVERS INM0D=CN This report describes 'the subsurface exploration for the Shades Beach Restoration Project. The site is located in Harborcreek Township, Erie CoMty, Pennsylvania. The historical geology of the area was reviewed and compared with the general subsurface information collected by the f ield borings. The subsurface soil and rock conditions were explored by 4 borings. The samples secured during the drillings were used to classify soil and rock types and to conduct direct shear and grain-size tests. The results of these tests, along with the information collected in the f ield, provide the basis for determining some properties and characteristics of the soil and rock at this site. This subsurface study was initiated by Mr. Mark J. Corey of Northwest Engineering, Inc., Tidioute, Pennsylvania. Drilling and sampling were performed by Lininger Drilling & PuWs CaTpany, Inc., of Greenville, Pennsylvania. JOHN N. CERNICA & ASSOCIATES COP48ULTINCI ENGINVERS SUBSURFAM MUMAMION Subsurface explorations were performed by Lininger Drilling & Pumps f a Canpany, Inc. , of Greenville, Pennsylvania on April 5, 1989. Four (4) borings were drilled on this day. The purpose of the borings was to obtain information about the underlying soil and rock strata "near" the proposed breakwater wall site; exploration of the actual site was not done due to the high cost. The location of the borings is shown on the boring layout on page 5. The depths of the borings are tabulated below: BORING DEPTH .19 8.11 2 5.51 3 5.61 4 4.11 During the drilling, the subsurface strata was closely observed by the driller and samples were taken at all changes in soil or rock types. Samples were obtained by the standard split spoon sampler during which the resistance to penetration was observed by the standard penetration test. The number of blows of the 140 pound hanuier falling freely for a distance of 30 inches was recorded for a total of 18 inches or the depth of penetration in each sampling. The number of blows required to drive the sample the last 12 inches is an approximate measure of the relative density of the soil or hardness of the rock. This information is correlated with the laboratory test results to determine @OA the properties and characteristics of the soil and rock. The stratification of the subsurface soil and rock is shown in the boring 2 JOHN N. CERNICA & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS logs on pages 10 through 13. A stratum of predominantl sand and gravel, with a trace to sane silt was y f irst found to the 8', 3 r 5, and 4' depth in borings; 1 through 4, respectively. Shale and rock fragments were also found in this stratum in borings 1 and 3. Gray sandy silt was found between the 3' and 5' depths in boring 2. For the. remaining few inches of drilling in all 4 borings auger refusal was met, and gray shale was encountered. During the period of drilling, water levels were observed and recorded by the driller. Water levels were found at the 6', 5.5', and 21 depths of borings 1, 3, and 4, respectively. Boring 2 was reported to be dry at the completion of drilling. The subsurface conditions and stratification described in this report at the respective boring locations does not imply conformity with these conditions and stratification at locations between borings, nor at the proposed building site (virtually under water). 'Tq 3 JOHN N. CERNICA & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS LABORATORY TESTING A testing program was set up in the laboratory to obtain information about the subsurface soil strata, so that a partial determination could be made of scire of the properties and characteristics. Soil samples were tested for grain size and direct shear. The results of these tests are tabulated on pages 6 through 9. 4 MA 0AVQ 1`4 k7Q TABULATION OF TESi RESULTS 0 1 PROGEM Sha&s Beach Breakwater Project z "C" rq BORING SAMPLE SAMPLE WATER UNIT WT. ULTIMATE ANGLE OF ;d NUMEER NUMBER DEPTH CONTENT (IT, situ) COMPRESSIVE INTERNAL FACTIOR J z n (feet) % (lbs./cu.ft.) STRENGTH FRICTION (lbs./sq.ft.) m > z p) WET DRY -(Kips/sq.ft.) (degree) > 0 1 A&l 00-5.51 --- --- --- --- 37.3' 120 > 3 A&l 01-51 --- 38.0 192 4 A 01-41 --- --- 39.0 60, GRAIN %G-11,42Y.E AhMALWIiIIS D'apth 0, - 5.aq S,-,; Ill d sit? Clay C=n3 Mad"Urr Finto com'so Mcdiurn Fill* so - 76 40 I Lu .-A J, Diametor In in rrb GRAIN SEE'ANALY'SIS -9pc-;clriric;n 3 - A i iz Depth 00 - .iq X Fj sand ua r-a cou; Ll lea . . . . . . . . . . 40 loll 0.001 0.9001 Dl.illtmi-,r In in all I =Uma IT Sir Z 2 E' @!k EJ GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Specimen t - A Depth 00 - v cl M 71 sand Clay ("Oprepa Medium Come Madlum Fine Coarse Medium o )> U1 too ul T' 30. To 60 so 40 O.Ot 0.0001 Diamwar in m ir, -Al tt Sam ?a 5.5'- 12 - fA oz J t., VS (ILI ;7C. JOHN N. CERNICA & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS CCN=ICN As indicated earlier in the report the purpose of this subsurface exploration was to determine the general stratification near the building site. 75 That is, the proposed breakwall construction would be in the water. However, to drill and sample along the proposed building line proved to be expensive, and subsequent to consultation with the owner, Northwest Engineering limited the drilling and sampling to the nearby shore, in anticipation that the characteristics of the off-shore site are similar to those along the shore line where exploration was conducted. Generally, the upper strata consists of a mixture of sand and gravel with varying percentage of silts, and an insignificant trace of clay. This strata varies in thickness fran 4 to 8 feet. Under this is a rock formation. The drilling stopped within a few inches fran the surface of the rock. The water level varied in the various borings, with boring no. 2 reported dry at the time of drilling. This information is shown on the boring logs, pages 10 through 13. Assuming the rock formation to be at comparable depths below the soil surface in the lake, it is deemed advisable that the breakwall base rest directly on rock. 771 Thus, one would be able to minimize erosion which may undermine the wall foundation if the wall were to rest on or near the soil surf ace. Needless to say, it is perhaps a conjecture at this point as to the actual conditions existing at the proposed site. This point should be carefully' scrutinized and addressed in the construction specifications in order to eliminate misunderstanding later. If there are any questions regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact this office. 14 'Consulting Engineers 7240 Glenwood Ave, Youngstown, Ohio 44512 Telephone: (216) 758-2100 March 17, 1989 15 A A M 2 0 Northwest Engineering, Incorporated R.D. #1 P.O. Box Q NUIRTHOWEST Tidioute, Pennsylvania 16351 INC. Attention: Mr. Jim Murphy Re: Soil & Subsurface Exploration Shade's Beach Harbour Creek Township, Pennsylvania Dear Mr. Jim: Pursuant to your request, I should like to submit the following proposal to cover the Soil and Subsurface Exploration for the above-mentioned site. The proposal is divided into two parts: Drilling and Engineering. The drilling will be done by the J. E. Lininger Drilling Company, Greenville Pennsylvania. They have submitted the following price breakdown. DRILLING & SAMPLING: ITEM UNITS UNIT COST TOTAL .Moving & Mobilization $ 125.00 Drilling & Sampling 100 ft. 7.50/ per ft. 750.00 Shelby Tube 4 30.00/ea. 120.00 Split Spoons No Charge TOTAL $ 995.00 JOHN N. CERNiCA & ASSOCIATES CONSULTINr. E@GiNe:ERs The cost for the engineering-related services is as follows: ENGINEERING-RELATED SERVICES: ITEM UNITS UNIT COST TOTAL Water Content 4 15.00/ea. 60.00 Density 4 20.00/ea. 80.00 Unconfined Compression 4 25.00/ea. 100.00 Grain Size Analysis 4 85-00/ea. 340.00 Direct Shear 4 85.00/ea. 340.00 Classification 80.00 Write up, Evaluation & Recommendations 750.00 Typing and Reproduction 60.00 TOTAL $1,810.00 Based on the above estimates, the total cost for drilling and engineering is $2,805.00. Please note that we did not 'have any cost for the layout of borings; it is assumed that your office will provide the boring locations and elevations, so that we could include this information in our report. As we discussed on the phone, the stratification at the proposed boring location may or may not be identical to that under the proposed breakwater foundations, a fact that you pointed out to the owner (as per our conversation). Because of the very high cost, the owner decided to proceed with this alternative. Thus, if, during construction, some changes appear relevant, this should not be a surprise to the owner--some thing that should be reiterated to the owner at this time in order to eliminate misunderstanding later. We can commence drilling and sampling within a few days from the time we JOHN N. CERNICA & ASSOCIATES CONSUL.TiNa ENwNEERS receive authorization to proceed. Furthermore, we can give you a preliminary assessment of our findings within two to three days from completion of drilling; a formal report will follow within approximately two weeks from completion of drilling. I trust that the above meets with your requests. Sincerely yours, n N. Cernica, P. E., Ph. D. JNC/sc 0 CORRESPONDENCE 0 I CORRESPONDENCE In the Army Corps of Engineers Initial Appraisal Report on Shades Beach, there was a section entitled "Environmental Considera- tions" that attempted to assess the environmental impact on the subject project area by contacting certain environmental regula- tory agencies that had jurisdiction over the site. The agencies that they contacted were: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo (informal contact) U.S. Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service Federal Highway Administration U.S. Coast Guard Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Pennsylvania Fish Commission Pennsylvania Game Commission Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Office Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Erie County Department of Planning Harborcreek Township Supervisors In the preparation of this Report, letters were sent to several regulatory agencies that would have jurisdiction in this project. The purpose of this correspondence was to update the agencies on the progress of the project since the Corps' "Initial Appraisal Report" to determine what permits would ultimately be required. The budget for this Report did not include funds necessary to obtain these permits but these permits must be obtained before construction commences. Delaying the acquisition of these per- mits is cost effective since this project may not go to construc- tion for several years. Undoubtedly, in the interim, regulations shall change and permits would expire before construction com- mences, thus duplicating permitting efforts. However, due to some of the site conditions that are unique to this project, we are able to respond to certain agencies' requests by applying for waivers for permits or requirements. The Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission requested a Phase I Archaeological Survey to be performed at the site due to the high potential for submerged or above ground prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or cultural resources. But due to the previously disturbed site due to its past use as a boat launch ramp and beach plus actual geological conditions unsuit- able for long term archaeological significance, a waiver for this requirement has been requested. Other agencies have been concerned by the impact on littoral drift and subsequent downdrift erosion. The problem has been C-1 discussed with the Army Corps of Engineers and it has been deter- mined that up to 1000 cubic yards of material may be deposited each year on the west side of the breakwater due to the interrup- tion of the littoral drift. It is our understanding that present regulations require these deposits to be removed from the west side of the breakwater and be reintroduced to the drift on the east side of the breakwater on a yearly basis. Great care will be taken not to block the mouth of Eightmile Creek in doing this. Among the agencies concerned about this issue are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the PA Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management. It is probable that other agencies are concerned about this and other issues but as of yet we have not received any comments from these agencies. A full breakdown of the agencies in which we have sent letters to, how they have commented and how we are responding is listed below. Agency: Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission Date Received: April 3, 1989 Comments: High potential for submerged or above ground prehistorical or historical cultural resources - Phase I Archaeological Survey requested. Our Response: Waiver requested Agency: PA DER, Bureau of Water Quality Management Date Received: March 2, 1989 Comments: Placement of beach sand should be clean sand fill Land owners to east may experience erosion Need to obtain permits Our Response: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Specification for beach sand included in construction specifications Date Received: June 26, 1989 Comments: Project should have no effect on such resources. See Narrative for description Permits to be obtained Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service Date Received: February 28, 1989 Comments: Requested analysis of potential downdrift problem Our Response: See Narrative for description Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Date Received: February 27, 1989 Comments: No comment, forwarded to the U.S. Coast Guard C-2 Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture, SCS Date Received: February 27, 1989 Comments: Drainage pipe placed previously should be left in place Our Response: Drainage pipe will be resized to accommodate in- creased runoff from parking lot and access road Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard Comments: No comments received Agency: PA DER, Coastal Zone Management Comments: No comments received Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, E.I.S. & Wetland Review Section Comments: No comments received Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, District Commander Date Received: April 11, 1989 Comments: Analysis of proposed plans Our Response: Adoption of the recommendations See project plans and specifications In summary, as a result of our correspondence with these regulatory agencies, we have found that the permits necessary to be obtained prior to construction include but are not limited to: Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan, Erie County Conservation District, Corps Permit (Joint Permit Applica- tion) 401 Water Quality Certification - PA DER BWQM Consistency Statement, Coastal Zone Management C-3 Northwest Engineering Inc. Consultants and Civil Engineers March 29, 1989 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, NY 14207 Attention: Mr. Mike Mohr Subjec t: Shades Beach Restoration Project Harborcreek Township, Erie County, PA Dear Mike: Enclosed is a set of plans for the subject project as currently. designed. These plans were sent to a number of regulatory agen- cies for review and comment. Your comments on these plans would be greatly appreciated. if you have any questions or comments regarding the project, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, NORTHWEST ENGINEERING, INC. Mark J. Corey, P.E. MJC/ceb Enclosure cc: Harborcreek Township Supervisors Harvey H. Stone, P.E. R.D. 1, P.O. Box Q, Tidioute, Pennsylvania 16351 Telephone (814) 484-3504 LETTER RECIPIENTS 1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission William Penn Memorial Museum and Archives Building P.O. Box 1026] Harrisburg PA 17120 2. PA Department of Environmental Resources Division of Coastal Zone Management P.O. Box 1467 Harrisburg PA 17120 3. U.S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland OH 44199 4. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 State College PA 16801 5. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 31 Hopkins Plaza Baltimore MD 21201 6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Fish Commission Lake Erie Research Unit P.O. Box 531 Fairview PA 16415 7. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service P.O. Box 985 Federal Square Station Harrisburg PA 17108 S. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EIS and Wetlands Review Section Sixth and Walnut Streets Philadelphia PA 19106 9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Commander, Buffalo District 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo NY 14207 10. PA Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Water Quality Management 1012 Water Street Meadville PA 16335 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION BUREAU FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOX 1026 HARRISBURG PENNSYLVANIA 17108-1026 June 8, 1989 Bruce E. Curfman Northwest Engineering, Inc. R.D. #1 Box Q Tidioute PA 16351 TO EXPEDITE REVIEW USE BHP REFERENCE NUMBER Re: ER 84 1425 049 0 Shade Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements Harborcreek Twp., Erie County Dear Mr. Curfman: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation Office) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. Based on the supplemental information recently submitted to the Bureau for Historic Preservation concerning the above referenced project, the Bureau has re-evaluated the effect of this activity on cultural resources. Your cooperation in dealing with this matter has been appreciated. Based on the available information, there are no National Register eligible or listed historic or archaeological properties in the area of this proposed project and therefore, this project should have no effect upon such resources. Should you become aware, from any source, that historic or archaeological properties are located at or near the project site, please telephone the Bureau for Historic Preservation at (717) 783-8946. Sincerely, Kurt W. Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology and Protection KC:vms COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMI BUREAU FOR HISTORICRRES Box 1026parclPf'1989 HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17108. 1026 APR 0 3 11989 Marvin L. Ackerly Harborcreek Township Board of Supervisors NORTHWEST Eh C_11N_-_EER1NG !pjC. 5601 Buffalo Road Harborcreek, PA 16421-1689 RE: ER# 84 1425 -049 C Shade Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements Harborcreek Twp., Erie Co. Dear Mr. Ackerly: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (the State Historic Preservation off ice) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1980, and the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. These requirements include consideration of the project's potential effect upon both historic and archaeological resources. J. Lee Cox, Jr. emphasizes the high potential for the Pennsylvania shoreline of Lake Erie to yield submerged cultural resources- - Twelve creeks feed into Lake Erie--Eight Mile Creek is one of those. Vessels caught in storms probably sought refuge in the mouths of these creeks; however, the shallowness of the creek mouths would have stranded them. These areas are also areas of high potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. Based on the information available a wood steamer, the S. K. Martin, sprang a leak and was lost in the vicinity of Harborcreek/Eight Mile Creek on October 12, 1912. This and other submerged cultural resources may exist within your project area. A Phase I archaeological survey is requested to identify any and all on land and submerged prehistoric and historic cultural resources. Enclosed is a selection from J. Lee Cox' Lake Erie survey and guidelines and information for survey. If you need further information in this matter please consult the Division of Archaeology at (717) 783-8946 or 783- 8947. Sincerely, Kurt Carr, Chief Division of A-tchaeology & cc: DER Protection Enclosures Fm UV Nordiwest erffig im. Consultants. and Civil Engineers May 1, 1989 Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission William Penn Memorial Museum & Archive Building Box 1028 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Attention: Kurt Carr, Chief Division of Archaeology & Protection Subject: Shades Beach Restoration Dear Mr. Carr: I am writing to you in response to your letter dated March 8, 1989 to Mr. Marvin L. Ackerly of Harborcreek Township Board of Supervisors. This matter is in regard to ER #84 1425 049 C, Shades Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements Project and with a telephone conversation I had with Mr. Jonathan Bream in your Archaeology Lab on April 3, 1989. In your letter you concluded that a Phase I Archaeological survey was needed to determine if any on-land, or submerged prehistoric or historic cultural resources existed on the site and, if so, to identify them. However, in discussing the project site condi- tions with Mr. Bream it became apparent that this may not be necessary and we are requesting that this requirement be waived on the grounds of the following: The entire project area has been disturbed in the past by a very popular beach and boat livery. In addition to this, erosion has cut approximately 56 feet from the shore in this area since a survey was taken in 1930 (see Exhibit 1). Any prehistoric artifacts that may have existed at the site would probably have been disturbed or washed away. Subsequent storms have deposited cobbles and rubble on the beach and destroyed a masonry structure used with an abandoned boat launch facility. In taking elevations for our topographical survey on a 50 foot grid, the bottom of the lake was described as being solid, bed- rock type, shale The existence of the S.K. Martin at this site is improbable du; to the fact that wave action would have washed it out to deeper water (see Exhibit II). R.D. 1, P.O. Box Q, Tidioute, Pennsylvania 16351 Telephone (814) 484-3504 Kurt Carr May 1, 1989 Page 2 If the S.K. Martin did, in fact, seek refuge in Eightmile Creek, it is doubtful that it could have entered the watercourse because the creek.is not big enough to float a boat of any real size even in its springtime torrents. Also, there is a small (2' high) waterfall at the base of the rock bluff. The bottom of the creek is composed of the same solid, bedrock type, shale that exists on the bottom of the lake. Furthermore, the proposed project does not extend over to Eightmile Creek and, in fact, is not on this parcel of ground (see Exhibit I). In consideration of these facts, we feel that our project will not affect any undisturbed on-land or submerged prehistoric or historic cultural resources and would like the requirement of a Phase I Archaeological survey to be waived. If you need any additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, NORTHWEST ENGINEERING, INC. Bruce E. Curfman BEC/ceb cc: Harborcreek Township/Marvin Ackerly Harvey H. Stone, P.E. Mark J. Corey, P.E. James Murphy, P.E. LARE: ERie C k'% lq3q lq3q SPAitl-'Ll#J& JACST Pr?ArcP-rY L NF- 19?3 SlltlXfLJAJe JO - At PCJVArC 0 F4 PARCEL BROWU BEAQ-11 AqXK 11CM11 A-C llAJtWCCtf#k, PA Smota Rof utir mT,- ri ths-raizic 0 flono To OCA01 SME - FEET LivE Plt4Pep-N Lws to-PLO Pit SCA,L iAMES W. SONNEY Harb=reek MARVIN L. AKERLY DONNA L. MINDEK Township ELEANOR H. MUSGRAVE SECRETARY AND TREASURER Superviso' rs PHONE 814/699-3171 February 15, 1989 PA Dept of Environmental Resources Bureau of Water Quality Mgmt 1012 Water Street F E B 2 4 1989 Meadville, PA 16335 Subject: Shades Beach Restoration and Navigation TtJ@KWN9k1TtM' GiN-EERiNG IINC. Design Study - Harborcreek Township, Erie County, PA Gentlemen: Harborcreek Township is currently in the process of completing a design study for the subject project to be located in the Township adjacent to Lake Erie. Enclosed is a location map showing the proposed site on the Harborcreek, Pennsylvania U.S.G.S. quadrangle map. The Buffalo District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers completed an initial appraisal report for the Shades Beach restoration project in 1985. As part of that work effort, records show that your office was contacted during the course of the initial study sometime in 1984. At that time, the Corps of Engineers was seeking preliminary comments regarding the project. Enclosed are conceptual plans of the breakwaters and boat launching facilities as presently being considered. We are hereby inviting your review and comments on the project prior to the development of final construction plans and specifications. Please address all correspondence on this project to: Northwest Engineering, Inc. 5 West 10th Street, Suite 304 Erie, PA 16501 Attn: Mark J. Corey, P.E. (814) 456-0311 Your input with regard to this project would be greatly appreciated. Our next meeting with the Erie County Dept. of Planning is scheduled for March 2, thus your response would be appreciated as soon as possible. If you should have any questions, or if additional information is required, please do not hesitate to contact Mark Corey or one of the Supervisors. Very truly yours, Marvin L. Akerly, ChairZ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0 HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP ct 0, /em 5601 BUFFALO ROAD HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA 16421-1698 C/07 27 33 42 4 672 PROTECT SITE 'Ile !Iiitliii M, 56 66B Hope 3 . ........................... \1 u of 661 'VCh e-i 63 TN4 I, k42 NA L7 tral -S h c P, 4, 0 . ........... .. 690 41arbor ae NC n; ZI VA. G I BELL9- /rve Pit ;E:@ E N tA \e 00 . ......... L COMMONWEALTH OF PENNS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMEN ENNSYLVANIA 1012 Water Stre Meadville, Pennsylvani 33 OAR021989 72 Telephone: A. C. 814/724- 55 March 1, 1989 NORTHWEST ENGINEERING INC. Subject: Shades Beach Restoration & Navigation Improvements 0 Design Study-Harborcreek Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania a Mr. Marvin L. Akerly, Chairman Harborcreek Township Supervisors 5601 Buffalo Road Harborcreek, PA 16421-1698 Dear Mr. Akerly: This letter is being written in response to your request for input with regard to the above proposed project. In 1984, we mentioned that any placement of sand should be clean sand fill and of our concern over landowners to the east which may experience beach erosion. We have no other comments at this time regarding the plans. Several permits/approvals may be necessary to authorize your project, including, but not limited to, the following: I. Joint permitting by the Bureau of Dams and Waterway Management (BDWM) and the Corps of Engineers. 2. 401 Water Quality Certification from the BDT-IM. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, n7 Michael K. Zimmerman Planning Engineer Bureau of Water Quality Management XiKZ/jb CC: Mark J. Corey, PE E00 et t a-L73 3 S.. n n 00 Or United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE -Suite 322 315 South A-Uen Street State College, Pennsylvania 16801 February 27, 1989 Fir- B 2 81989 Mr. Marvin L. Akerly, Chainnan ST RGINEE-P.M42' Board of Supervisors Harbcrcreek Tcwnship 5601 Buffalo Road Harbcrcreek, PA 16421 Dear Mr. Akerly: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the conceptual plans submitted with your letter of February 15, 1989, for the Shades Beach Restoration and Navigation Inprovements; Project, Harbarcreek Township, Erie County. our only concern with the plans at this stage is the inpact of interrupting the littoral drift that will be caused by breakwaters. We concur with the need for this project and have no serious objection to its construction. We would like to see the potential down-drift erosion problem evaluated as project plans progress. A copy of this letter is being provided to Northwest Engineering. Sincerelyr Supervisor cc: PFC - Carter PGC -Sitlinger DER - Sinith, Thonipson COE - Buffalo EPA - Kline ARD - FWE Readers file Project file ES:SCFO:DPutnam:fae:2/24/89 Mark Corey Northwest Engineering, Inc 5 West 10th Street, Suite 304 Erie PA 16501 Nordiwest enng hic Consultancs and Civil Engineers May 30, 1989 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service Suite 322 315 South Allen Street State College, PA 16801 Attention: Charles J. Kulp Subject: Shades Beach Restoration Harborcreek Township, Erie County Dear Mr. Kulp: responding to your letter dated February 27, 1989 to Mr. I am A Marvin L. Akerly of the Harborcreek Township Supervisors. @41 In your letter you requested an analysis of the potential down- drift erosion problem as the project plans progress. The problem has been discussed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and it has been determined that up to 1000 cubic yards of material may be deposited each year on the west side of the breakwater due to the, interruption of the littoral drift. It is our understanding that present regulations require - these deposits be removed from the west side of the breakwater and be replaced into Lake Erie on the east side of the breakwater on a yearly basis by the owner. Great care will be taken not to block the mouth of Eightmile Creek in doing this. If you have any comments or questions concerning this matter or others, please don't hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, NORTHWEST ENGINEERING, INC. Bruce E Curfman DEC/ceb cc: Harborcreek Township Mark J. Corey, P.E. Harvey H.' Stone, P.E. James E. Murphy, P. E. R.D. 1, P.O. Box Q, Tidioute, Pennsylvania 16351 Telephone (814) 484-3504 U.S. Department Region 3 Courthouse and Federal Building of - Transportation Pennsylvania Oivision 228 Walnut Street P.O. Box 1086 Federal Highway Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Administration 17108-1086 IN REPLY REFER TO: FED 2 7 1989 Exie County, Pennsylvania flarborcreek Township, Shades Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements Mr. Marvin L. Akerly, Chairman Board of Supervisors Harborcreek Township 560.1 Buffalo Road Harborcreek, Pennsylvania 16421-1698 Dear Mr. Arkerly: Your February 15, 1989 letter regarding the subject project, addressed to our Regional Office in Baltimore was referred to this office for review. We have no comment on the proposed action. We are forwarding your letter to our sister modal agency in the U. S. Department of Transportation, the 9-th District Coast Guard Office in Cleveland, Ohio, for their comment. Thank you for affording us the opportunity to comment on your proposal. Sincerely yours MA 2 J C a uel A. Marks vision Administrator cc:.' Commander (M) 9th Coast Guard District 1240 East 9th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44199 'y ,'7 n UNITED STATES SOIL R. D. 3, BOX 261 DFPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CLARION, PA 16214 !ICULTURE SERVICE (814) 226-6116 February 27, 1989 Northwest Engineering, Inc.. 5 West 10th Street, Suite 304 FEB 2 8 1-989 Erie, Pennsylvania 16501 NORTHWES'T ENCINEERING -ING. ATTN: Mark J. Corey, P.E. Dear Mr. Corey: We constructed a land drainage project in this area some years ago. It appears that the concrete pipe shown on the plans is the outlet for' this system. This pipe should remain open. Sincerely, PHILIP MC OUD Area Engineer U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS April 11, 1989 Mr. Mark J. Corey, P.E. Northwest Engineering Inc. R.D. 1 P.O. Box Q Tidioute, PA 16351 Dear Mr. Corey: Thank you for the opportunity to personally comment on the proposed Shades Beach Restoration Project. Although I have only made a very preliminary review of your work, I am enclosing some suggestions that you may want to consider (Encl. 1). As the Corps is only authorized and funded to review specific Architect-Engineering designs, your plans and my comments were not reviewed by the Corps Engineering personnel. Sincerely, MICHAEL MOHR Coastal Engineer Enclosure RECEIVED APR 14 1989 NORTHWEST ENGINEERING INC. NORTHWEST ENGINEERING INC. COMMENTS ON SHADES BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT BY MICHAEL MOHR, P.E. SHEET 1 1. Suggest establishing a baseline with breakwater locations and orientation indicated by station and of f set or state plane coordinates. 2. Suggest increasing length of filter in West Breakwater to around the "bend". 3. Filter fabric in-offshore breakwater appears unnecessary. 4. Show initial beach fill placement SHEET 2 1. Suggest showing filter fabric through sections. 2. Based upon our Initial Appraisal Report (IAR) (1984), Plan C, recommended increasing crest height-of West.Breakwater to- at least +81 LWD and Offshore Breakwater to +7_5 1 LWD. Wave transmission through the breakwaters was not considered during the IAR. Stone sizes and layers should be defined on all sections. 3. Suggest showing toe stone slope at 1V:lH. 4. Suggest showing outline of existing groin in Section D-D. 5. If comment 2, sheet 2 is adopted a section for the offshore breakwater will be required. 6. since there is an existing small beach, the required excavation at the shoreward end of the breakwaters to rock (shale) should be shown. SHEET 3 1. Are the boat launch/parking to be constructed under a future contract? If so these features should be clearly defined. W) SHEET 4 1. It is dif f icult to build beach (underwater portion) as shown. Usually you build it as a level berm with a natural angle of repose and allow waves to shape the beach or shape sand slope above waterline only (more expensive). 2. Sand gradation/quantity in specs? The designers should also be aware,that the design as proposed is a "fair weather" launch facility and will not provide complete protection especially during NE storm events. Alterations to the outer breakwater such as increasing its length will help improve wave conditions inside the facility if it is desired. Gc 2 CITI :@@C- 4-L,@ QL I L'@ ------------------ -30 N - B (Z N Oa S -0 -6 2 100 AVNB-7:)@J, L AGENCY PRELIMINARY C-OMMENTS PA Historical and Museum Commission High probability of / archaeological resources r,-c-_ I V__d 1'@4I-t'b PaDER Coastal Zone Management "Geogra'phical Area of Particular Concern" U.S. Coast Guard Navigation aid, beacons required U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service **impact on littoral drift and potential down-drift erosion Federal Highway Administration **No comments PA Fish Commission Impact on Eightmile Creek U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Drainage pipe near future access road to remain undisturbed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency No comments U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Economically feasible PaDER Water Quality Management Potential down drift shore erosion Preliminary comments are from 1984 corresoondence between agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unless otherwise noted with in which case, updated comments have been received in 1989. SECTION 103-107 INITIAL APPRAISAL REPRORT HARBORCREEK, PA APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE n"-,r OAS 3 3 9 GERALD R@ BLIA Harb=reek JAMES W. SONNEY MARVIN L. AKERLY Township ELEANOR H. MUSGRAVE SECRETARY AND TREASURER A 'Supervisors PHONE 814/899-3171 November 9, 1983 U.S. Army Engineering- District, Buffalo 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, NY 14207 Attention: District Engineer Dear Sir; Harborcreek Township, located in Erie County, Pennsylvania, is considering the construction of improvements at a Township Park which will be located in the waters of Lake Erie. The Park is Shades Beach Park which is located near the mouth of Eight Mile Creek and.north of the intersection of Bartlett Road and East Lake Road (US Route 5). The improvements under consideration consist of 'groins andlor breakwaters. We hereby request and would greatly appreciate any assisstance which you could provide us related to this project. Perhaps a visit by someone from your staff to review the site and our preliminary plans could be arranged. Your anticipated help is appreciated. Sincerely yours, HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS Marvin L. Akerly, Supervisop---- THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MLAlmld cc: Northwest Engineering 5601 BUFFAL 0 ROAD HAPBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA 16421-1698 GERALD R. BLANCHFIELD Harborcreek JAMES W. SONNEY Township MARVIN L AKERLY Supervisors ELEANOR H. MUSGRAVE SECRETARY AND TREASURER PHONE 814/899-3171 April 26, 1984 Department of the Army Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 Subject: initiation of an Initial Appraisal of the Beach Erosion and Navigation Needs in Harborcreek, PA Gentlemen: Enclosed please find our completed pre-application as per your letter of April 13, 1984. I trust this is the information required, and if you should have additional questions please do not hestitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS Marvin L. Akerly, Chairman THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MLA/em Enc: 5601 BUFFALO ROAD HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA 16421-1698 13 Apr 84 10 Apr 1984 SUBJECT: Initiation of an Initial Appraisal of the beach Erosion and Navigation in Harborcreek, PA Mr. Marvin Ackeriy Supervisor Harborcreek Township Supervisors 5001 Buffalo Road Harborcreek, PA 16421-1698 Dear Mr. Ackerly: I have initiated an Initial Appraisal so that I can determine if further federal study of the beach erosion and navigation problems in Harborcreek is warranted. The Corpe of Engineers has authority to historic shorelines under Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended. The authority to assist is navigation improvements was granted to the Corpe by Section 107 of the River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended. Under both authorities, all work must be environmentally sound, economically justified, and engineeringly feasible. The expected completion date for both studies is 30 September 1984. Enclosed you will find two partially completed Federal Assistance Preapplications (SP 424's). Please fill in all missing information in blocks 2 through 22 and sign the certificate in block 23. Detailed instructions are provided on the second page of the form. Return the completed preapplications to me as soon as possible. Correspondence pertaining to the matter should be addressed to the District Commender, U.S. Army Engineer District. Buffalo, 1770 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207, ATTN: Mr. William Werick. If you have any questions or FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 1. TYPE OF ACTION (Mark appropriate box) PREAPPLICATION APPLICATION NOTIFICATION OF INTENT (Opt) REPORT OF FEDERAL ACTION 2. APPLICANT'S APPLICATION a. NUMBER b. DATE Year 1984 month 4-26 day 3. STATE APPLICATION IDENTIFIER a. NUMBER b. DATE ASSIGNED Year 19 month 4. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT a. Applicant Name: Harborcreek Township b. Organization Unit: 5601 Buffalo Road c. Street/P.O. Box: Harborcreek, PA d. City e. County: Erie f. State: g. ZIP Code: 16421-1698 h. Contact Person (Name & telephone No.): 5. FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO. 25-6001664 182200 6. PROGRAM (From Federal Catalog) a. NUMBER 12.1 b. TITLE Small Navigator Improvements (107 7. TITLE AND DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT Small Navigation Improvements Near Shade's Park (Lake Erie) 8. TYPE OF APPLICANT/RECIPIENT A-State B-Interstate C-Substate Distinct D-County E-City F-School District G-Special Purpose District H-Community Action Agency I-Higher Educational Institution J-Indian Tribe K-Other (Specify): Town Enter appropriate letter 9. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE A-Basic Grant B-Supplemental Grant C-Loan D-Insurance E-Other Enter appropriate letter (s) 10.AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT (Names of cities, countries, States, etc.) Harborcreek Township, Erie County Pennsylvania 11.ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PERSONS BENEFITING 12.TYPE OF APPLICATION A-New B-Renewal C-Revision D-Continuation E-Augmentation Enter appropriate letter 13.PROPOSED FUNDING a. FEDERAL $3,750.00 b. APPLICANT 0.00 c. STATE 0.00 d. LOCAL 0.00 e. OTHER 0.00 f. TOTAL $3,750 14.CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: a. APPLICANT PA 21 b. PROJECT PA 21 15.TYPE OF CHANGE (For 12c or 12e) A-Increase Dollars B-Decrease Dollars C-Increas Duration D-Decrease Duration E-Cancellation N/A Enter appropriate letter(s) 16.PROJECT START DATE Year 19 month day 17.PROJECT DURATION months 18.ESTIMATED DATE TO BE SUBMITTED TO FEDERAL AGENCY Year 19 month day 19.FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER n/a 20.FEDERAL AGENCY TO RECEIVE REQUEST (Name, City, State, ZIP code) U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo Buffalo, NY 14207 21.REMARKS ADDED YES NO 22.THE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT a. To the best of my knowledge and belief, data in this preapplication/application are true and correct, the document has been duly authorized by the governing body of the applicant and the applicant will comply with the attached assurances if the is approved. b. If required by OMB Circular A-95 this application was submitted, pursuant is instructions therein, to appropriate clearinghouses and all responses are attache: No response Re at: (1) (2) (3) 23.CERTIFYING REPRESENTATIVE a. TYPE NAME AND TITLE Marvin L. Akerly, Chairman BOARD OF SUPERVISORS b. Signature Marvin L. Akerly c. DATE SIGNED Year 1984 month 04 24.AGENCY NAME 25.APPLICATION RECEIVED Year 19 month 26.ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT 27.ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 28.FEDERAL APPLICATION IDENTIFICATION 29.ADDRESS 30.FEDERAL GRANT IDENTIFICATION 31.ACTION TAKEN a. AWARDED b. REJECTED c. RETURNED FOR AMENDMENT d. DEFERRED e. WITHDRAWN 32.FUNDING a. FEDERAL $ .00 b. APPLICANT .00 c. STATE .00 d. LOCAL .00 e. OTHER .00 f. TOTAL $ .00 33.ACTION DATE Year 19 month day 34.STARTING DATE Year 19 month 35.CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Name and telephone number) 36.ENDING DATE Year 19 month 37.REMARKS ADDED Yes No 38.FEDERAL AGENCY A-95 ACTION a. In taking above action, comments received from clearinghouses were considered. if agency response is due under provisions of Part 1, OMB Circular A-95, it has been or is being made. b. FEDERAL AGENCY A-95 OFFICIAL (Name and telephone no.) 424-101 STANDARD FORM 424 PAGE 1 Prescribed by GSA, Federal Management Circular GERALD R. BLANCHFIELD Harborcreek JAMES W. SONNEY MARVIN L AKERLY Township ELEANOR H. MUSGRAVE SECRETARY AND TREASURER Supervisors PHONE 814/899-3171 February 13, 1984 Col. Robert R. Hardiman U. S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 Subject: Shades Beach Harborcreek Township Erie County, Pennsylvania Dear Sir: on January 12, 1984, Mr. Bill Werick and Mr. Denton Clark from your office met with representatives of Harborcreek Township to discuss proposed improvements at Shades Beach Township Park. The improvements under consideration would result in both beach replenish- ment as well as navigational improvements which would benefit users of the park. As a result of our meeting, we hereby request an "Initial Appraisal" report be performed on the proposed improvements as discussed with Mr. Werick and Mr. Clark. if we can be of any assistance during the preparation of the report, feel free to contact myself at Harborcreek Township, phone 814-899-3171. Thank you for your assistance in our endeavors to improve the recreational facilities at Shades Beach. Sincerely yours, HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS Marvin L. Akerly, Chairman THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MLA/em 5601 BUFFALO ROAD HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA 16421-1698 0, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TIHE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Suite 322 315 South Allen Street State College, Pennsylvania 16801 C) -n July 30, 1984 CD Colonel Robert R.- Hardiman District Commander, Buffalo District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, NY 14207 Dear Colonel Hardiman: This refers to your letter of July 5 requesting information and comments on a proposed small-boat harbor and beach restoration project at Shades Beach Park, Harborcreek Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania. This response is part of the scoping process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. We have a number of concerns which should be addressed as the NEPA process continues. These concerns should be addressed in the forthcoming environmental impact statements: 1. the affects of interruption of littoral drift on fish habitat. 2. possible impacts to Eight Mile Run such as accretion of sand or loss of shoreline (depending on drift direction). 3. maintenance dredging required to keep the harbor entrance open and possible fish entrapment if the opening became closed. 4. the time of year maintenance dredging would be required and disposal of dredged spoils. 5. fishing access to the breakwaters. Eight Mile Creek is classified by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources as a Cold Water Fishery. The stream supports a variety of fish species and is possibly used by salmonids such as salmon and steelhead trout. It has also been reported that log perch use the stream in the spring. Except for occasional transient species, no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species under our jurisdiction are known to exist in the project impact area. Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 consultation- under the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required with the Service. Should project plans change, or if additional information on listed or proposed species becomes available, this determination may be reconsidered. A compilation of federally listed endangered and threatened species in Pennsylvania is attached for our information. We know of no critical or unique habitats within the proposed project area. The blue pike (Stizostetion vitreum glaucum) and the-longjaw cisco (Corre@onus alpenae) have historical 1-y--bFen -1-ound in Lake Erie; however, these two fish are now probably extinct. We suggest that you contact the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission to determine if any species recognized as threatened or endangered by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would be impacted by the project. The Service is willing to participate in this study and appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. Please kee us advised of further developments. Sincerely, Charles ulp Field S visor Enclosure 2 FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED AND 7-11REATENED SPECIES IN PENNSYLVANIA Common Name Scientific Name Status Distribution FISHES: Cisco, longjaw Coregonus alpenae E Lake Erie - probably extinct Pike, blue Stizostedion vitreum E Deep water of Lake glaucum Erie - probably extinc Sturgeon, shortnose* Acipenser brevirostrum E Delaware River & other Atlantic coastal river REPTILES: None BIRDS: Eagle, bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus E Entire State - nests only in Crawford Count Falcon, American peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum E Entire State - re-establishment to former breeding range in progress 'Falco peregrinus tundrius E Entire State migrator@: Falcon, Arctic peregrine no nesting Warbler, Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii E Western Pennsylvania occasional migrant MAMMALS: Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis E Entire State - only known wintering population in PA is in Blair County Cougar, eastern Felis concolor cougar E Entire State - probably extinct Fox squirrel, Delmarva Sciurus niger cinereus E Southeastern PA - probably extirpated 0. Feddially listed endangered and threatened species in Pennsylvania (continued) *MOLLUSKS: Pearly mussel, orange Plethobasus cooperianus** E Ohio River drainage - footed no recent collections Pearly mussel,,piuk Lampsilis orbiculata** E Ohio River drainage - mucket no recent collections Pigtoe, rough Pleurobema plenum E Ohio River drainage - no recent collections PIANTS: Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides E Entire State.- historic populations in Berks, Chester, Green, Monroe, Montgomery & PhiladelpY Counties Existing population in Centre County *Principal responsibility for this,"species is vested with the National Marine Fisheries Service. **Since listing, Plethobasus cooperianus has been renamed.Plethobasus striatus and Lampsilis orbiculata has @een renamed.Lampsilis abrupta. Fish Wildlife Service, Region 5 March 1983 of TWA U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AT REGION THREE 31 Hopkins Plaza Baltimore, Maryland 21201 July 30, 1984 District Commander IN REPLY REFER'TO: u.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo HPP-03.6 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 ATTN: Mr. Philip Berkeley Dear Sir: In response to your July 2, 1984 letter, the Federal Highway Administration is not aware of any project planning or studies in the area that could be affected by the proposed improvements to Shades Beach Park. Land use planning is a.local agency responsibility and the most current data is available from Erie County. Also, the Pennsylvania Department.of Transportation (Penn DOT) has advised us that they have no highway improvements under study in the vicinity of the park. However, East Lake Road, PA-5, is under Penn DOT's jurisdiction and any plans to modify or change access should be coordinated with: Mr. Lewis M. Gurley, PE Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 1D 1140 Liberty Street Franklin, Pennsylvania 16323 Telephone: (814) 437-4300 Sincerely yours, Lrl CD Vincent Ciletti Director, office of Planning C..) CZ and Program Development CD DATE TELEPHONE OR VERBAL CONVERSTATION RECORD 27 July 1984 For use of this form, see AR 340-15; the proponent agency Is The Adjustant General's Office. SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION Harborcreek, Shades Beach Park, PA - Section 103 and 107 Study INCOMING CALL PERSON CALLING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER AND EXTENSION Mike Zimmerman PA DER - Meadville, PA PERSON CALLED OFFICE PHONE NUMBER AND EXTENSION Phil Berkeley NCBPD-ER FTS 473-2171 OUTGOING CALL PERSON CALLING OFFICE PHONE NUMBER AND EXTENSION PERSON CALLED ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER AND EXTENSION SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION 1. Mike called in response to out 2 July 1984 letter to Peter A. Yeager, Chief of the Planning Section, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, concerning the Shades Beach Park Study. 2. He indicated the following concers about a possible project at the Park. - If plan 3 is selected we should use clean beach sand. - He was somewhat concerned about downdrift shore erosion to the east of the project. I told him that we consider this in our planning and coastal studies and would take measures (e.g. nourishment of downdrift areas), to correct any potential problems if they might occur. 3. Mike indicated that his office did not have any other concerns and would not send us a written reply to the 2 July 1984 letter. DA FORM APR 751 REPLACES EDITION OF 1 FEB 88* WHICH WILL BE USED. GERALD R. BLANCHFIELD Hcuborcreek JAMES W. SONNEY TOATInship MARVIN L AKERLY ELEANOR H. MUSGRAVE SECRETARY AND TREASURER Supervisors PHONE 814/899-3171 July 24, 1984 Patricia Lubender Department of the Army Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 Dear Ms. Lubender: I am sorry I will be out of town when you call today, however I have some information for you regarding the size of the land we spoke of near the proposed project site. The land north Of East Lake Road is 40 acres + includes the picnic area-as well as the beachiroltti.s The land south of East Lake Road ccntains 297 acres a great deal of it in virgin wooded acerage. The following items are left for your information: Flood Insurance Study Flood Plain Ordinance No. 84 Bluff Set Back Ordinance No. 81-89 Zoning Ordinance No. 41 P En f have the opportunity to study these, I would appreciate their return. Thank you. Very truly yours, 0 Fred Mc Clurg, Parks Director 5W1 BUFFALO ROAD HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA 16421-1698 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Lake Erie Research Unit Box 531 Fairview, Penna. 16415 July 23,1984 Mr. Philip Berkeley District Commander U.S. Army Engineer District 1776 Niagara St. Buffalo, NY 14207 Dear Mr. Berkeley: RE: Harborcreek PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study-Fish and Wildlife Resources Regarding the above, I have some concern for the proximity of the down-lake entrance and extension of both breakwalls to the mouth of Eight-Mile Creek. The flow of this tributary is generally insufficient to maintain an open and clear channel at it's mouth at Lake Erie. There is usually a sizable gravel barrier bar across the mouth and I am wondering about the fate of this bar if the proposed construction is undertaken. If too close to the mouth, additional material could be deposited on the barrier bar due to wave action from the east. This would proclude anadromous movement of fishes. If too far from the mouth the bar could be destroyed permantently and I suspect further erosion of the high clay banks down lake of the structure would be inevitable. Eight-Mile Creek sustains intermittent runs of ascensions of steelhead and coho salmon during seasonal periods fo hihg water and stream discharge usually in late Fall, Winter, and early Spring. These "runs" are not spectacular or frequent although a mid winter steelhead fishery at the mouth is known to be popular by a few sportfisherman. The creek rarely has a flow greater than 2 cubic feet per second during the dry season, June through October, and the 25% bedrock bottom and lack of deeps pools supports little fish life except for a small trout, cyprinids some suckers and other small fishes, such as darters. It is not productive for smallmouth bass and apparently is not used upstream from the mouth for fishing except for a few anglers seekin a few trout. It may support an occassionally spring smelt fishery although small falls prevent their move- ment more than a few yards upstream from the Lake. To my knowledge, there are no endangered Lake Erie Species or critical habitat that maybe effected by construction at this site. Respectfully, Roger B. Kenyon RBK/mjf RCBPD-ER Subject: Harborcreek, PA beach Restoration and Smell Navigation Study Land Use. Mr. Harry Bittle Deputy for Enviornmental Protection Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources Press Office, 9th Floor Fulton Building, Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dear Mr. Bittle: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, si currently studing the feasibility of providing small-boat harbor improvemnets and beach restroation at Shades Beach Park, Township of Harborcreek, Erie County, Pennsylvania. The Corps of Engineers has authority to restore historic shorelines under Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor and Flood Coarrol Act, as meneded. The authority to assist communities in small navigation improvements cases from Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended. Enclosure 1 gives a brief description of the study area and pro tects three possible alternatives for Shades Beach Park. Implemetation of the National Enviornmnetal Policy Act of 1969, as amened, required that the Federal agencies initiate "an early and open process for deter mining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the signifi- cant issues related to the proposed action". As a part of this early "acoping" process, I wish to invite your participation in this study. In order to fully assess the relationship between any Corps of Engineers actions and the plans of other agencies, we would appreciate knowing whethe your agency has reviewed or formulated existing or proposed land use plans, policies, or controls for the project area. An evalution of master plans, regulations, plans developed in reponse to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of 1977, or other related land us proposals of your agency, would be helpful in this respect. Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter. Correspondance pertaining to this matter should be addressed to the District Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, 1776 Siagara Streeet, Buffalo, Ky 14207, ATTN: Mr. Philip Berkeley. If you have any questions or NCBFD-ER SUBJECT: Harborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study Land Use require additional information, please contact Mr. Berkeley of my Enviornmental Analysis Branch at 716-876-5454, extension 2171. Sincerely, ROBERT R. Hardinas Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander 1 Enclosure as stated Copy Furnished: NCBPD-ER NCBPD (Reading File) KCBPD-S 2 'SHADES BEACH PARK SECTION 103 & 107 STUDY HARBORCREEKp ERIE COUNTY9 PE@NNSY LVANIA 20 June 1984 1. Three preliminary plans for a proposed boat launching facility and/or beach restoration at Shades Beach Park, Harborcreek, Pennsylvania have been developed. 2. Shad es Beach Park is located on the south shore of Lake Erie in the Town of Harborcreek, Erie Countyv Pennsylvania, bordering the left bank of Eightmil*e Creek (Plate 1). The entrance to the park is on East Lake Road (PA 5) about 12 miles east of the entrance to Presque Isle, Pennsylvania. A map of the park is presented on Plate 2. The park has picnicing and playground facilities as well as a small beach fronting a boat house with a rail mounted boat launcher. The beach is formed by trapping sand updrift of a 100 foot long groin. PLAN A: RUBBLEMOUND BREAKWATERS PROTECTING LAUNCH RAMP 3. This planj illustrated on Plate 3, involves constructing two rubblemound breakwaters to shelter the proposed boat ramp and existing rail mounted boat launcher. PLAN B: RUBBLEMOUND/CONCRETE CORE BREAKWATERS PROTECTING LAUNCH RAMP 4. This plan is essentially the same as Plan A except +or the partial usage of a concrete core in the west breakwater. This plan would utilize 27 reinforced concrete railroad shanties, owned by the Town of Harborcreek, as a concrete core to the west breakwater. Plan B is illustrated on Plate 4. PLAN C: RUBBLEMOUND BREAKWATERS PROTECTING BOAT LAUNCH RAMP AND OFFSHORE BREAKWATER TO PROTECT BEACH 5. This plan is the same as Plan A with the addition of a beach stabilized by an offshore breakwater. The beach will abut the west breakwater and will be a maximum of 85 feet wide and 450 feet long. A 125 foot long offshore breakwater will be located 200 +eet from the bluff and 175 feet from the west breakwater. Initial placement of 660 cub,ic yards of sand will be required with annual nourishment estimated at about 70 cubic,yards per year. Plan C is illustrated on Plate 5. LLJ F- CeC- C-X F,4 <1 42 2 3 33 PON su n C(= 42 s Xore. /* 1190 'Ei "v I ght 7)ji I e 2 <1 C2-cek < 120 N. 65 .f 3 ell IWO yv 0 "-I- Nl@ A. x N Csn '. - @ \2," CZ, 0 \ .:\:,. ;@/ Mount 1Ao @dyofMercy 66@k, ch", Drive-in k,636 -1heale N mAlwtj-vw "FLEW11 *Ati**M AW WANn,"W.4 it WAY A" t-l" air L GROW rac- - - - - - - - - V So" it V V. of tx LARC ROAD PA 5 et, @EGEND PROPERTY LV4 I ux woo" LMN OR NOWD FIELD toll oft"'Its ANA. ............. FROPOUD IRA-LS '4 EXISTOIG mkma WIPAVED ROAD toll gets t f 14 LAKe ER19C flare: LAuqtw,,ji%AtEA ilbin RAmp Fuse-kryeb CIK)i.Y TO ASSMO w SIT/Aj& air r#Lr 10 exer.PwArAcal. DCPZNDIAG UPOA) frRFALZkXY 'y' Of TRACK USAGIL *Fdle LAUMNAuG ir HAY ag """J"GE-24 TO LOCATE rilElf &A arilage SWC Of SoAr&wst. 690.1,j At A -1/al p c 113 ........... SoAf IqSl S)44&eLl %tilmajoe PCIVArjr NritTy PARCEL I h/F: BROW EAC.14 PAiTy, LFGEJV@ 3HADES 13, A % S"AD" BCACW Ay IlAlczaWegg T \/.- L, A 3#40fit m too ROM To REACM PLAAS A f'e"PZ&Ty LIME Liva LAKE: ERIE %, ,_ ^- -. 17- 41 NOYE: THIS PLAN 11 31MILAX -rd FLAA# A "cepr -ruA-r jo -rr iwAitmeArits =e 27: UELL -Wl FOULCOAD SUA&STOIS Met"ASED By llQRH;AZMEEV- 1711?1#JC- CROW A3 A CAM -OlrYIJL V. OCIAIWAYC& i1i SM'nikn &b -D M ACJZ4 IaO fy D A cow-91, @. cagal -'rJ& A r PUrllXrV A-B vf@- V 0Y" I I Pe, vA rat vb Pit-o"it-ry TARCEL I "ROWVJ 3HADES BEAP-M PARK LEGENb SiMOU lkhall Wr 11ARIM60991L, PA m 0 Rom To BEAU$ PLAM 9 SCALE - FErr PrOPUTY WE L A K C ER I gr -t7 EDMMG CTW At TrAftilren 11.00tp ffr4z twt, A C-C& 100 -was S p pu ix LA4jD Al PCIVArAr PARCEL 001 if 311ADES pAjtK, - .4 !% LEG P PA Zoo - -Z - - 4 &AW RALE - FEL-.r C pa apa9v bas PL-OqAj C Am F Paz ]@@, NCBPD-ER 05 JUL 1984 SU&JECT: Rarborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study Yish and Wildlife Regaurces CD C__ 71 C:) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Is currently studying the feasibility of providing small-boat harbor improvements and beach restoration at Shades Beach Park, Township of barborcreek, Erie County, Pennsylvania. The Corps of Engineers has authority to restore historic shorelines under Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended, The authority to &ssist communities in =all navigation improvements comes from Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended. Enclosure 1 gives a brief description of the study area and pre- seats three possible alternatives for Shades Neach Park. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended requires that Federal agencies initiate -an early and open process for deter- mining the scope of issues to be addressed and for idenvifying the signifi- cant issues related to the proposed action"& As a part of this early scoping" process, I wisl@' to invite your participation in this study. In order to identify significant resources and the plans of other agencies. within the study area, and to fully assess the range of possible impacts resulting from the proposed Corps action, I would appreciate any information or comments you may have especially with respect to fish and wildlife re- sources, threatened and endangered species, critical habitat. and unique ecological 3ites for the project area. Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter* Correspondence pertaining to this siatter should be addressed to the District Commander. U*Se Army Engineer District, Buffalo, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207. ATTN't Mro Philip Berkeley. If you have any questions or KCSPD-ER SUBJECT: Harborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study- Fish and Wildlife Resources require addtioonal information, please contact Mr. Berkeley of my Environmetal Analysis Branch at 716-576-5454, extension 2171. Sincerely, Robert R. Hardiman Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander 1 Enclosure as stated Copy Furnished: NCBPD-ER NCBPD(Reading File) NCBPD-S LETTERS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING: Mr. Charles J. Kulp Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Suite 322 315 South Allen Street State College, PA 16801 Mr. Roger E. Kenyon Lake Erie Research Unit Pennsylvania Fish Commission Fairview Station P.O. Box 531 Fairview, PA 15415 Mr. Glen L. Bowers Executive Director Cousonweath of Pennsylvania Pennsylvaina Gaaca Courission P.O. Box 1567 Harrisburg, PA 17120 NCBPD-ER 0 2 JUL 1294 SUBJECTa Harborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study Land Use C_ Commander Ninth Coast Guard District U*S* Department of Transportation C:D 1240 East Ninth Street LAD Cleveland, OH 44199 1, The U.Se Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalb District. Is currently studying the feasibility of providing o=all-boat harbor imoroveaeuts and beach- restoration at Sbades Beach Park. Township of Harborcreek, Erie County, Pennsylvania. The Corps of Engineers has authority to restore historic shorelines under Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended. The authority to assist communities in small navigation improvements comes from Section 107 of the 1960-River and Harbor and Flood Control Act. as amended... Eticlosure I gives a brief description of the study area and presents three possible alternatives for Shades Beach Park, 2. Implementation of the National Ermironmental Policy Act of 1969, an amended, requires that Federal agencies initiate 'an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action"* As a part of this early acoping' process, I wish tolavite your participation In this study. 3$' In order to fully assess the relationship between any Corps of Engineers actions and the plins of other agencies, we would appreciate knowing whether your agency has reviewed or formulated existing 'or proposed land use plans, policies, or controls for the project a"rea, An evaluation of master plans. zoning regulations, plans developed in response to the Clean Air and Clean water Acts of 1977, or other related land use proposals of -your agencyi would be helpful in this respect. Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letters NCBPD-ER SUBJECT: Harborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study_ Land Use 4. My point of contact pertaining to this matter in Mr. Philip Berkeley of my Enviromental Analysis Branch who can be contacted at commercial number (716) 876-5454, extension 2171 or FTS 473-2171. ROBERT R, HARDIMAN Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander I Enclosure as stated Copy Furnished: NCBPD-ER NCBPD (Reading File) NCBPD-S 2 NCBPD-ER 02 JUL 1984 Subject: Harborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study- Land Use OFC. MGMT. OAS 2 JUL 84 1346 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, is currently studying the feasibility of providing small-boat harbor improvements and beach restoration at Shades Beach Park, Township of Harborcreek, Eric County, Pennsylvania, The Corps of Engineers has authority to restore historic shorelines under Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended. The authority to assist communities in small navigation improvements comes from Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended. Enclosure 1 gives a brief description of the study area and pre- sents three possible alternatives for Shades Beach Park. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, requires that Federal agencies initiate "au early mad open process for deter- mining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the signifi- cant issues related to the proposed action". As a part of this early "scoping" process, I wish to invite your participation in this study. In order to fully assess the relationship any corps between any Corps of Engineers actions and the plans of other agencies, we would appreciate knowing whether your agency has reviewed or formulated existing or proposed land use plans, policies, or controls for the project area. An evaluation of master plans, soning regulations, plans developed in response to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of 1977, or other related land use proposals of your agency, would be helpful in this respect. Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter. Correspondence pertaining to this matter should be addressed to the District Commander. U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207, ATTN: Mr. Philip Berkeley. If you have any questions or NCBPD-ER SUBJECT: Harborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study- Land Use require additional information, please contact Mr. Berkeley of my Environmental Analysis Branch at 716-876-5454, extension 2171. Sincerely, ROBERT R. HARDIMAN Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander 1 Enclosure as stated Copy Furnished: NCBPD-ER NCBPD (Reading File) NCBPD-S 2 NCAPD-ER 28 JUN 1984 SUBJECT: Harborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study - Cultural Resources Ms. Brenda Barrett, Director Bureau for Historic Preservation Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission William Penn Memorial Museum and Archieves Bldg. Box 1026 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Dear Ms. Barrett; The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, is currently studying theo feasibility of providing small-boat harbor improvements and beach restoration at Shades Beach Park, Township of Harborcreek, Erie County, Pennsylvania. The Corps of Engineers has authority to restore historic shorelines under Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended, The authority to assist communities in small navigation improvements come from Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as amended. Enclosure I gives a brief description. of the study, area and pre- sents three possible alternatives for Shades Beach Park. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as mended, requires that Federal agencies initiate "an early and open process for deter- mining, the scope of issues to be addressed and for Identifying the signifi- cant issues related to the proposed action. As a part of this early "scoping" process. I wish to Invite your participation in this study. In order to identify significant resources within the study area and to fully assess the range of possible impacts resulting from the proposed Corps action, I would appreciate any Information you may have on known cultural resources in the project area as well as your comments and recomendations, Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter. Correspondence pertaining to this matter should be addressed to the District Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207, ATTN: Mr. Philip Berkeley. If you have any questions or LETTERS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING Mr. Bruce Blanchard Regional Administrator Director Region 3 Office of Environmental Project Review Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of the Interior Room 1633 18th and C Streets, NW, Room 424-1 George H. Fallon Federal Office Bldg. Washington, DC 20240 31 Hopkins Plaza Baltimore, MD 21201 Mr. Marvin Akerly Supervisor Earbor Creek Township Supervisors 5601 Buffalo Road mailed 6/29/84 Harborcreek, PA 16421-1698 Mr. Shamus Malone PA Coastal Zone Management Office Evangelical Press Bldg. Room B21 3rd & Reilley Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. John R Pomponio, Chief EIS and Wetlands Review Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106 Mr. Peter S. Danoan Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. James H. Olson State Conservationist U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Box 985 Federal Square Station Harrisburg, PA 17108 Mr. Peter A Yeager, Chief Planning Section Bureau of Water Quality Management Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resoureces 1012 Water Street Meadville, PA 16335 NCBPD-ER SUBJECT: Harborcreek, PA Beach Restoration and Stall Navigation Study Cultural Resources require additional information, please contact Mr. Berkeley of my Environmental Analysis Branch at 716-876-5434, extension 2171. Sincerely, Chief Engineering Robert R. Hardiman Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander 1 Enclosure as stated Copy Furnished: NCBPD-ER NCBPD (Reading File) NCBPD-S 2 XMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVA. A PEN14SYLVANIA HISTORICAL ANO MUSEUM COMMISSION WILLIAM PENN MEMORIAL MUSEUM AND ARCHIVES BUILDING BOX 1028 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 171M August 16, 1984 Robert R. Hardiman Colonel,,Corps of Engineers Department of the Army -4 Corps of .Duffalo District, Engineers >' 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York, 14207 Re: ER #84-1425-049-A Harborcreek,PA Beach aan-' Erie County Dear Mr. Hardiman: The above named project has been reviewed by the Bureau for Historic Preservation in accordance.with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Executive Order 11593 and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800).' There is a high probability that archeological resources may be affected by this project. A survey or limited testing of the area should be undertaken to locate potentially significant archeological resources. Guidelines and instructions for this phase are available from this office. If you have any questions, please contact Kurt Carr at (717) 783-5216. Sincerely, iam Chief Do a Division of Planning and Protection Bureau for Historic Preservation IA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANI DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Post Office Box 1467 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 783-9500 August 9, 1984 In reply refer to RM-WR CZ7:G C-@ Colonel Robert R. Hardiman --q District Commander U. S. Army Engineer District/Buffalo 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, NY 14207 Attn: Mr. Philip Berkeley Dear Colonel Hardiman: Cn This letter is in reply to your July 2, Public Notice requesting comments concerning the Harborcreek, Pennsylvania, Beach Restoration and Small Navigation Study - Land Use. The Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program has policies concerning the encouragement of development of public access in coastal areas, and the regulation of encroachments along Lake Erie with respect to impact on bluff recession and beach erosion. As such, we are very much interested in the Corps' proposed plan at Shades Beach. The Shades Beach site has been designated as a Geographical Area of Particular Concern with rec- reational value by the Pennsyvlania CZM Program. This designation has resulted because the site provides needed public access to Lake Erie, while being located in an area of the County.1hat has limited public access. In addition, shoreline ptoperties around Shades Beach are experiencing severe erosion problems. Our concern is to provide public access along Lake Erie, while at the same time not exacerbating the shoreline erosion problem. As you may be aware, the proposed project could possibly increase the erosion of the shoreline east of Shades Beach which is currently considered a high hazard (ero- sion) area. We are providing you with a CZM funded study (attached) entitled, Coastal Erosion Inventory that may be useful, as it sheds some light on erosion problems in this area. Furthermore, we have sent a copy of the Public Notice to the Erie County Department of Planning for their review and comment. They had not received notification but were very much interested and may provide comments. In conclusion, let me remind you that as per the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, any Federal development projects undertaken by the Corps in Pennsylvania!s Coastal Zone requires a consistency determination from this Division. Colonel Robert R. Hardiman -2- August 9, 1984 We appreciate the notification and please keep us informed of pertinent plans as they develop. Sincerely, E. James Tabor, Chief Division of Coastal Zone Management Bureau of Water Resources Management Enclosure US Department Commander, 1240 E. Ninth St of ftnsportatiork Ninth Coast Guard District Oeveland, Ohio 44199 Staff Symbol: (oan) Unfted Stcfts Phone: (216) 5 22-3991 COCSt GUCWd 16504 Ser. 252-84 02 August 1984 Mr* Philip Berkeley Environmental Analysis Branch Buffalo District Corps of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 Dear Mr. Berkeley: Upon review of your feasibility study for improvement of the Harbor Creek, Pennsylvania small-boat harbor the U. S. Coast Guard Aids to Navigation Branch has determined that, in the event this project becomes a reality, a navigational aid will be required on the extremity of the West breakwater arm. In view of the limited width of the East Entrance and the possible increase in small-craft traffic, we would require the aid on the west breakwater arm to be lighted. In addition, we would require a day beacon be established on the extremity of the East Breakwater structure. Please advise this office in the event. this project reaches the construction stage so we may plan our funding for these aid structures. Sincerely, CD R. H. SMO Lieutenant, U. S. Coast Guard Chief, Aids to Navigation Branch C= r--) Acting By direction of the Commander, C' Ninth Coast Guard District R. SMOt@ DATE TELEPHONE OR VERBAL CONVERSATION RECORD For us* of this form, see AR 340-15; the Provom*nt agemcy is The Adjutant Conef'ol's Office. SwSjI[CT OF CONVERSATIC@N 11g,thop, creek )OA Agech S'pJy' INCOMING CALL x PERSON CALLINQ AOOR%SS ONE NIJMBER AND EATLNSION 47Y 7 7 ?,3 - 47610 4 76 M 4 Z,*f j6pp,'4-r--,v I IC PERSON 51"' 66KO FF I Ca @15HONE NUM13ER AND EATENSIO@ h e, IV edfib Y-;Z) 7.2 OUTGOING CALL PERSON CALLING OFFICE !PHONE NUMBER AP40 EXTENSION 'PF 1ADDRESS EASON CALLED @PHONIE NUMBER AND EATENSION SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION Mr. 7p- h s p e jA #0 'Ove let.4&^i D-(' ,an/ Jov"/ lf-?@ Np. W*,o,-7r .47,'Me Dy@* 74.4e, Ale -,@,rd -pl- ho A 4 e. At / els v s e o 71 lf 4c or e4 e, lo -r,@ e a il 104 /0,vs 71- o /*@P. bo, e, .5-@-e D ste jth c., arr,,; y -@ -0,1- - e,0 or -'@. M e, A Imr. Toth 5 iol- clorej 741-fa Y4 e, oAvw e g s A's 0 F.(;c a '4 a Xtyg-e-l JIve .-7.4004 Je- ;.v sp, I A e, ;ct oicic:ce, h .6a 4@(alo 4- 'vt;Alw1e- .0 -F I)eyf weeX`0 e- 04A 11;rl, pe 0- e_ x ;am&/ We v e- 4 0 w -, V'A hot A ex etrw -Tvwe, dome ern -S r ue, c ro $,#"opt 7110 tA e- aw'st 'p -tic th r@ pe Ic- FORM DAI APR 6o751 REP@ACIES EOITtOM Of I FIED 50 WHICH WILL IBE USIED. NCAPD-S SUBJECT: Initiation of an Initial Appraisal of the Beach Erosion and Navigation needs in Harborcreek, PA require additional iformation, please contact Dr. Herick of my Seall Projects Branch at (716)676-5434, extension 2144. Sincerely, JOSEPH V. CREEDEN, MAJOR ROBERT R HARDIMAN COLONEL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT COMMISSIONER 1 ENCLOSED AS SORTED COPY FURNISHED Honorable Thomas J. Ridge House of Representatives 1331 Longworth hoi Washington, de 20515 Honorable Thomas J. kidfe Representative in Congress Federal Building, 6th and State Streets Erie, PA 16501 Honorable Arlen Spector United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 HCEPD-S 2 Harborcreek GERALD R. BLANCHFIELD JAMES W. SONNEY Township MARVIN L. AKERLY Supervisor ELEANOR H. MUSGRAVE SECRETARY AND TREASURER PHONE 814/899-3171 February 13, 1984 Col. Robert R. Hardiman U. S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 Subject: Shades Beach Harborcreek Township Erie County, Pennsylvania Dear Sir: On January 11, 1984, Mr. Bill Werick and Mr. Denton Clark from your office met with representatives of Harborcreek Township to discuss proposed imporvements at Shades Beach Township Park. The Impovements under consideration would result in both beach replenish- ment as well as navigational improvements which would benefit users of the park. As a result of our meeting, we hereby request an "Initial Appraisal" report be performed on the proposed improvements as discussed with Mr. Werick and Mr. Clark. If we can be of any assistance during the preparation of the report, feel free to contact myself at Harborcreek Township, phone 814-899-3171. Thank you for your assistance in our endeacors to the recreational facilities at Shades Beach. Sincerely yours, HARBORCREEK TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS Marvin L. Akerly, Chairman THE BOARD OF SUPERCISORS MLA/em 5601 BUFFALO ROAD HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA 16421-1698 -4Notrflawest 'Enginee Inc. rM9 Consultants and Civil Engineers January 12, 1984 Col..Robert R. Hardiman 77# U. S. Army Engineer District, Buffalo :@,- 01 1776 Niagara St. Buffalo, New Yoric 14207 Subject: Shades Beach Harborcreek Township Erie Co., Pennsylvania Dear Sir: On January 11, 1984 Mr. Bill Werick and Mr. Denton Clark'from your off.--ice met with representatives of Harborcreek Township to discuss proposed improvements at Shades Beach Township Park. The improve- ments under consideration would result in both beach replenishment as well as navigational improvements which would benefit users of the park. As a result of our meeting, we hereby request an "Initial Appraisal" report be performed on the proposed improvements as discussed with Mr. Werick and Mr. Clark. If we can be of any assistance during the preparation of the report, feel free to contact either myself or Mr. Marvin Akerly at,-,Harborcreek Township, phone 814-899-3171. Thank you for your assistan'ce in our endeavors to improve the re- creational facilities at Shades Beach. Sincerely you. Paul R. Groney, PRG:ck cc: Harborcreek Township Harvey Stone File 2635 West 26th Street Erie, Pennsylvania 16506 r lelephone (814) 833-3908 14 AS' '@OV 19C3 qq NCBPD-S SU3JECT: 17roposed Niavigation Improvements at Harborcreek, Pennsylvania Mr. Narvin L. Akerly Supervisor Harborcreek Township Supervisors 5601 Buffalo Road Harborcreek, PA 16421-1698 Dear 11r. Akerly: This is in re-ard to your 9 November 1983 letter to me concerning navigation 0 0 improvements at Harborcreek, Pennsylvania. As Mr. William Werick of my Small Projects Branch explained in an 18 November telephone conversation with your fellow supervisor Mr. Gerald R. Blanchfield, I can assist in the followin- manner. A member of my staff will visit the site of the proposed improvements and comment on your proposals. The trip will be arran-ed for our mutual con- venience sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Mr. Werick will call you to arrange a time. During this visit my staff will determine the appli- cability of Section 107 of the 1960 Rivers and Harbors Act, which provides the Corps the authority to study and construct small navigation improvements. Under the terms of this law, I can initiate an "Initial Appraisal" report upon your request. The purpose of that report is to 'determine, after preli- minary review of existing data, if further Federal involvement is warranted. Details on this program will be furnished to you at the time of the visit to the site. I I draw your attention to the fact that these are not grant programs. Should you decide to study and design the navigation improvements yourself, the Corps involvement would be limited to whatever review was necessary to authorize or deny a permit for construction of the improvements. There would be no finan- cial assistance from the Corps. 1@iA NCBPD-S SUBJECT: Proposed Navigation Improvements at Harborcreek, Pennsylvania All correpondence on this matter should be addressed to the District Commander, Attention Mr. William Werick. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Werick at (716) 876-5454, extension 2144. Sincerely, DONALD O. LIDDELL Cheif Engineering Division ROBERT R. HARDIMAN Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Commander CF: NCBPD-S 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS INITIAL APPRAISAL REPORT EXCERPT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS In order to characterize the resource base of the project area, information has been obtained from existing literature and coor- dination with those Federal, State, and local agencies charged with administering fish and wildlife resources, cultural re- sources, and land use plans. Project coordination was initiated in June and July 1984 via letter with agencies including: the U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agricul- ture Soil Conservation Service, the Federal Highway Administra- tion, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Pennsylvania Department of Envi- ronmental Resources, the Pennsylvania Fish Commiss.ion, the Penn- sylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Manage- ment Office, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, the Erie County Department of Planning and the Harborcreek Township Supervisors. Initial correspondence with the Harbor- creek Township Supervisors pertaining to project consideration occurred in January, February, and March of 1984. Reference the Correspondence Appendix A. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission noted in their 23 July 1984 letter that Eightmile Creek sustains intermittent runs or ascen- sions of steelhead and coho salmon during seasonal periods of high water and stream discharge usually in late fall, winter, and early spring. These "runs" are not spectacular or frequent although a midwinter steelhead fishery at the mouth is known to be popular by a few sport fishermen. Most agencies were supportive of the recreational benefits of the project. Major concerns expressed by the various agencies about the project include: consistency with the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Policies; a need for navigation assistance facil- ities; impacts to littoral drift and associated impacts to fish habitat, erosion, and continued fishery access to Eightmile Creek, project construction and maintenance scheduling; adequate fishing access, and use of clean construction and beach nourish- ment materials. Correspondence Appendix A includes a "Prelimi- nary Environmental Compliance Summary". The Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission also indicated that there is a high probability that archaeological resources may be affected by this project and that a survey or limited testing of the area should be undertaken to locate potentially significant archaeological resources in future studies. Alternatives and concerns would be further developed and assessed in the next phase of study. Preliminary assessment of alterna- tives (Reference the "Preliminary Environmental Compliance Sum- mary, Appendix D) indicate that project implementation benefits could be realized for: Man-Made Resource, Desirable Community and Regional Growth, Community Cohesion, Business and Industry, Employment and Income, Public Facilities and Services, Property Values and Tax Revenue, and aesthetics. Possible minor to moder- ate initial adverse impacts could occur to Natural Resources, Air Quality, Water Quality, Noise, and Aesthetics. No Displacement of People or Farms should occur. Adverse impacts could be sub- stantially reduced by incorporation or environmental design measures or possibly necessary mitigation measures. Major envi- ronmental work that would need to be completed if the study continues includes: continued environmental coordination, prepa- ration of a more detailed environmental assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as appropriate, preparation of a Section 404(b)(1) evalua- tion report and public notice, coordination and preparation for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (FWS-CAR), prepa- ration and coordination of a Coastal Zone Management consistency report, and further cultural resources investigation. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT As required for implementation of NEPA (Reference Paragraph k., "Preliminary Environmental Compliance Summary", Appendix D) as promulgated by DOD-COE Section 122 Guidelines the preliminary considered alternatives have been assessed relative to Section 122 Guideline environmental evaluation parameters as follows: NCBPD-S SUBJECT: Section 103 and Section lu7 Initial Appra isal Report on Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements at Harborcreek,.Pennsylvania Table 12 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts : Plans A & B Plan C Section,122 : Launch Beach Criteria * Protection Protection (P.L..91-611):Probable Impact:Probable Impact: Remarks Natural : ST: Minor : ST: Minor : Probably minor adverse impacts Resources : Adverse : Adverse : during construction. Fish may : tT: Minor : LT: @@inor : be temporarily driven out of : Beneficial : Beneficial : the construction area. Some : existing fishery habitat may : be lost but new (variety) : habitat would be created. : Care must be taken to protect : fishery.utilization of the : stream outflow area.' Provisions : should be made for possible : increased erosion east of the : project and stream. Long term : impact would probably not be : significantly adverse. Needs : further assessment. Reference : correspondence. Plan C adds : beach nourishment & protection. Air Quality : ST: Minor : ST: Minor There may be a minor decrease : Adverse : Adverse in air quality during construc- : LT: Not : LT: Not tion at the project site due to : Significant : Significant : increases in dust, odor, and : vehicle emissions. Water Quality: ST: Minor : ST: Minor : There may be a minor decrease : Adverse : Adverse : in water quality during con- : LT: Not : LT: Not : struction due to disturbance : Significant : Significant of bottom sediments, possible minor dredging, and (Plan C) beach nourishment. Possibly periodic maintenance dredging and beach nourishment. Man-Made ST: Minor : ST: Minor Improved beach (Plan C) and Resources Adverse : Adverse : boat launch facilities. LT: Moderate : LT: Moderate : Accommodating facilities via Beneficial : Beneficial : existing park development. 12 NCBPD-S SUBJECT: Section 103 and Section 107 Initial Appraisal Report on Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements at Harborcreek, Pennsylvania Table 12 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (Cont'd) : Plans A & B Plan C Section 1,22 : Launch Beach Criteria : Protection Protection (P.L. 91-611):Pro-bable Tmpact:Probable Impact: Remarks Desirable : ST: Minor :ST: Moderate :Consistant with community Community : Beneficial :Beneficial :and regional needs, plans, and Regional : LT: Manor :IT: Moderate :and requests. Growth : Beneficial :Beneficial Community : ST: Minor :ST: Moderate :To date, overall community Cohesion : Beneficial :Beneficial :interests support. : LT: Minor :IT: Moderate : : Beneficial :Beneficial Displacement : ST: 11A :ST: NA None. of People : LT: NA :LT: NA Displacement : ST: NA :ST: NA None. of Farms : LT: NA :LT: NA Business and : ST: Minor :ST: Minor :Construction opportunities. Industry : Beneficial :Beneficial :Possibly some secondary benefits Activity : LT: Minor :LT: Minor :to service businesses in the : Beneficial :Beneficial :area. Employment : ST: Minor :ST: Minor Construction opportunities. and Income : Beneficial :Beneficial Possibly minor additional park : LT: Minor :IT: Minor personnel. : Beneficial :Beneficial Public : ST: Minor :ST: Minor Improved boat launch and (Plan Facilities : Adverse :Adverse :C) beach. Improve shoreline and Services : IT: Moderate :LT: Major :access. Probably some minor Beneficial :Beneficial :modifications/improvements to :existing park developments as :accommodating facilities and :services. Limited trailer :turning area. 13 NCBPD-S SUBJECT: Section 103 and Section 107 Initial-Appra isal Report on Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements at Harborcreek, Pennsylvania Table 12 - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts (Cont'd) : Plans A & B Plan C Section 122 : Launch Beach Criteria : Protection Protection (P.L. 91-611):Probable ImDact:Probable Impact: Remarks Property : ST: Minor :ST: Minor : Improved county park property. Value and : Adverse :Adverse : Probably some expenditure of Tax Revenue : LT: Minor :IT: '4inor : tax revenues for facility and : Beneficial :Beneficial : service improvements. Probable : return via usage. Noise : ST: Minor :ST: Minor : Minor increase in noise due to : Adverse :Adverse : operation of construction : LT: Not :IT: Not : equipment. Possibly a slight : Significant :Significant : increase in noise with increased : utilization. Some residences : in the area. Aesthetics : ST: Minor :ST: Minor : Temporary disruption due to : Adverse :Adverse : construction. Improvement to : LT: Moderate :IT: Moderate : facilities and (P !an C) beach : Beneficial :Beneficial : would improve aesthetics. ST: Short Term LT: Long Term NA: Not Applicable LOOAL COOPERATION 34. The local cooperation agreements document the responsibilities of the Federal and non-Federal agencies in a project. To meet the provisions of Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act, local interests would be required to furnish assurances that they will: ao Provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way'necessary for the construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and for aids to navigation, including suitable areas deter- mined by the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest for initial and subsequent disposal of dredged material; b. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to construc- tion and subsequent maintenance of the project, except damages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its Contractors; c. Provide servicing facilities open to all on equal terms as well as providing necessary policing and other services; 14 NCBPD-S SUBJECT: Section 103 and Section 107 Initial Appraisal Report on Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements at Harborcreek, Pennsylvania d. . Provide dredging at entirely local cost in any berthing areas and minor accesses thereto; e. -Provide, without cost to the United States, all alterations and relocations of existing improvements including utilities, sewers, and other facilities required for construction of the project; f. Prescribe and enforce reaulations to prevent obstructions or 0 encroachments that would interfere with proper functioning or maintenance prescribed by the Corps of Engineers; g. Provide a cash contribution in an amount equal to 50 to 70 percent of the construction cost of the general navigation features directly attributable to recreational navigation, depending on the cost sharing policy in effect at the time of the signing of the local cooperation agreement. h. Bear all responsibility and separable costs of operation, main- tenance, and replacements allocated to sport fishing from the harbor structures; i. Provide all project costs in excess of the Federal statutory cost limitation of $2,000,000, exclusive of aids to navigation; j. Prepare, for approval of the Chief of Engineers prior to construc- tion of the Federal improvement, a master plan for development of the iiecessary utilities and facilities for launching of recreational boats, including an adequate public landing with provision for potable water, and for the sale of motor fi@el and lubricants; k. Provide and maintain, without cost to the United States and to be available to all on equal terms, the improvements prescribed in the master plan, without material deviation therefrom unless approved by the Chief of Engineers; 1. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, approved 2 January 1971, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights- of-way for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project, and inform affected persons of pertinent benefits, poljC4es, and procedures in connec- tion with said act; M. Comply with Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto and- published in Part 300 of Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, in connection with the maintenance and operation of the project. 35. In addition to the above requirements, if a beach restoration project (such as Plan C) were implemented, local interests would be required to fur- nish the following assurances: 15 NCBPD-S SUBJECT: Section 103 and Section 107 Initial Appraisal Report on Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements at Rarborcreek, Pennsylvania a. Contribute in cash, 30 to 50 percent of the beach restoration and nourishment costs (depending on cost sharing policy in effect at the time of construction) and all beach restoration and nourishment costs in excess of the Federal -expenditure limitation of $1,000,000 which includes Federal study, design, construction, and periodic beach nourishment costs. b. Provide, without cost to the United States, all necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations required for construction of, the beach restoration features, including that required for periodic nourishment. c. Carry out the annual beach nourishment program for the 50-year life of the project with the only cost to the United States being the annual reim@- bursement to the town of Harborcreek, PA, of 50 to 70 percent of the city's expenditure thereof, depending on cost sharing policy in effect at the time of the signing of the local cooperation agreement, subject. to the availability of funds and the Federal expenditure-limitation of $1,000,000. d. Provide and maintain necessary access roads, parking areas, and other public use facilities open and available to all on equal terms. e. Assure that water pollution from point sources in the park that would affect the health of the bathers will not be permitted. DISCUSSION 36. The analysis done for this report shows conclusively that there is a Federal interest in restoring the beach at Ha.rborcreek, and there is a Federal interest in providing a navigation improvement project. 37. Selection of the recommenddd plan must be made recognizing that the cri- teria of the two laws must be met individually. Good planning principles demand that a plan be chosen that maximizes net benefits. Plan C satisfies both planning principles and legal requirements because the components of that plan are shared between navigation and beach restoration, and each is incre- mentally justified. CONCLUSION 38. Based on the preliminary analysis in this report, there is ample justi- fication for Federal involvement in a project at Shades Beach that includes beach restoration and navigation improvements, and as such,detailed studies are warranted. RECOMMENDATION 39. 1 recommend that $35,000 be provided under Section 103 of the 1962 River and Harbor and Act and- $35,000 be provided under Section 107 of the 1960 River and Harbor Act to prepare a Reconnaissance Report of navigation and 16 NCBPD-S SUBJECT: Section 103 and Section 107 Initial Appraisal Report on Beach Restoration and Navigation Improvements at-Harborcreek, Pennsylvania beach restoration at Harborcreek, provided that the township of Harborcreek or some other governmental body assures the Corps in writing that they intend to meet the requirements in Paragraphs 34 and 35 of this report. PB-6 forms identifying elements of work to be performed during the Reconnaissance Studies are attached. Because of the relatively low cost of the project, I recommend' that the Reconnaissance Reports serve as the decision document, from which we proceed directly to preparation of Plans and Specifications. Fi, DANIEL R. CLARK Colonel, Corps of' Engineers District Commander 17 SECTION 103 AND 107 INITIAL APPRAISAL REPORT HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SUMMARY SECTION 103/107 INITIAL APPRAISAL REPORT HARBORCREEK, PENNSYLVANIA PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SUMMARY D1. As indicated by the 'Federal objective of water and related land resources project planning; the project,must be consistent with protecting the Nation's environment, pursuant to national environmental statues, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Compliance with environmen- tal statutes (to date) is as follows: a. Preservation of Historical Archeological Data Act of 1974 (16 USC et seq.); National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC 470 et seq.; Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environmental, 13 May 1971 - Project coordination was initiated with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission - Bureau for Historic Preservation via 2 July 1984 and 28 June 1984 letters, respectively.. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission indicated in their 16 August 1984 letter response that there is a high probability that archeological resources may be affected by this project and that a survey or limited testing of the area should be undertaken to locate potentially significant archeological resources. Further investiga- tion and coordindtion will be conducted in the next phase of study. b. Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 USC 7401 et seq. - Project coor- dination was initiated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources vis 2 July 1984 and 6 July 1984 letters, respectively. Further coordination will be conducted in the next phase of study. No significant adverse impacts to air quality would be expected with project implementation. c. Clean Water Act of 1977'(Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) 33 USC 1251 et seq. - Project coordination was initiated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources - Bureau of Water Quality Management via 2 July 1984 and 6 July 1984 letters, respectively. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources indicated some concern pertaining to downdrift shore erosion and sedimentation, and indicate that clean materials should be used for construction and beach nourishment (27 July 1984 - Telecom). Further investigation and- coordination will be conducted in the nest phase of study. A Section 404(b)(1) Public Notice and Evaluation Report would need to be pre- pared and coordinated before project construction. A Section 401 State Water Quality Certificate or waiver thereof, would need to be obtained before pro- ject construction. d. Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, 16 USC 1451 et seq. -Project coordination was initiated with the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Office via letter dated 2 July 1984. The Pennsylvania CZM Office desires recreational development, but expressed some concerns regarding erosion to the east of the project site. A consistency compliance evaluation report would need to be prepared and coordinated with the Pennsylvania CZM Office before project construction. k. National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC 470a, the sea. - Alternative plans are developed and evaluated in accordance with environmen- tal considerations as set forth by this act as promulgated by the Department of the Armyls: Principles and Guidelines; ER 200-2-2 Environmental Quality Policies and Procedures for Implementing NEPA; and COE Section 122 Guidelines Requirements of the Act are accomplished via the Corps' planning process. 1. River and Harbor Act' (33 USC 401 et seq.) - Requirements of the Act are fulfilled via the Corps' permit and planning authorities. m. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 USC 1001 et seq.) No requirements for Corps activities. (Requirements of the Act fulfilled by the Corps planning actions.) Project coordination was initiated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soils Conservation Service via a 2 July 1984 letter. Coordination will continue in the next phase of study. Reference S. also. n. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271 et seq.) - No listed wild and scenic rivers are located in the project area. Not applicable in this -case. o. Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment - Reference a. p. Executive Order 11988 Flood Plain Management, 24 May 1977 - The Federal project would comply with area flood plain, management policies. The project would not alter application of any area flood insurance or flood plain management policies. q. Executive Order 11990, Protection Wetlands, 24 May 1977 - To date, no wetland areas have been identified in the immediate project area. Reference Draft National, Wetlands Inventory Maps - 1983 (Harborcreek, PA, Quad). Federal action would not affect any wetland, nor would it alter application of any wetland protek&.tion policies. r. Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 4 january 1979 - Not applicable for this study. s. Executive Memorandum Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Farmlands in EIS, CEQ Memorandum, 30 August 1976 - Project coordination was ,initiated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service State Conservationist via 2 July 1984 letter. No agricultural farmland or prime or unique or important soils were identified in the immediate project vicinity. Referenced: Erie County, PA, Prime and Important Farmlands Map 1978; Soil Survey 1960, Erie County, PA; Important Farmlands of Erie County, PA (Soils Brochure); from the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soils Conservation Service. D2. State and Local - Project coordination was initiated with State and local agencies as identified in Paragraph 25. The project must be consistent with State and local environmental. legislation and local land use plans. D-3 V DESIGN ANALYSIS prepared by the 0 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ,.0 : @4 192 q bpSnu ANALYs7-s The J, orf.1j* -4 q o"ad a f;-s A -a a e. Z s- eak @uv, ig e- .4 a s&A- lizz A ea eea,4. A2,4 Lasi 0.4-fiez 7ob- Are t,4je7- t<,-- .0 . @ V-A pp roo II. heal M,4,4 uze.-e a, A o;?A4 0,@ L Id,,na axrnra C.CAJWIlj Ar-@,AJQ 'aike-t< Cml@ ZAi 36 Deso@ak) Vrl. il m 10,1? AP 1,,Ao oymaj Cdczg@ fjdma_6elAJ e Cle V Dal N94 ve /S h. MQAJWW L12ke M Ou @A Z14f faltz., tqVdAJ I IaAl Af/ ha. I@af dl@: fdl Vivo MNO-If 42,6( flt dts- 4c;l @Aroud," -Derfemi2ep- /S -11;s rg@=Jze @JJALI@ dSeig-' Z' aZSAI@ i4l efAMX-e,'@IA L -1 1. f ivt LAKr ERie 4 a Lt.) 75" 10 cl 11"RPaRArf 70f As%Ljmro STAOLIZEn S11IRf AT'Ytum -A A loo jY. A(Y- c AUIJC"'LK- V% ROG 1/c S PROrEtry INF i%N -A VBrMkLIJAi9r: Cre Sl S/OpC,.:; At SfCfjjjr-F TM IIIID At R-B. PC I VA rff (1A Pitap'E'tTy PARCEL BROW 5HADES BEACH PqR S14AI)EI; BCACII Ar @H&C.IMCCElML @- 0 H PA rdi" a j 1?()nt3 A) Br-Arq VqLE FEET PLj" C peopEk-ly Im PLnAj c oo, Y 7d .......... -a-,Itf@q5- f4V 77 __@=7 jq ::-,:f :7 7.4 ...... I.. _-_- -7!:@.l :1:: T ;tf.11 ' 03 :, YXIASM ............. ML J: ......... -, 7@ 7- 7 IV- it -::1 -7 . . ... ....... .......... 7@7.. 4 Yl@ -e--- 7--s'2 . a 1 :@4 e- .17 @.l ............. ---------- j::7- 7_17 .............. L [email protected] fto:. -ZZ: pill."tilly ONE C -ncii Ar 1 It IDE r ............. NAW SYL VAAJ A 11.5i.ho Ijllfo ",W) 1100 @JlAnVs REACI) PnZ.,e I 1A P lau R,F @r n IF 41 J P"-o-ra I PARm,A.,c, AREa oj Pork .1yoie- 4L radr-sad sAaAies i,,j /d@ ikesC a,e. Pm o -r o Rcad @a Bear-ft Pha@o 3 C. r-O 4 AJ @Ndie. AQ4 Iasi 2d' Was JNnppr-h drx- dur,&y Itur'-Ovots 41 pboio q P@fv VE y -;@Jvjw VT I-ow-?VN -V F 2-1 7,49C Ivu -JIMMI;qo it VIA F Our Q/7777 padce- ryw/7%plo/v /-VV@7 Pvvv)-;L97 17217- Pvri; 177 fo -Z77. Try -,g IA-d fvpy GrIl-7 'W Jo .1 71f&v I... k:ol.' "LAil 11 1 ;4 Idl ial Ina AS 0613 0 P-'sI u A 17' 574 7-T Ilk i 1111 :hI AKE P1 11 h I i J1 ;@Ia A IE 414 1 X A @6& d1i til -7-F, r F!'Yv R1 .::p R16' T'-.T; 17T _T :!j, 4@1 '7 7 4f fit L IM Tj- 11 I M; M! lid !ik ;"I iiii 1;: -1: 1t'. :T ik il 77- S11 IT Till 71! 2ZO '4!1 TIN: 7 LLJ lp _T '7 14 S70- T77 Ti r4i .j: -IT 1 1 Fv T 7-. 10 7 7. .7 It -14 lp 1';, 11 11 j ;I L% I IT I - - - - 11. I ; il Tt -i r@j IT,: Iii 14 Cl> vp z;, sc Y:s a - 27 4"!y @v oz@d' -al-yy t&o r5---7 .J6 -6.4 7 :00 V v 2v rp,@ A@F 7A' r.,l ct 17 Lv -;y W d.;jK4w-,v i A r-vr WLv . P? 7 PN 7-",V,7-C Tyr @w A7 P-v de-0547 C@o7 V AWO/'7 V7 rlP - V-11a P/ W/ 77 pry rorl"G?w [email protected] -4 z r-r, i@71 P/ -0 P%Tl-"t-d 7,z 71 tp/ "-:F -d 7vrt -aerIV1701o noal vv@ V-/ '115 wf) W VVY Jpf.-I 4AX rz)p.j vw@ 9 INA-f>fo@ 01! -0 jz$ 3_1 ID -rvt( VF yova-jvv -a,@z 62 GO 52 01 11 60 '60 -S6 55 50 35 37 47 3 GO 200 '16 ? 2 IN 4.1 2 b2 28 13 R k 35 56 30 IQ ?k 58 59 35 23 j@2 13 4 4 37 2 z 3 A C 56 .2 42 33 j I DUMPING I V- 53 1 41. 51 / GROUND .1-1 27 53 42 1 -9,@@ I / !.. I ,, C 0 45. 4 39 /I '- UI 1-@ It! 50 - - - - - - - - 42 19 4 46 4 p -f. 45 Y, /40 35 [C @'m @30-- 1.6 38 J - " e "" < UT tu: -24 37 37 .o -- -$"A's 31 37 39 6 42 @37 7! 32 39 5 SYMBOL REFFRENt ji, / I :J9 3 1 33 Private aids to navigation (lilailll.. 10 cd, I.. Upt 114 . 33 /5 interests. use viith c, J2 It Position of lielit. b 30 I .... ..... .1"Wil. 3 mZi', I oT - - v-, / Starboard-hand biloy entelin, - '. r .- -%-@---- -- ---Y, , -i I- - ---- ----- Y5 )0 :7i; W gri c. BCLL I Ym j, ri it Blds Pot t-hand btloy entering Noll 23/ E 17 4 2 0 -1') leo T FOR INfOld RFQUES o 7 Marinets are tireed to report piomi-Aly to the k 17 Nitioiial Oceanic aod Abyio!@pheric Admi cri. Ilia Lt% r N 6.1 1 ell I conditions found to differ f(om or to lie addiliori.@ inve"lig'lled ill-i(l fit, 20 14 9 20 older that they may I.Ju fully 15 N1, , ;-) j STA 91 instances. a Section of tile charl should be Slibmill. lions. ill which event, a flew chalt will lie i,;fklell 1'. 0" Lr go "I 1,, 21 21 tile lljvl@ed Chart is tile cullcill c(litiul) .1fid r,01 20 J1 ," -F, 20 24 - 20 19 17 - ----- ------- SEIAY)rLS RVIC11 @,r _4 YJA- 42'.5lx f 8WIS Sir 38 36 33 39 60,3,1, 3@ 38 35 c 36 3 32 R It 4 Aar.,.. 38 3a I VWG0l 36 '136 32 V. 35 34 A !Te2!; 37 32 PROBABILITY X 90 DIVISIONS HUE KEUFfEL ESSER CO. 4 &LA IN US A 468000 99@99 99.9 998 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 T All MIII 7-- 7 IL L A- ul I f I > 77-T stmD95 BEActJ Ar 11Akfia2Cj2rjx JA AUMMAL I-AME IIEIC.Mr- N,' 16@jl fAe42tJd AJf-V ICU9 VLr r 11 FIX 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 9a -4@9.'j-q-q PROBABILITY X 90 DIVISIONS KrUfFEL & EStiEll CO MAUI IN USA 46 8000 F 99.99 99.9 99.8 99 98 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 ------- ----- T ------------- ---- il F, Is q A T la V) -T- -4 L 7 <r T: BfAejj Ar T AnAj LAA L VAVJE PEit) J A rw FAEAUEAWIV C-LeffS 14 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 4" 2 5 1 o 20 30 40 50. 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9 99.99 7:P77 0. CRI @jl 1 1 ,fLll@ TO Ap -W. v 7 -77 (-YD @dv 0;12127;1 7:v Y2Z7aj ;;7--vr-T-Po 07,747, T@/ 77 jW/@ JW VTV,Dyf@?IZI Yllw/01-jovo 7y jo 7VP7,-@@p.21r7/j rypiF7r Vyl 7K V d P. 0 1 711 p ay r "W'410 X-MYN-0 7VV7@g rill @T rAMLf- REFIRnt-TidAl (0,MFICIEUTS PAID 0AIREFRACTEO be-,EPla4TLrx MAVe Yetoll-rs DES I&N DESIGN ArMLE: ce yr 0 T. s K, LIEVX L WAVE CLASS 66RE.-s secomas Frisy FM reE r 30 7.7 10.6 9.1 z 30 16.6 0 8 s ly. p- Ia. I 30 7. q .2.6 .6049 2"t to - Yr. 7- 0 OOL-1 .91 lo.q 9.s IRS 13. y II.q TAB@r eq OF r OD MESMM Av r. I- r-u L 0. 'lq; 5LOPE mj@ SECTION Siz-rz OIL UVIEL VAVal CLA.Tf r FErr FEET SECOMM Far 1.1 R -Z 1-1 .163.6 .0-90 -90 .01 fA 3 0 Ia -YlZ 2d-YE ?- 7.? 3111.s A33 .9(3 dzq 2.q 1?, 7. q ?qo.j 03 I, o z .713 S.,q 20- Ye 9.s Ts ze-0.8 .033 .91 15 $63 9.7 yp 641 .7.s (d.V AdOlk 1161 727 Y 6 big pip, ITI -Y/7 v .6 @e F-7 07,7- zoll/f 77 1--,v 7 71 Z77; ,o DR V--r t '9/111 T ZVY -,r? o c INr-W vrvr@,-Vw-,@ 0&?f7 t'Aj J'f.Y,071 -.WryV f7,;s ll@@o -7@r-s 0 177,5z Al 0P4t LiTi 70@ TP/ 77 rv;9 11 17 /Y j 4 UN 1_0 OT-7q-07p@@ P61 7.07 7177@@F I IV/ P-7 773 SX7 517-4v;p -V _71 VIWs. 4 yr /W -7 - w-r--z 717- .loo"I z 'o 0.7 171 ;, 04 d)'f R.W -4f ypts :72 ty, trolr J", Yf W @o ?r/y ,t@ r It irrv z/10 -V P@ 2= L017.yx 11 j4 W-d -Y"Mrw;lg MolPir. 77@ zv blb I @rvw Is ;;710FY cso@ 4@g ZR@ re pv f Vito ',drvv /9-9 4 40 f 1)7 -40"0 -wPf J*;@ ly ssv/yrw -a'a z 51miNrifff TV, S m I fu T-n V U3 v -v IN 47 -0 -Q!@ 12 014 A-ZL or /6, /J-j ( -27 Vcue a 'Alp 4M &-ova ............ -n-Z Arl--4wlb. reallpl- -ter. In. x@, 3607 "CZL.4011 ]TRY- (2-41 -a2,,A,_ A)sc @oAj cre@e-. Care- --.PIAAJ 43 CL 2 Poo., Ax 2T T- p A.,a f, f '7 Z.4 27 j wwov) p.7 P'. trr- 1 .1 of OF " t: w C7 ;S b lb 77@ rn 7Z@ 416 . ............. 01. 1 Jo 7 -,7J' V7 r770P 1-1 inc S/I s Z I . -5 a! I 10- a Iq 71,7_ Amk _27: .5- 7P. '71A -,r 17' -CY 7MQ -7/ 7X" jr rv;_-Jz@@ 7z@yFn7 G Off 41 -7Y, w r Lrvf 01- Or fold TP /Y qM 7 '70"7, 2_ 4V Jv 7@ -10,@-qTT -"c-g 7;Av- ge, nF5 -70 47 H -7 ---------- -------- I" F k fill 14-1-11 11 i ltjl',*@ -T Il,n A r Jr Ir AM THA-r ------ ---- -Ut 4. lt +1 ITHT MCA .41 boo@@ 771 277 7C7 "Ooi- 17@77-3F-@9'4 .L 7WS"2Z77- T ----7 j17' rp aT- mj .@7 -TUN" s4a4o 6- In" -f- s tf., c ZLL" a4,44- a4-- 21d) JI 0. ---S SA r41@7 ED P Y17 (.;r __Wpm, Air- 'ry T15974 (T9f r7_7 z AN Sz. Ty 0 Tj-., PA D.J (@Vx- 9317-7 -P Nat @j IV P 9 9 ZA ,<ss um-C lee r-f)ll- 07" 6 s T9, NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14111704 6