[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Attachment 11 'L -------- I I FEASIBILITY OF BOATING ACCESS DEVELOPMENT ON LAKE ERIE NORTH EAST TWP., ERIE COU@, Ty Conducted as part of the implementation of the -9<1 too PENNSYLVANIA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM December.1983 PREPARED FOR: The Department of Environmental @Resources, Division of Coastal Zone Management and The Pennsylvania Fish Commission PREPARED BY: 'Pennsylvania Fish Commission Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering Credits Study Team Directed By: Richard M. Mulfinger, P.E. Writers & Editors: Richard M. Mulfinger Robert B. Hesser John 1. Thompson K. Ronald Weis Leroy M. Young Researchers & Illustrators: Richard M. Mulfinger Iral T. Feighner Robert K. Fishburn Thomas M. Snyder Gladstone W. Bradford E. Jon Grindall Gary M. Miles Typists: Mary Ellen Michaels Jule A. Weaver CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF MAPS AND FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION SUMMARY 3 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA General Location 5 Site Description 5 Climate 7 Geological Conditions 8 Bluff Stability & Recession 8 Shoreline Stability 9 Soils 10 Vegetation 14 Transportation 15 Utilities 16 Hydrology 17 Water Level Lake Erie 18 Wave Statistics Lake Erie 19 Archeological Resources 20 Wildlife and Fishes 21 Land Use 25 Study Area Property 26 Neighborhood Issues 27 ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND F OR FISHING AND BOATING ACCESS Public Demand for Fishing and Boating Access 28 Supply of Fishing and Boating Facilities 31 DISCUSSION Site 40 Redevelopment Options 42 Harbor Design 46 Design Alternatives .47 Alternatives for Development 48 RECOMMENDED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Pro3ect Analysis 56 Sanitary Facilities 57 Phasing 59 Unit Comparison 57 Operational Management Plan and Maintenance 58 Schedule 59 Cost Estimate 60 Conculsion BIBLIOGRAPHY 61 CORRESPONDENCE LIST OF MAPS, TABLES, FIGURESAND GRAPHS LOCATION MAP Figure I TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP Figure 2 SOILS MAP Figure 3 VEGETATION MAP Figure 4 VICINITY MAP Figure 5 UTILITIES MAP Figure 6 WATER LEVEL TABLE Table I ERIE WIND DIAGRAM Figure 7 TOWNSHIP LAND USE PLAN Figure 8 PROPERTY MAP Figure 9 FISHING LICENSE SALES Graph 1 MOTORBOAT REGISTRATION Graph 2 ACCESS SITE MAP Figure 10 WALNUT CREEK BREAKWATER COST COMPARISON Table 2 ALTERNATIVE I Al ALTERNATIVE 2 A2 ALTERNATIVE 3 A3 ALTERNATIVE 3 MODIFIED A3X. ALTERNATIVE 4 A4 ALTERNATIVE COST COMPARISON Table 3 PARKING SPACE LAUNCH RAMP LANE COST COMPARISON Table 4 PLAN PROPOSED ACCESS AREA Figure 11 CENTER LINE RAMP CROSS SECTION Figure 12 Acknowledgements This feasibility study is a cooperative effort between the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Div ision of Coastal Zone Management and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission gratefully acknowledges the input and help of the following: the concerned public.% North East Recreation Commission, North East Township Supervisors, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the United States Army Corp of Engineers, Buffalo District and Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Introduction In 1972 the Congress of the United States enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (PL 92-583). In 1974 Pennsylvania designated the Department of Environmental Resources as the lead agency for Pennsylvania's Coastal Zone Management Program. Pennsylvania is a qualified coastal state because of its two shorelines, the 55 mile Delaware River Estuary, and the 63 mile Lake Brie Shoreline. The purpose of the Coastal Zone Management Act is to: 1. Preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, restore our coastal resources. 2. Help states manage their coastal resources wisely through the development of appropriate management. programs. 3. Encourage.all Federal agencies engaged in work affecting coastal areas to consult closely with the State agencies responsible for administering the coastal management programs. 4. Encourage cooperation among local, State, and regional agencies. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Progr m and Final Environmental Impact Statement spells out a comprehensive management program for the Pennsylvania coastal resources It also shows this study site to be in an area of significant natural value. Since the Pennsylvania Fish Commission is responsiblefor M aintaining,and improving the quality of fishing and boating in Pennsylvania, the Commission has proposed this study to 2 determine the feasibility of providing improved fishing and boating access to Lake Erie in North East Township, Erie County under the Coastal Zone Management Program. 3 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 mile shor'eline 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 North East Township, Erie County, owned by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission is being utilized for limited public access and has been identified as having a potential for much greater use. Redevelopment of this site could significantly increase the public boating and fishing oppor- tuuities in this portion of Lake Erie. A recent CZM funded study shows that public boating demands on Lake Erie are high (Young and Lahr, 1982). Fishing pressure on Lake Erie has also increased dramatically with the improve- ments in water quality and in development of an active trout and salmon stocking program. While the existing access facilities provide limited but significant recreational opportunities, they are not adequate to meet the demand for recreational boating and fishing access to Lake Erie Waters. This study defines the site and examines options and alter- natives for site redevelopment. The chosen redevelopment alternative is both desirable and feasible, provided that sources of funding become available. The redevelopment concept proposed will provide adequate parking as well as safe shelter, launching and retrieval for small boats. The site improvements could be phased and the 4 initial investment of $1,905,625.00 for facilities including a breakwater, boat ramps, parking, service roads, comfort stations and landscaping could provide most of the desired benefits. This feasibility study indicates that redevelopment of this site would result in a significant benefit to the fishing and boating public, particularly those users residing close to the eastern shore of Lake Erie. Specific benefits to be realized are: 1. Safe and more convenient boat launching and retrieval will be realized. 2. More boaters and anglers can be accommodated. 3. More parking will be'provided. 4. Boating.distance will be reduced for anglers to their favorite and productive fishing areas located near the site. This also represents an important additional safety consideration, as it greatly reduces the time required for a boater to remove his boat from the lake when sudden storms occur. 5. Driving distances will be greatly reduced for many Lake Erie recreational users. 5 Description of the Study Area General Location The site of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission's North East Access Area, which locally is also known as the Dalrimple Property or Dewey Road Boat Launch, is located along the south- .eastern shore of Lake Erie in North East Township, Erie County., Pennsylvania. The location is approximately 17-1/2 miles northeast of the City of Erie; 2-1/2 miles northeast of the Borough of North East; 1/2 mile southwest of the mouth of Twenty Mile Creek; and, 1-1/2 miles southwest of the New York- Pennsylvania state line. The nearest harbor-of-refuge on Lake Erie east of the access area is thirteen miles away at Barcelona, New York. That facility is a shallow draft harbor for recreational craft. To the west, the nearest harbor-of-refuge is a deep draft harbor located seventeen miles away at the City of Erie. Site De-scription The 13.27 acre property containing the existing access facility was purchased in fee by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission through General State Authority (G.S.A.) funding in 1963. Construction of the existing launch ramp and gravel parking lot was completed in 1968. The property is bounded on the north for 740 feet by.Lake Erie; on the east and west for 1,595 feet and 1,434 feet, respectively, by private agricultural and rural/residential lands; and, on the south for 420 feet by 6 Pennsylvania Traffic Route 5. Except for the existing recrea- tional development, the site and surrounding properties can be characterized as agricultural and rural/residential. A small, intermittent f lowing stream crosses the property diagonally from southeast to northwes t. The property exhibits many of the shoreline characteristics that exist between the Erie and Barcelona harbors: there are no natural bays, shelters or navigable inlets. The property also has bluffs which are common to this shoreline. LAKE ERIE PA. RTF- 5 "qr tv@> ROAD LR. 2 5116 SECA 20 co z z x r CO EW CE TRAL 90 EXISTING BARRIER N/F SARAH M. JONES EXISTING TOILETS EXISTING EXI H.W.L. ELEV. 574.96' PARKING LOT WE AVE. W. L. ELEV. 572-53' L.W.L- ELEV. 569.91' EXISTING LAUNCHING FACILITIES EXISTING EXISTING SHED DWELLING N/F 0 610 EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB 0 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NORTH EAST TOWNSHIP ERIE COUNTY PENNA. NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY FIG. 2 7 Climate The climate at the site is strongly influenced by Lake Erie and is typical for the lake shore within a 10 to 15 mile area. The relatively warm waters of the lake tend to moderate the. daily and seasonal temperature extremes of the air masses 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 attractiveness 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 precipi- tation is 37.2 inches, which is evenly dispersed over the year. The prevailing winds, which are mainly from the northwest and southwest, with the former predominating (See Figure No. 7), are capable of creating violent storms with waves reaching heights of five to eight feet in a very short time. The storms that do the most damage to the shoreline are those from the northwest. 8 Geological Conditions The underlying strata of the North EastAccess Area is a veneer of glacial lake deposits comprised of sand, silt, clay and some gravel, all resting on bedrock of Northeast Shale. Northeast Shale is a thinly bedded medium-light gray siltstone interbedded with medium gray shale. This shale is of marine origin from the late Devonian age (approximately 355 million years old) and contains few fossils. It tends to break up as flaggy or platey pieces, while the interbedded cla y shale tends to break up as chippy or hackly fragments. The Northeast Shale beds are very close to horizontal and are not,folded or faulted to any measurable degree. Bluff Stability and Recession. This site is in a coastal section which is subject to light erosion problems according to the International Lake Erie Regu- lation Study Board's Report on the Regulation of Lake Erie Water Levels which was prepared in 1981. That conclusion is supported by the figures set forth in A Geotechnical Investigation of the Coastal Bluffs of Erie County. Pa., prepared by Coastal Research Associates, Inc. Their survey, which was made from September 1981 to September 1982, indicates that therecession rate of the bluffs in the site area is minimal. Referencing Table 2. Recession Rate Data, of that survey, the rate is equal to .051 feet (approximately 5/8 of an inch) 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. 9 Shoreline Stability The beach on the existing property is a mixture of fairly clean sand, shale and cobbles, but beach depth is generally very shallow because bedrock lies only a few feet below the surface. Due to the eastward littoral drift along the lake shore, resulting from prevailing winds, a structure extending into the lake's waters tends to cause beach acretion on the western side and beach depletion on its eastern side. During final design of the proposed structures it will be necessary to determine where beach depletion could threaten stability of the shoreline and proper beachfront protection will be included in the project. At this time, it is believed the scope of this work can be included within Commonwealth lands. 10 soils The soil information in this study was obtained from The Soil Survey, Erie County, Pennsylvania, prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The soil map (Figure No. 3) included in this study indicates the distribution of the soil types on the property site. The following discussion addresses each of the four different soils found on the property. Beach and Riverwash (Ba). This miscellaneous land type is made up of unassorted s,and, gravel, and small fragments of flagstone. Some of the larger beaches are located near the mouths of streams that empty into Lake Erie. Others are on Presque Isle, a baymouth bar north of Erie. In some areas there are narrow beaches along the entire Pennsylvania lake front. Riverwash 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 the lake. 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 Riverwash 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 sandstone, granite, and quartzite that were carried into the area by glaciers. No soil profile has been de veloped. This miscellaneous land type has no value for agriculture, but it pr ovides valuable areas for recreation. The effects of beach depletion can be minimized by installation of structural protection through nonstructural means such as replenishment with similar beach materials. Wallington-Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,(WaB). Although it contains more sand, the profile of this soil resembles the profile described for the Wallington series. This soil is deep and has uniform slopes, most of which are less than 500 feet long. Surface drainage is moderate, and internal drainage is fair to poor. This is the important soil of the lake plain for vineyards and for growing vegetables. The parent material consisted of lacustrine deposits derived from acid shale bedrock and from sandstone and limestone of glacial origin. These sediments were laid down as layers of silt and sand; some layers of clay were also deposited in areas of still, or slack, water. A firm layer or fragipan, that is slightly permeable to air and water begins at depths of 10 to 18 inches. Wayland silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (WdA). The profile of this soil is the same as described for the remainder of the Wayland series. This soil is level to nearly level and is subject to frequent flooding. Surface drainage is poor, and internal drainage is somewhat poor. 12 The Wayland series consists of deep, somewhat poorly drained soils on the flood plains of streams. In spring the soils are covered by water for long periods, The parent material was made up of sediments of silt and clay washed down from the up land. This mater ial was derived from acid shale bedrock an d from sandstone and limestone of glacial origin. A fragipan begins at depth s of 12 to 18 inches. Williamson and Collamer fine sandy loams, 2--to 8 percent slopes (WeB). The profile of the Collamer soil in this mapping unit is the same as described for the remainder of the Collamer series. The profile of the Williamson series resembles that of the Collamer soil, but it has a more highly developed fragipau below a depth of 30 inches. These soils have uniform slopes, most of which are less than 300 feet long. Surface and internal drainages are moderate. They are made up of deep, moderately well drained soils of the lake plain. The soils are important for growing vegetables and fruits. The parent material consisted of lacustrine deposits derived from acid shale bedrock and from sandstone and limestone of glacial origin. This material was laid down as layers of silt and sand and layers of clay were also deposited in a reas of still, or slack, water. 13 A fragipan begins at depths of 22 to 30 inches. This fragipan is firm when moist and nonsticky when wet. The Williamson soils, unlike the Collamer, have a well-developed fragipan. In Erie County the Williamson soils occ ur with the Collamer soils in a complex pattern. Because it was difficult to separate the two series in mapping, they have been mapped together as Williamson and Collamer soils. Williamson and Collamer Fine Sandy-Loams-15 to 25% Slopes (WeD). This is the same soil as (WeB) with the exception of slope. Williamson and Collamer Fine Sandy Loams 15 to 25% SloRes (WeD3). This is the same soil as (WeD) with the exception that it is severely eroded. All these soil types have a seasonal high water table. It is not anticipated that there will be any unusual problems with these soils'. Any project on this site wi 11 require the development and implementation of a soil erosion and sedimenta- tion control plan. EXISTING BARRIER ------------ -1 X\-\1 W e B WaB W e D Ba EXISTING We B TOILETS EXISTING PARKING,/ LOT EXISTING GAS WELL EXISTING LAUNCHING FACILITIES EXISTING DWELLING EXISTING SHED Ba- BEACH a RIVER WASH WaB- WALLINGTON FINE SAN WdA- WAYLAND SILT LOAM We B- WILLIAMSON AND COL W e D - If W e D 3 - -f'17 -Q7 p --z 0 ON We D3 EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB WeB -A 0. WaB ROAU -SOIL MAP. NORTH EAST TOWNSHIP ERODED. ERIE COUNTY, PENNA. NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA PUBLIC ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY 0' 20' 46 60'190' FIG. 3 SCALE 14 Vegetat-ion The vegetation st ructure on the access area property is shown on the accompanying Vegetation Map (Figure No. 4). Immature scrub wood lot extends from Pennsylvania Traffic Route 5 almost to the bluff overlooking Lake Erie. It is young, dense woodlot covering bo th sides of the course of theintermittent runland is made up of n-umerous 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.- scrubbrush, shrubs, and wild grape vines. There is also an area of cleared field consisting 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, with the exception of a few large trees. R -@n, Z.7 EXISTING BARRIER roo SCRUB BRU H 610 SCRUB BRUS@ EXISTING TOILETS 600 TING EXI TING DAM PAXKING LOT EXISTING WELL EXISTING CISTERN Ek PRIVATE WATER LINE 00 ING 0/0 EXISTING OLD FOUNDATION EXISTING SHED DWELLING (900 EXISTING LAUNCHING FACILITIES EXISTING SHE[ 15 Transportation The principal arterial roads in the vicinity are Interstate Routes 79 and 90, which make this site readily accessible not only from Pittsburgh and northwestern Pennsylvania, but also from neighboring Ohio and New York. Other-arterial roads serving the access site are Pa. Traffic Routes 89 and 5, and U.S. Traffic Route 20.- Pa. Tra ffic Route 5 borders the pro perty. Local public roads serving the property are Dewey Road, Orchard Beach Road, Middle Road, and Gay Road. These connect Route 20 to Route 5. The accompanying Vicinity Map (Figure No. 5) shows the larger connecting roads for the study area while the Location Map (Figure No. 1),shows the local road system and its relation to Interstate 90, and Pa. Traffic Routes 5, and 20. LAKE ONTAMO CANADA "VALO 20A MDY EL.D = 7 NORTHEAS RE NEW YOW IA 'No PENA MEADVILLE u us- 2 EVELAND L-SON N -M4 US-62 CANTON S-S u PrMBURGH t- VICINITY VAP a INIIE MILES #U&-IC- ACCESS .. -FEASIXITY STUDY SCALE WORTH EAST ACCESS AFEA -NWTH EAST TOWNSHIP , ENE COUNTY , PENNSY Firm - fiLwt 16 Utilities The site currently has access to gas, electrica 1 and tele- phone service as shown in Figure No. 6. The.National Fuel Gas Company's pipeline crosses the property adjacent and parallel to Old Lake Road. -Reportedly the gas line.is old and-contains leaks within the section crossing the property. It is the main gas line supplying customers between the east side of'the property and the.New York state line. Any major construction on this site will require either replacement of the gas line or its relocation along Pa. Traffic Route 5. The Pennsylvania Electric Company's secondary service pole line crosses the property parallel to and south of Old Lake Road. This line provides loop service to property to the east of the site. The General Telephone Company's pole line crosses the property parallel to and south of Old Lake Road. Their under- ground phone line also crosses the property parallel to and north of Pa. Traffic Route 5. A private water line supplying the Knight residence originates on and crosses a portion of the property. According to the North East Regional Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted in February, 1983, a public sewerage system is projected to be available to this site about 1997 and a public water supply system about 1995. Currently, the closest public water service is approximately one mile distant, while sewer service is approximately 2.5 to 3 miles distant. EXISTING BARRIER NIF SARAH M. IONES 00 EXISTING TOILETS EXIS TING PARKING EX H.WL. ELEV. 574.9@ GA AVE. W. L. ELEV, 572.53 L.W.L. ELEV. 569.91 ,T@% v EXISTING GAS WELL EXISTING LAUNCHING FACILITIES -X'.0-r'NG EXISTING SHED DWELLI NG N/F In EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB UTILITIES MAP 17 Hydrolop,y The intermittent stream crossing the study are a carries flows ranging from zero to a maximum flow of approximately 175 cubic feet per second during heavy rains, which can result in a bank full condition and minor flooding. These flows are produced from a 98 acre drainage area. During the 20 year period that the Commonwealth has owned the property, damaging flood flows have not been encountered. All the runoff water crossing this site flows directly into Lake Erie. The designa- ted flood plain is the beach area and the narrow land strip along the stream. Any additional runoff created by a project on this site can be directed either to this stream 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 ero sion or bluff stability problems are anticipated. There have been reports of sewage odors emanating from the stream. This condition has been referred to the Erie County Health Department and appropriate measures are being taken to eliminate the source orsources of the problem. Prior to development of any final project c onstruction plans, this problem should again be investigated to make certain it has been properly addressed. 18 Water Level Lake Erie The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers records the water levels of the Great Lakes in terms of the International Great Lakes Datum (1955)*. The following chart shows these elevations converted to United States Geological Survey 1929 Mean Sea Level Datum for the normal recreational boating season. Max Min Average IGLD USGS IGLD USGS IGLD USGS May 573.25 574.70 568.43 569.88 570.93 572.38 June 573.51 574.96 568.46 569.91 571.06 572.51 July 573.34 574.79 568.46 569.91 571.02 572.47 Aug. 573.03 574.48 568.36. 569.81 570.83 572.28 Sept. 572.51 573.96 568.23 569.68 50 571.95 Oct. 572.14 573.59 567.95 569.40 570.18 571.63 Nov. 572.17 573.62 567.60 569.05 569.92 571.37 Ave. for Rec. Season 572.08 Recorded Min. 569.05 Recorded Max. 574.96 Average for Entire Year 572.53 *Reference: Monthly Bulletin of Lake Levels for the Great Lakes. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Date July 1983. In October 1982 Pennsylvania Fish Commission surveying personnel conducted a topographical survey of the site,. Mean water level at the time of the survey was approximately 572.5 (USGS 1929 datum). All elevations within this report, except those marked IGLD 1955, are in accordance with USGS 1929 datum. For the purpose of this report mean water level will be 572.5 which corresponds with the yearly.average of 572.53. 19 Wave Statistics Lake Erie The Information in this section was supplied by the great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Correspondence No. 12) Wave Height % of Occurrence 0 - 1 ft. 31.9 1 - 2 ft. 25.4 2 - 3 ft. 24.6 3 - 4 ft. 10.0 4 - 5 ft. 4.7 5 - 6 ft. 2.6 6 7 f t . .7 7 8 f t . .1 8 9 ft. .0 For the purpose of this study, only wave heights less than 4 feet will be analyzed for launching and retrieval, because most small pleasure craft leave the lake before the waves height reaches 3 feet. As indicated in the above, wave heights in excess of 3 feet occur only 18*11 of the time. 20 Archeological Resources Information from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission indicates that no known National Register eligible historic or archeological properties are located in the vicinity of the North East Access Area site (Correspondence No. 7). 21 Wildlife and Fishes The Lake Erie waters and shoreline in the vicinity of the proposed access area are inhabited by a diverse fish and wild- life fauna. Four tributary streams located within six miles of the site are stocked annually with non-native coho salmon and/or steelhead trout by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and area sportsmen's cooperative nurseries. These streams are Twenty Mile Creek, located just east of the site, and Orchard Beach Run, Sixteen Mile Creek, and Twelve Mile Creek, located to the west. Other non-native salmonids stocked in tributaries further west on Pennsylvania's shoreline 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 eac h year in the main lake near the New York-Pennsylvania border in a cooperative effort among the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. With the exception of the lake trout, each of the salmonids is 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 salmonids congregate in the cold deep waters located sev eral miles offs hore the northeast site. Other fish species inhabiting the waters near the study area include walleye, yellow perch, smallmouth bass, white bass, 22 freshwater drum, rock bass, brown bullhead, channel catfish, stonecat, carp, white sucker, redhorse suck er, rainbow smelt, emerald shiner, spottail shiner, trout perch and gizzard shad. It is likely that white perch, whitefish and turbot also venture through the region periodical ly. Numerous other less 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 expected to cause any significant impact upon either of these species. Many species of waterfowl 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, canvasback, redhead, ringneck, goldeneye, and bufflehead. Ringbilled gulls, herring gulls, and common terns are abundant as well as various shorebirds including sandpipers and killdeer. The shoreline of the study area is characteristic of the first stages of sucession of cultivated land with its annuals, briars, sumac, and cottonwoods, and is inhabited by numerous songbirds and two game birds, woodcock and ring-necked pheasant. Mammals inhabiting the shoreline in the study area year round include cottontail rabbits, woodchucks, and other small rodents and insectivores such as moles, shrews, voles, mice and 23 wood rats. Other mammals which probably pass through the area are oppossum, skunk, raccoon, mink, weasel, and occasionally white tailed deer. The area is also marginally suitable as squirrel habitat. The area adjacent to the small intermittent streAm which crosses the property provides suitable habitat for various frogs, toads, salamanders, snakes and turtles. one species of reptile, the Blandings turtle, is classified by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as endangered. It has been collected recently east of the Borough of Northeast. 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 transient 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. The small stream which traverses the property is not accessible to anadramous salmonids and provides no spawning habitat for any other Lake Erie species. The region is not suitable as a nesting area for waterfowl,.but serves primarily as a feeding and resting area. As such, any impact on waterfowl is likely to be benef icial, as the propo sed breakwater will provide protection during the late fall, winter, and early spring when boat use will be minimal and waterfowl migration is at its peak. Development of a parking area will disrupt an area 24 which can now be used as a resting and feeding area for woodcock and ring'-necke d pheasant. Potentia 1 impacts on the resident mammal population can be minimized by leaving a buffer zone between the parking area and the Iands to the east, the stream to the west and Pa. Traffic Route 5 to the south. 25 Land Use In accordance with the North East Township Regional Compre- hensive Plan Update approved February 1983, the descending order of acreage of land use by zones in the township is (1) rural residential; (2) agric ultural; (3) preservation; (4) suburban- residential; (5) recreational; (6) commercial; (7) public and institutional; (8) indu.strial; and, (9) conservation. The accompanying map (Figure No. 8) of North East Township indicates the distribution of land use throughout the township. The study site is zoned recreational. Adjacent properties are rural residential. STUDY SITE LAKE ERIE 0, zoa sow tooe 9006 SCALE r----l P A E= S -71 C ----.7 ---- gm P C 17= 10 TOWNSM NORTH PUBLIC AC NOR 26 Neighborhood Issues The accompanying property map (Figure No. 9) shows the properties to the east and west of the study area. This infor- mation was obtained from the Erie County tax and assessment maps and is in no way intended to be precise or field surveyed. During the fact-finding phase of this study the neighbors interviewed expre ssed t-heir concerns with the possibility of increased problems associated with redeveloping the facilities at this site. In addition, there is some evidence that the immediate residents to the east and west, Sarah M. Jones and Frank A. Knight, have experienced problems with noise, littering, trespassing and other nuisance problems from visitors to this area. (Correspondence No. 1 through 5) User behavior may potentially be the most important social problem with any proposed project development. The neighbors interviewed were most cooperative and hospitable. Mr. Knight has owned his property ever since the Fish Commission acquired this property and Ms. Jones has owned the adjoining property since 1975. The user problems experienced at this site are frequently caused by users other then -the fishing and boating public, and they normal ly occur at night or during periods of unauthorized use. Littering, trespassing, noise and dust problems will be controlled through good project design involving such things as: Proper vehicle access, screen plantings, fencing, bituminous paving, accompanied by increased law enforcement effort and modified hours of operation. AW-A Q- MS F@ -,@0 Z7 LAKE EME !ROAD Ac- OLD C42 co co .4L- 4fj /-44- @j COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANK A. (GENERAL STATE GEORGE W. SCEIFORD .KNIGHT AUTHORITY) SARAH M. JONES T5 ACRES 5.7 ACRES 13.2 ACRES 13. 4 ACRES 0 5 PA RTE. 0 100 2W SCALE 27 Public Demand for Fishing-and Boating Access Pennsylvania Lake Erie waters receive high levels of recreational angling and boating use. Erie, Pennsylvania's third largest city, is located near the center of the state's shoreline, and Pittsburgh, the state's second largest city, is located just 128 miles south of the lake with direct access via Interstate Route 79. An angler and boater survey conducted by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission revealed that approximately 1,957,900 hours of recreational angling and boating use were expended on the state's Lake Erie waters from June 1981-May 1982 (Young and Lahr 1982). Anglers traveled to the lake from 51 of the state's 67 counties, 29 states, and Washington, D.C. Th e vast majority of this use (1,866,200 hours) occurred in the waters situated between the East Avenue Launch Ramp, located in the city of Erie, and the Ohio State line. These west side access areas are often overcrowded, particularly during the fall salmon and trout season. A major reason for this is that adequate and safe boating access east of East Avenue Launch Ramp is severely limited. Presently, the only public boating facilities in this eastern region, which constitutes nearly 30 percent of Pennsylvania's 43 mile shoreline, are located at Shade's Beach, Twelve Mile Creek, and the existing facility at North East. The launch ramps at Shade's Beach and North East which are similar in design, are unprotected from the main lake and can only be used at times of minimal wave action. Launching and retrieval ' which must be done one boat at a time, is slow, laborious, and 28 dangerous, particularly during sudden storms which may occur on Lake Erie. The ramp at Twelve Mile Creek, also unprotected, is in very poor condition and is often impossible to use. The nearest protected harbors are at Presque Isle, 17 miles to the vest, and at Barcelona, New York, 13 miles to the east of the site. The study site is iz a prime location for angling, althoug h most is available only by use of a boat. Some shore angling is presently done, but the physical nature of the site and the lack of- suitable fish habitat within casting distance does not encourage shore fishing, particularly for the more important. gamefishes. Walleye, coho and chinook salmon, steelhead, lake trout, yellow perch, smallmoutb bass, and white bass are abundant in the waters off the site during the spring, summer, and fall. Salmon, stocked annually in four tributary stream s located within six miles of 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 recently developed 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 general area of Angola, New York. Approximately 100,000 to 200,000 yearlings supplied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are currently being stocked in 29 this portion of Lake Erie by helicopter each spring. The ultimate objective is to stock up to 400,000 yearlings 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 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 anticip a- ted, which extrapolates into a very significant addition to the fishery available just two miles off shore from the study site. These deep offshore waters are also inhabited by other salmonids during the summer and can be.pursued by boating anglers equipped with downriggers. Each of these species is highly preferred by Pennsylvania's Lake Erie sport anglers (Young and Lahr 1982). If a facility, which could accommodate boats of 25' to 26' were developed at this site, anglers could launch at this location.and avoid boat trips of up to 17 miles from the Erie area. In conjunction with this overall Eastern Basin fishery, there is an apparent need for mooring sites for charter boats which also must make the long trip from the Erie area to this deep water to utilize the summer and fall fishery. This need adds yet another factor to be considered in the overall public demand for a redeveloped facility. Non-angling boaters, which were found to constitute over half the total boating usage on Pennsylvania's Lake Erie waters (Young and Lahr 1982), will also greatly benefit from additional access in the northeast region. 30 Fishing license sales, both statewide and in Erie County have dramatically increased overthe past decade (see Graph 06 Likewise, boating registration. in the state and Erie County have more than doubled since 1968 (see Graph 2). These trends are expected to continue and will cause increased pressure on the existing limited boating and fishing facilities,, i-.-20a. 000- IM-0 6- 0 0%Qj \Oj \Oj STATE .000 --40QOOO- Mo V- A- ---- F;R- IEE@ -0-V Nr-Y- A -77: - -0 -@=- @111E dRA LE -STATE 12000-0-- 000 T__ R;QQ F____ 40 00()--- 17- OAT 31 Inventory of F.ishing and Boating Facilities for Lake Erie Alonp, 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 from 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. RAMPS & LIFTS WEST ERIE EAST tal Number of Ramps 10 16 2 (17-Lifts) (4-Lifts) 11tal Number of Public Ramps 7 14 1 er of Boats that Could Be Launched 11 26 2 Same Time (Not Including Lifts) mber of Ramps Per Mile of Shoreline .45 4.2 .12 t ber of.Public Ramps Per Mile of Shoreline .32 3.7 .06 m*les of Shoreline 22.1 3.8 17.1 PARKING 11mber of Car-Trailer Stalls 324 631 196 imber of Car Stalls 354 1,060 195 Imber Car-Trailer S talls per Mile Shoreline 14.7 166.1 11.5 mber Car Stalls Per Mile Shoreline 16.0 278.9 11.4 f ber Car-Trailer & Car Stalls Per Mile 30.7 445.0 22.9 oreline er ublic Car-Trailer Stalls 189 422 135 iumber Public Car-Trailer Stalls Per Mile 8.6 111.1 7.9 lorelin @umber Public Car Stalls 224 590 90 Ilumber Public Car Stalls Per Mile Shoreline 10.1 155.3 5.3 Imber Public Sites W/Comfort Facilities 6 9 4 imber of Public Sites 4 22 4 Imber of Private Sites 6 15 6 min M WO Y Yes N No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (West of Erie) Ramps Parking Fishing Marina Comf9rti Stationj cri 0 Cd 4j (D 0 0 $-4 W u 4j z z 1-1 2 @q 4-j -, u a) Cd tA V) C: Cd M rj 0 0 8 0 W CLO gn u >-4 Area Name 4) @A @4 0 1. Rwcoon C1.700k J),j,rk N 1 1.21 12% N Y N 25 35 N Y Y N y N N N N N Y N Y Old Raml Unusable 2 Eagley Road N y N 35 20 N Y Y Y N IN N N N N Y IN ly 1 3 Virginia's Beach y 1 15, Y Y Y 40 40 N Y Y @.Y Y N N N N N Y N y 4 Crooked Crock N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y -S@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 1M Y Y Y 50 30 N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N 73 Y Y y .$3. $3V 31ipj dal 1 7 Godfrey Run N N Y Y N N N N N N N N_ IN Y 8 'rrout Run y 1 @101 y Y 25 30 N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N 30 Y y y + y 9 Walnut Creek Y 6 @121 112% N Y N 129 169 Y @Y Y Y Y Y N N N 73 JY Y Y lip t MnYes@ N No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (West of Erie) Ramps Parking 'Fishing Marina Comfort IStation lid cd >1 0 co Ln Lo UH V) 0 cd En r- 0. Area Name H a) 0 4) u r@ r? 1.0 Hanson's Bait N Y Y 20 30 N Y Y N N N N N N N N y TOTALS FOR EACH ITEM 4 9 117' N/A 3 7 4 324 354 1 9. 9 4 5 3 2 1 0 175 6 3 4 6 Y Yes N No BRIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (Brie) Ramps Parking Fishing Marina Comfort Station @4 0 0 z z FU4 @4 4- U 4J > w 0 cd M 1A M 0 0 0 r-4 @\c LL4 PQ U, Area Name 11 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 1Y. Y N N IN N N N N Y N Y 13 Niagara Boat Ramp Y 1 151 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 Is le Marina Y 2 1-@ists N Y N 60 60 N Y Y N Y Y Y N N @00 Y Y Y ip! 16 East Pier 0 30 N Y Y N @N N N N N N N Y N Y @N L7 West Pier (Channel) Y 2 @6' 15% N Y N 30 80 N Y y y Y N N N N N N Y L8A Long Pond N Y N 0 10 N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y = Yes N = No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (Erie) Parking Fishing Marina Comfort Ramps Station as 0 @-4 .F.4 0 0 0 + 0 U (t U > (n 0 (n 0 4) Cd Q) 0 U M >@ V4 CL4 'n Area Name @(u r-4 0 > LL. U 1813 Duck Pond N Y N N 10 N Y Y N N N @N N N N N Y 18C Big Pond N Y N N 1.0 N N. N N N N_@N N N' N N Y 18D Horseshoe Pond N Y N 0 20 N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y 19 ICrystal Point N Y N 50 N Y Y IN N N N N_ N. I N N Y 20 Lagoon's Boat Raziip I Y 1 112' 8% N Y N 18 40 N Y Y Y Y V N N N N Y N Y .21 Lagoon's Boat Ramp #2 Y 1 241 14% N @Y N 145 20 N Y Y Y Y N N N N N Y @N Y 22 Stefan's Boat Livery N Y N N 30 N Y N Y N Y Y N N N Y Lawrence Parking Y 1 121 IN N Y @N 20 20 N f Y y Y N N N N N N Y 24 Eric Yacht Club Y. 4 Foists. Y Y N 75 80 N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 439 Y Y Y I Famp SLips Y = Yes N = No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (Erie) Comfort Ramps Parking Fishing Marina Station 0 $-4 0 -4 0 @4 @4 0 1-4 U (U 0 ;2: -,4 r_4 U 4J > Area N =e Ln 0 0 Ln r. P@ Cd 4 I a) 8 0 a P@ 1:t >. U 1-25 Casc,1(10 St. Y 1 115 141) N y N 35 20 N Y Y N Y N N N N N N y I Y Y N 25 20 N N N Y N Y N 139 N Y Lift Slips 26 Commodore Perry Yacht Club y__1 I 27 Cherry St. Marina Y 1 Y Y@ N 15 50 N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 240 Y Y Y L@ft slips I 28 Bob's Wharf N Y N 0 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 Y 1 201 10% N Y N 20 10 N Y Y N Y N N N N N N 30 Waterwork's Ramp J- 31 Erie Outboard Club Y 1 201 10% N Y N 35 10 N, N N Y N N N N N N Y !@32 Erie Public Dock N 'Y N 0 100 N Y Y Y Car N N N N -IN N Y rop 33 Presque Isle Yacht Club Y Y N 10 N Y N-T y y Y 90 Y. lips F0 isf Y = Yes N = No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (Erie) Comfort RaMs Parking Fishing Marina Station 0 0 0 0 (A @4 U Z W r4 I r--4 r-4 4-J U F4 Area Name Id V) 4) (A a) a) Cd (A (A Cd Q Cd 2 It. "4 U U C2 0 8 0 > > 34 Ge)n City Marina y 1 Y N N 10 N Y N N y y y y y 38 N y H ist sLips 35 Paasch Marine N Y N 4 10 N N N N N N N y 8 N y Slips _@Y 36 'West State St. y 1 Y N On N Y N N y N N N N N N Hcist Street y 37 Eric Marine y I [Y N 20 30--N Y N N y- y N N y 60 N y Ho i s t 21 t. Slips 38 Brockway Marine Y 3 y N 10 30 N Y Y N Y Y Y N yS1 100 N Y Ho Lsts ips 39 East State St. N Y N N TOnN y Y N N N N N N N IN Y ree S@ 40 McAllister & Son Ltd. Y 2 Y Y N 20 30 N Y N N Y Y y N Y 95 Y Y y Ho-sts 2 50 slips 10 41. lBayshore Marine N Y N N 50 N N N N N Y Y Y Y 75 Y y y Slips N 30 N y y y y N N N N N IN y 42 North & South Pi ers M 4UKesM N=No ERI'E SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (Erie) Comfor n R" ms Parking Fishing Marina IStatiot I @4 H 0 En V) +j (D 0 (A @4 U (5 ZO Z. 4) -2 ,:.- -X 'm ;.8 -1 2 +j -, U > (A (A 0 a) m (A (A Area Name Q) (U cu 0 >@ ;2 U U go 4 3 John Umipo Mariiia y 2 26' 15% Y Y N 54 30 N Y N N Y Y Y Y N .1. 15 Yy Yy I ip@ 44 East Avenue Launch Ramp Y 1 241 20% N y N 60 30 N Y Y y Y. N N N N N y TOTAL FOR EACH ITEM 21 16 367' NIA 6 37 0 631 cl 0 32 21 8 24 9 13 11 8 9 6 22 15 17 Lifts @N M M-M M MYORSEW M N No CESS INVENTORY ERIE SH?fa' ?UofYrie@C s Marina Comforti Ramps Parking Fishing Station 0 V) tA 4J @4 @4 0 0 U 4j ;z; 0 41 > 4 45 4J U (A 10 tA 0 0) Cd M Cd Area Name (1) W (d H 0 0) U CIO M 45 Four Mil. Crook N N y Y N N N N N N N N Y 46 Lawrence Park Fishing Club Y 1 Y N 20 30 N Y Y N Y Y N @N N 55 N Y ift Slips 47 Shades Beach Y Rail Y N 40 10 N Y Y Y Y- N N N N N Y N Y Dolly 48 Twelve Mile Creek N @N @Y N 25 10 N Y Y N N N N N @N N N Y (Shorewood) 49 Sixteen Milo Crock N Y N 30 20 N Y Y N N N N N N N N y 50 Freeport Yacht Club Y 1 Y Y N 36 50 N N N IN N Y N N 21 Y Y Y L@ft _IN slips 31 Charlie's Boat Livery Y 1 161 Y N N 20 N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N 15 Y Y Y 100 Seaso 1 Slips $1 111 $I Olt ;2 Orchard Beach Park Assn. Pk. N 1 Y N 5 5 N Y N N Y N N N N N N Y L ft Y Yes N. No ERIE SHORE PUBLIC ACCESS INVENTORY (East of Erie) Ramps Parking Fishing Marina Comfort Stationi 0 r-l 0 cc r-4 (A fA 4) d) 0 0 V) u 4J Z 4j u 4J 0 > r 4 LA (A 4) tn 0 cu cd (n cd Area Name cu 0 41) ct 0) W4 >. W@ u u ')3 Northeast Access Area y 1 121 13 1; N Y N 40 50 N Y N N Y N N N N N y y f 4 Twenty'Mile Creek N N Y Y N N N N N N N N Y - I J TOTALS FOR EACH ITEM 6 2 28' N/A 2 9 0 196 195 0 9 7 1 5 3 1 1 0 2 6 4 3 Sl LLfts L5 1. RACCOON CREEK PARK 33. PRESQUE ISLE YACHT CLUB 2. EAGLEY ROAD 34. GEM CITY MARINA 3. VIRGINIA'S 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. McCALLISTER & SONS LTD. 9. WALNUT CREEK 41. BAYSHORE MARINE 10. HANSEN'S BAIT 42. NORTH & SOUTH PIERS 11. WEST POINT 43. 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 FISHING CLUB 15. PRESQUE ISLE MARINA 47. SHADES BEACH 16. WEST PIER 48. TWELVE MILE CREEK (SHOREWOOD) 17. EAST PIER 49. SIXTEEN MILE CREEK 18. LONG POND, DUCK POND, BIG POND & 50. FREEPORT YACHT CLUB HORSESHOE POND. 51. CHARLIE'S B0AT LIVERY 19. CRYSTAL POINT 52. ORCHARD BEACH PARK ASSOCIATION PARK 2O. LAGOON'S BOAT RAMP 1 53. NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA (DEWEY 21. LAGOON'S BOAT RAMP 2 ROAD BOAT LAUNCH) 22. STEFANS BOAT LIVERY 54. TWENTY MILE CREEK 23. LAWRENCE PARKING 24. ERIE YACHT CWB NOTE: 25. CASCADE STREET RAMP FACILITIES FROM 11 TO 44 ARE 53 26. COMMODORE PERRY YACHT CLUB LOCATED IN THE PRESQUE ISLE 54 27. CHERRY STREET MARINA AND ERIE CITY AREA. 49 51 52 28. BOBS WHARF N 29. CHESTNUT STREET RAMP 30. WATERWORKS RAMP 31. ERIE OUTB0ARD CLUB 46 32. ERIE PUBIC DOCK PRESQUE MOOREHEADVILLE ISLE 8 18 6 SWANVILLE 2 3 AVONIA GIRARD ELK I EXISTING FISHING & BOATING MAP PUBLI2C ACCESS FEASIBILITY STUDY NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA 0 1 2 4 5 6 MILES NORTH EAST TOWNSHIP, ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLANIA SCALE FIG. 10 42 Site The primary reasons supporting further development of the existing access area on this site 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 a nd non-local users from main highways and it lies approximately half way between Erie and Barcelona, N.Y. where the greatest need for safe access to the Pennsylvania waters of Lake Erie exists. Interest from the Erie Down Riggers, Inc. (Correspondence No. 13), illustrates public support for greater public access development east of Erie. The site is presently zoned and used as a public recrea- tional facility and no changes are anticipated. Because of its public ownership, a redevelopment project could be implemented at an early date as no land acquisition efforts or land use zoning changes would be necessary. The difficulties of access development at this site are common to most shorefront lands east of Erie. They are: 1. Existing high bluffs; 2. Shallow lake water depths; 3. Rough fast-moving storms on the lake; 4. The prevailing northwest winds, which at times causes a set-up, that is a tide-like phenomenon which can raise water elevations 2 to 3 feet on the east end of the lake; 5. Possible beach accretion to the west and depletion to the east of any s truct.ur e in the lake which may cause maintenance expense; and, 6. Channel dredging which may 43 be needed at the breakwater entrance to maintain adequate water depth also may cause a continual maintenance expense. The small, intermittent stream which diagonally crosses the property is the only site specific disadvantage. Final design of the facility may dictate some change in'alignment of this small watercourse. Some site specific details which should be incorporated into any redevelopment design are: (1) A new entrance should be built from Pa. Traffic Route 5 and the present routing of traffic down Dewey Road and east on Old Lake Road,to the site should be eliminated. This may require abandonment of the existing road from the west boundary of the si te eastward, and will help alleviate traffic nuisances to residents west of the site, (2) Relocation of the existing gas line along Old Lake Road; and, (3) Consolidation of electrical and telephone lines crossing the property onto one pole line or to an underground system; (4) Protection and/or relocation of the existing stream and it s banks and flood plains; (5) Stabilization of the lake shoreline adjacent to the bluff where required; (6) Possible provision of an alternate water supply source for the adjacent property west of the site; (7) Fencing and landscaping of the site to provide visual and noise barriers for neighboring properties and to control unwarranted trespass by site visitors.. With proper consideration of the specific points discussed in this segment., the site was found to contain no significant obstacles to development. 44 Redevelopment Options During the course of this study several possible redevelop- ment options were reviewed and.considered as follows: Option 1. Discontinue use and dispose of the property. Option 2. Operate the property as is. Option 3. Provide minimum improvement including low cost shore protection with additional parking. Option 4. Construct a harbor by excavation of existing land form. Opt ion 5. Construct a breakwater and appurtenant facilities. Option Lis not feasible because it is contrary to the public need and interest. Instead of creating or enhancing recreational opportunities consistent with the rationale of its original purchase by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission this option would eliminate all present benefits in an area where demonstrated need for more opportunities exists. Option 2 is feasible but does,not resolve'the problem even though it presently provides some recreational benefit. It does not offer adequate parking and safe boat launching and retrieval. Current maintenance costs are high while rough water and storm debris deposited in the launching facilities limits full operation of the facility for extended periods of time. Option 3,is not feasible without providing suitable protection for safe retrieval, and will encourage additional useage of a potentially unsafe facility. Maintenance costs would continue to be high. 45 Option 4.is not feasible for two major reasons. First, the cost of excavation of the 20-30 foot high bluff and the under- lying rock would be prohibitive. Engineering estimates show the cost of excavation to be in excess of $800,000. When the cost of tbe-channel protective devices are included, estimates exceed $2,000,000. Secondly, excavation would decrease the area available for pa'rking and other development and increase the need for other costly structural improvements. This option might be feasible if the property was considerably larger. Option 5 is the most feas ible and desirable action because a breakwater is necessary to p,rovide the basic protection needed to assure safe and adequate boat launching and retrieval. Initial construc tion of an adequate breakwater will provide the greatest protection and facilitate the construction of all other appurtanant facilities. The following methods of breakwater construction were considered: 1. Bin wall construction. 2. Sheet piling. 3. Rubble mound. 4. Hexagonal concrete blocks. Method 1 bin wall construction is the process of placing steel boxes into the lake and filling them with material. This method is suitable at this site but is undesireable because,of its high cost. 46 Method 2.- sheet piling piers consist of parallel rows of steel sheet pilings driven into the earth and filled with material. This met hod is infeasible be cause the underlying rock strata is t.oo near the substrate surface to permit adequate penetration by the pilings. Method 3 - rubble mound consists of a mound rubble sized rock capped by armor rock, which is weather-resistent rock of several thousand pounds each. The use of. this method is desirable but is economically prohibitive due to the transpor- tation distance involved. Method 4 - Precast concre te hexagonal blocks are man-made concrete units of hexagonal form which can be pinned in place in a pattern. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission's prior experience with this construction method at the Walnu t Creek Access Area has proven to be very satisfactory. This method will provide the required protection for the least expense. Some additional advantages of this type of breakwater are as follows: 1. The units are relatively easy to replace, adjust or modify if a change or replacement is desired. 2. The units provide a stable footing for fisherman and equipment access. 3. The units provide improved fish habitat. 4. Materials may be locally obtained in.necessary quantities. This study is based on the use of concrete blocks of the same size and shape which were proven effective and economical at t he Walnut Creek Access Area. Final engineering design may required use of higher strength materials and changes in the 47 configuratio n and size of some or all of these units, but the costs are not expected to vary greatly. 48 Cost Comparison of Breakwaters Constructed at Walnut Creek Access Area Item Binwall Rubble Mound Precast No. Classification (1980 Costs) (1980 Costs) Rex Units 11. Dredging, Type A 44,552.00 44,552.00 2. Steel for Binwall 92,928.00 3. Stone Chips to 10.0 lb. 93,170.00 4. Core Stone 12,872.00 38,614.00 5. Cover Stone, 4-5 ton 140,723.00 6. Cover Stone, 7-10 ton 269,491.00 7. PDR #4 60,984.00 8. Concrete Deck 16,335.00 9. 2" W.I. Pipe 5,760.00 10. Construction $185,093.00 11. Placement 49,907.00 Sub Total $233,431.00 $586,550.00 $ 235,000.00 Design $ 15,500.00 $ 38,947.00 $ 15,604.00 Inspection $.11.695.00 $ 29,386.00 $ 11,774.00 Total $260,626.00 $654,883.00 $262,378.00 Lineal Feet of Wall 161.84 285 .330.46 Cost/Lineal Foot $ 1,610.00 2,298.00 794.00 49 Harbor-Design The harbor opening is proposed to face east, since easterly winds occur only 4.8% of the time. This orientation should provide the greatest prot ection from storms and sedimentatiou in the launching area and harbor mouth The configuration of the harbor area is planned so that there is a long beach t.P dissipate the energy of the waves* Also this scheme provides,the maximum protected water area with the least length of breakwater. Rip-rap will be used in the harbor area to protect the built-up roadway and launching ramp. Rip-rap may also be necessary to the east of the harbor for shore protection. The amount of shore protection required and the final configuration of the harbor opening are to be deter- mined by careful design. If the Division of Coastal Zone Management office within the Department of Environmental Resources is successful in its efforts to develop a predictive computer model for the placement of shoreline structures, it may be helpful in selection of final structure locations and configurations (See letter C-11). 50 Design-Alternatives These alternatives, including the construction of a break- water launch ramp, toilet facilities, parking lots and service roads, were developed to provide basic facilities at the least cost. The heights of the various breakwater structures were based upon the average lake level of 572.5 feet. Alternative 1 Breakwater with a top elevation of 574.5 feet (USGS) including a launching ramp, roads and parking. This alternative will provide improved launching facilities during low winds. See Page 51 and Illustration A-1. Alternative 2 Breakwater with a top elevation of 576.5 fe et (USGS) including launching ramp, roads and parking. This alterna- tive will provide improved protection and use over alternative 1 during moderate winds, but will be more costly to constructo See Page 52 and IllustrationA-2. Alternative 3 Breakwater with a top elevation of 578.5 feet (USGS) including a launching ramp, roads, parking plus mooring facilities with floating docks. This scheme will provide greater protection for launching and retri eving during higher winds, and will be the more costly of these three alternatives. See Page 53 and Illustration A-3. LAKE ERIE SITE RD. p RT 5 k LOCATION MAP SCALE 1 2000! % PROPOSED BREAKWATERS -TOP ELEV. 574.5 N cn w 0 > z U- \X z PROPOSED PARKING AREA F- CD z y N, PROPOSED BREAKWATERS z CC IN LAKE ERIE cr_ L.L AT NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA A SITE PLAN 0' 50' )Od 15d 2-00' ALTERNATIVE I ALE @7- 2;8' SHEET I OF 2 LIFTING HOOKS SS fo PLAN PLAN OF BREAKWATER 7 3 /1 SCALE',,I 10' c co ELEVATION SHORE PROTECTION BLOCK 1'- 0 SCALE' ANCHOR PINS ORIGINAL GROUND TOP ELEV. 574.5' AV E. W.L. 572.5 L. 566.5'L1-'---t-- Al I NOTE: I W W w W -C;'LG. ANCHOR PINS ARE I" DIA. 2' ELEVATION OF BREAKWATER DEFORMED REF BARS DROPPED SCALE N ONE INTO 1 1/2" DIA. DRILLED HOLES AFTER BLOCKS ARE IN PLACE. DRILL 1'-0" INTO BOTTOM BLOCK. TOP ELEV. 574.5 J, i II W I I I I v II 1\ I I - . . PROPOSED BREAKWATER W I ELE@. 1566.@' 1 IN LAKE ERIE. MW11119 (it \ig AT NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA III VF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA cq 0 :VL-@566@ TYPICAL CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVE SCALE:. 1/8"= 1'70" SHEET 2 OF 2. 51 Alternative I Cost Estimate Breakwater 1760 Units $2501unit $ 440,000 Excavation and Fill 10,000 yd3 @ $2.50/yd3 25,000 Access Road and Parking 30,000 sy @ $10.001sy 300,000 Launch Ramp .50,000 Rip Rap Landscaping 26,000 Fencing 75,000 Restroom 75,000 Electrical 12,000 Sub Total $1,027,000 Contingency 256,750 Total $1,283,750 LAKE ERIE lu SITE A. RT 5 Al LOCATION MAP SCALE: 1"= 200d PROPOSED BREAKWATERS - TOP ELEV. 576.5 Dt ob -41 z 0 < x < le, PROPOSED PARKING PROPOSED BREAKWATERS z < IN LAKE ERIE u- AT NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA u- ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA z SITE PLAN 0' 50' 0@ 15C@ 200' ALTERNATIVE 2 SCALE: 1"t200' SHEET I OF 2 LIFTING HOOKS -cli PLAN PLAN OF BREAKWATER 3 71, 37 Y4 SCALE-. I"= 10' ELEVATION SHORE PROTECTION BLOCK ANCHOR PINS SCALE' 3/9'=I'-O" ORIGINAL GROUND TOP ELEV. 576.5 AVE. W.L. 572.5 I I L------ 7-- L. 5 66.5'[--, fj@@' - i v N OTE T @ I ANCHOR PINS ARE I" DIA.X f-d'LG ELEVATION OF BREAKWATER DEFORMED REF BARS DROPPED SCALE-* NONE INTO 1 1/2" DIA. DRILLED HOLES TOP ELEV. 576.5' AFTER BLOCKS ARE IN PLACE.. DRILL 1'-0" INTO BOTTOM BLOCK. I I xr I II I v I111 PROPOSED BREAKWATER ELE 566.5' IN LAKE ERIE Wo W Wle \---, @ @ i- @ @ ( - AT NORTH EASTACCESSAREA, ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TYPICAL CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVE 2 SCALE: 1/13"= 1'-0" SHEET 2 OF 2 52 Alternative 2 Cost Estimate Breakwater 2712 units @ $250/unit $ 678,000 Excavation and Fill 10,000 yd3 @ $2.50/yd3 25,000 Access Road and Parking 30.000 sy @ $10.001sy 30'0,1 000 Launch Ramp = 50,000 Rip Rap = 24,000 Landscaping = 26,000 Fencing 75,000 Restroom 75,000 Electrical 12,000 Sub Total $1,265,000 Contingency 316,250 Total $1,581,250 LAKE ERIE SITE D. PA. RT 5 LOCTOION MAP SCALE 2000' 80 CK 0Z co W PROPOSED BREAKWATERS TOP ELEV. 578.5 N w z cn U- IN. z PROPOSED PARKING AREA (D PROPOSED BREAKWATERS IN LAKE- ERIE AT NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA z ir ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LL_ U- SITE. PLAN z d 5(Y iodi5o'2oo' ALTERNATIVE 3 SCALE : 1 =200 SHEET I OF 2 LIFTING HOOKS RA PLAN PLAN OF BREAKWATER 7 373141 3 SCALE'. I"= 10' c CD ELEVATION SHORE PROTECTION BLOCK PINS SCALE * 34 = 1'- 0 TOP ELEV. 578.5 OR) INAL GROUND Tv T lilt 11 11 11 H, VE. W-L 572.5' L H I 1-1@ F1 .4 A 6.5' NOTE ANCHOR, PINS ARE I" DIA.x 2-d'LG. @TQP ELEV. 578.51' ELEVATION DF BREAKWATER DEFORMED REF BARS DROPPED SCALE: NONE INTO 1 1/2" DI A. DRILLED HOLES AFTER BLOCKS ARE IN PLACE. DRILL 1'-0" INTO BOTTOM BLOCK. f-:-- got, 11111 fill I I 111 1 1 PROPOSED BREAKWATER 1 11 1 9 EL6. 5- 66 IN LAKE ERIE 1111 kkk W 111 0=1-1 AT t4ORTH EAST ACCESS AREA ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 6.5' TYPICAL CROSS SECTION- ALTERNATIVE 3 SCALE: 1/8"=I*-O" SHEET 2 OF 2 53 Alternative 3 Cost Estimate Bre akwater 4371 units @ $250/unit $1,092,750.00 Excavation and Fill 10,000 yd3 @ $2.50/yd3 25,000.00 Access Road and Parking 30,000 sy @ $10.00/sy 300,000.00 Launch Ramp 50,000.00 Rip Rap 24,000.00 Landscaping 26,000.00 Fencing 75,000.00 Restroom 75,000.00 Electrical 12,000.00 Underwater Excavation 6400 yd3 @ $24/yd3 153,600.00 80 (16' to 20') Boat Slips @ $1550/slip 124,000.00 Sub Total $ 1 957,350.00 Contingency 489,337.50 Total $2,446,687.50 54 These alternatives were submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District office in Buffalo for their review and comment. A summary of their analysis, which is appended to this report, is as follows: Neither Alternative 1 or 2, as proposed, would provide adequate protection for safe boat launching and retrieval under storm conditions. Alternative 3 would provi de basic protection for launching and retrieval but not for mooring. It is been' calculated that a breakwater with a top elevation of 584.5 feet (USGS) would be necessary to provide adequate protection for mooring and docking facilities. 55 Two additional alternatives were developed following the Corps of Engineers' review. These alternatives are: Alternative 3 Modified Breakwater with a top elevation of 578.5 feet (USGS) including a launch ramp, roads and parking. This scheme would provide protection for safe launching and retrieval during high winds, but does not inc.lude mooring. See Page 56 and Illustration A-3M. Alternative 4 Breakwater construction to top elevation of 584.5 feet (USGS), including a launch ramp, roads, parking, mooring facilities and floating docks for 80 boats. This scheme would provide the necessary protection required for mooring. Accordingly this alternative is the most costly. See Page 57 and Illustration A-4. The investigation of the additional costs required to' provide the mooring facilities included under this alternative reveals an estimated cost of $30,000 per boat slip. At the current fee structures used in the Erie area, this cost would not be amortized for nearly 100 years. Therefore, providing small boat mooring in a facility of this size is not economically feasible. To gain economic feasibility for boat mooring would require greatly enlarging the size of the mooring basin and would involve acquisition of additional land which would expand the scope of this alternative beyond the intent of this study. LAKE EME SITE PA. RT 5 All LOCATION MAP SCALE: I"= 2000' PROPOSED BREAKWATERS - TOP ELEV. 578.5 Dt N z X < LL z PROPOSED PARKING AREA F- z PROPOSED BREAKWATERS < IN LAKE ERIE U- AT NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA U- ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1-N z SITE PLAN d 50, 10d 15d 200' -ALTERNATIVE 3 MODIFIED 6;;;ii !%iQ!n SCALE: 1": 200' SHEET I OF 2 LIFTING HOOKS 4e- cu PLAN 14 PLAN OF BREAKWATER 371, 373 SCALE-. I"= 10' c ELEVATION SHORE PROTECTION BLOCK SCALE 1!.- 0" ANCHOR PINS JQP ELEV.- 578.5, r ORIGINAL GROUND f T AV E. WL 572.5' t 'fit 566.5 NOTE: ANCHOR PINS ARE I D I A. 2*-d'LG. ELEVATION OF BREAKWATER DEFORMED REF BARS DROPPED TOP ELEY, 578, SCALE: NONE INTO 11/2"DIA. DRILLED HOLES AFTER BLOCKS AREIN PLACE. DRILL C-O". INTO..BOTTOM BLOCK. i I I Al I1 11 1 -1111 P- I I 1 1-111 PROPOSED' BREAKWATER EL6. 15 1 N LAKE ERIE W MY WT NW NO-RTH EAST ACCESS AREA _@JFAT ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TYPICAL CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVE 3 MODIFIED SCALE 1/8"=T-O" SHEET 2 OF 2 56 Alternative 3 Modified Cost Estimate Breakwa.ter 3750 units @ $250/unit $ 937,500 Excavation and Fill 3 @ $2.50/yd3 10,000 yd 25,000 Access Road and Parking 30,000 sy @ $10.001sy 300,000 Launch Ramp 50,000 Rip Rap 24,000 Landscaping 26,000 Fencing 75,000 Restroom 75,000 Electrical 12,000 Sub Total $1,524,500 Contingency 381,125 Total $1,905,625 LAKE ERI-E SITE PA. RT 5 LOCTOION MAP SCALE 1" 2000' -TCIP ELEV. 5 - PROPOSED BREAKWATERS 8 4. 15 0- z 0 K)- u- Q) z PROPOSED "`@\-PARKING AREA F- PROPOSED BREAKWATERS < IN LAKE ERIE z AT NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA < ER IE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA u- z SITE PLAN Q 50' 106 150'20.0' ALTERNATIVE 4 SHEET I OF 2 PROPOSED BREAKWATERS M LAKE ERIE AT NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA ERIE COUNTY9 PENNSYLVANIA ALTERNATIVE 4 SHEET 2 OF 2 ANCHOR PINS ORIGINAL GROUND-@., TOP ELEV. 584.5' Q AVG. W.L. 572.55' ELEVATION LLEy. WALE: VS"= I-d' TOP ELEV. 584.5' -1 @l 4 -J J I.- I------ -7: A -41@, V lt;u AL 1 -61 f 11MCAL CROSS SEMON SCALE: 57 Alternative 4 Cost Estimate Breakwater 10,500 units @ $250/unit -$2,625,000 Excavation and Fill 10,000 yd3 @ $2.50/yd3 25,000 Access Road and Parking 30,000 sy @ $10.00/sy 300,000 Launch Ramp 50,000 Rip Rap .24,000 Landscaping 26,000 Fencing 75,000 Restroom 75,000 Electrical 12,000 Underwater Excavation 6400 yd3 @ $24/yd3 153,600 80 (16' to 20') Boat Slips @ $1550/slip 124,000 Sub Total $3,489,600 Contingency 872,400 Total $4,362,000 58 Table 3 Summary of Alternatives Break Safety Water Estimated Capacity Launching/ Alternative Elevation Cost Parking Slips Retrieval Mo o r Lnj 1. 574.5 $1,283 750 .283 0 R o No 2. 576.5 1,581:250 283 0 Wo No 3. 578.5 2,446,687 283 80 Yes No 3. Modified 578.5 1,905,625 283 0 Yes No 4. 584.5 -,4,362,000 283 80 Yes Yes 59 Recommended Project Development Project Analysis To address the economical feasibility of the redevelopment of the study site, a table was prepared (see Table 4) which compares 5 similar areas. These areas include two sites which are completed projects, Walnut Creek, and Lampe Marina; two sites which are also study proposals, Twenty Mile Creek and Elk Creek; and Alternative 3 Modified of this study. In the table, both the specific amenities and the resultant costs are listed side by side for comparative purposes. Also, all costs are shown in terms of 1980 dollars. Conversions were made with informa- tion obtained from R. S. Means and McGraw Hills's Dodge Construction Estimating Services. Because each project is different in terms of the quantity of facilities it provides, the costs of two basic units were analyzed. The first was the parking s pace vhich provides an index to the quantity of users to be accommodated. As can be seen in the table, the project cost divided by the number of parking spaces provided is equal to $5,386.00. This is the second lowest rate shown, indi cating that on a comparative basis, this project should be a good value. The second unit used was the boat launch lane which provides an index to the quantity of boats that can be launched or retrieved simultaneously. When the total project cost is divided by the number of launch ramp lanes provided, again the study proposal ranks second in cost. This comparison, together with the parking space unit costs indicates that the Alternative 3 Modified Project is economically feasible. TABLE 4. COST COMPARISON PER PARKING SPACE AND LAUNCH RAMP LANE OF LAKE ERIE ACCESS SITES (Dollar Figures in 1980 Dollars) Site Name Elk Creek Walnut Creek Lampe Marina Twenty Mile Creek North East (Alt. 3 Mod.) Site Description Ramp Lanes 1 6 4 4 6 Ramp Width 12 feet 80 feet 70 feet 60 feet 80 feet Length of Road 1,400 feet 1,450 feet 1,500 feet 1,400 feet 1,590 feet No. of Parking Spaces 100 297 19.2 130 283 Comfort Facilities yes yes yes yes yes Breakwater yes yes yes yes yes Lighting yes yes yes yes yes Reference D.A. Johnson P.F.C. files P.F.C. files Hill & Hill Engi- P.F.C. & Assoc., Final Con- Final Contract neers, Inc., North Estimated Corry Study tract Cost Cost East Study Cost Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Work Item Access Road & Parking $206,150 $375,700 $192,580 $296,000 $ 413,575 Comfort Facilities $ 84,740 $203,150 $190,450 $ 15,000 $ 75,850 Lighting $ 1,200 $ 55,700 $ 22,290 $ 7,500 $ 12,150 Boat Launching Ramp $ 30,740 $ 41,500 $114,400 $220,800 $ 74,800 Channel Improvements $ 31,970 $ 30,400 $110,700 Breakwaters $221,400 $763oOOO $1,360,800 $772,450 $ 948,000 Total Cost $5769200 $1,469,450 $1,880,520 $1,422,450 $1,524,375 Cost Per Launch Ramp Lane $576,200 $. 244,908 $ 470,130 $ 355,612 $ 254,062 Cost/Per Parking Space $ 5,762 $ 4,948 $ 9,794 $ 10,942 $ 5,386 60 Sanitary Facilities Sanitary facilities can be provided near the parking area and boat ramp. These facilities can be located in a single structure with separate usage areas for men and women. They could be equipped with flush waste facilities, and a sink with cold running water only. Since a public water supply is not available at the site@, a low yield well with treatment and distribution system should 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. For design purposes we estimate a maximum average daily use of 750 persons. The following minimum number o f fixtures are recommended for the public restrooms: Men: 1 Flush toilet in closed booth 2 Urinals 2 Sinks Women: 3 Flush toilets in closed booths 2 Sinks Because public severage,facilities are not currently available and on-lot disposal is not a viable.alternative, for purposes of this study sanitary facilities could be housed in a self-contained trailer unit, including vacuum pump and holding tank. The contents of the holding tank would be.periodically emptied and removed to a facility approved by thle.Erie County Department of Health. 61 Phasing Phase I The first phase should be the construction of the break" water. The blocks for the breakwat er can be either precast by a manufacturer or cast on site. Placement of the blocks will provide the quiet water necessary for launching and retrieving and protection for the construction of the launch ramp in Phase Phase II The second phase should consist of the clearing, grubbing, excavation and grading of the access road parking area and boat ramp. This would be followed by installation of the concrete boat launching ramp and construction of all roads and parking areas. Completion of the project would consist of stabilizing berms, the construction of an entrance gate, adding topsoil and seeding of disturbed areas, landscaping, fencing, adding comfort stations and installing necessary guard rails, signs and other appertanc ese 62 Operation and Maintenance After completion of construction and opening the facilities to the public an active maintenance program will be implemented. Maintenance costs could be shared by North East Township and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. It is proposed that the daily operation and maintenance duties such as cleaning the comfort station, grass cutting, opening and closing the gate and policing be assumed by North East Township. Annual operation and maintenance duties such as opening in the spring, maintaining the navigational channel , the launch ramp, floating docks, pavement, and closing in the late fall would be the responsibility of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Total maintenance and operational costs could fluctuate considerably due to a large number of unknown variables. However, from the Commission's experience with such facilities as those at Walnut Creek, it is reasonable to anticipate average annual maintenance and operating costs of approximately $25,000.User Conflicts The Fish Commission's experience has shown that the only significa, nt conflict between boaters and shore fishermen occurs at times of maximum activity for both uses. At other facilities this has only been a problem during salmonid season. Since @:there are currently no-significant sa.lmonid runs close, Jo- the shore and into the stream'crossing this sit.e,'ve see no specific potential user 63 Corif "c"' accor 4fter development we are confident that they can be adequstely coutrolled by Ust of existing regulatory and enforcement authority. 64 Schedule For the project to proceed to construction, a source of funding has to be obtained. This could then be followed by engineering design and preparation of construction drawings and specifications. The appropriate permits could then be secured as necessary from the federal, state and local governments. A proposed schedule for these events is as follows: Completion of Engineering Design, Construction Drawings, Specifications and Permit Applications - 10 months after funding is secured. Construction Completion Phase I - 18 months after completion of Engineering and Issuance of Permits Construction Completion Phase 11 18 months after completion of Phase I LANDS LAKE ERIE PARKIjVr AnCA CAR BREAKWATER ROCK RIP-RAP 06 CAD) ROCK RIP-RAP FLOATING BOAT DOCK TYP.2 PLACES COMFORT STATION EXI DV BREAKWATER 44 EXISTING LAUNCHING FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB TO BE REMOVED R ilyG 4RE4 1-26 cr4A F?. ILERS WOE ENTR4NCLr ROAD 2of GAre EXISTI@G GRAVEL ROAD NORTH EAST TWP.,ERIE CO., PENNA. NORTH EAST ACCESS AREA PUBLIC ACCESS FEASMILITY STUDY PLAN PROPOSED ACCESS AREA SCALE: I"=80' FIG. I I T 3- 610 -MAX. IJKE LEVEL, EL. 5741@ 6 600. TURN-AROUND -BREAKWATER AVG. LAKE LEVEL, EL. 57c.... TOP EL. 581.7 5_9_O______ TOP EL. 578-5 -MIN LAKE LEVEL, EL.569.91 CONCRETE RAMP 580 70 CONCRETE RAMP BOT- Ft.-5-67-n 0 200 PERMANENT & FLOATING DOCK FACILITIES NOTE: ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FROM U.S.G.S. DATUM 1929. J 65 Funding The results of this study have emphasized what the Commission strongly suspected that a substantial, well designed lake access project is financially viable and important and deserves to be given high priority. However, there currently is insufficient funding available within the Pennsylvania Fish Commission's development budget to initiate-it. Even if the project were spread out or phased over several fiscal years, the Commission could not afford to fund the total development without funding assistance from other sources. Sources which could pro vide financial assistance are as follove: Federal Coastal Zone Management administered through D.E.R. Coastal Energy Impact Program administered through the Department of Community Affairs. National Park Service, Land & Water Conservation Fund administered through D.E.Ro. State Department of Envirou mental Respurces (See Administrative Functions above) State Legislature' Local Erie County Township of North East (Rec.reation.boro/township -function n-mainten possibly involved@i ance@.,), 66 Cost Estimate Phase-I donstructi on of Precast.Concrete Hexagonal Blocks for Breakvater 3750 units @ $150 $ 562,500 Grading, Placing and Pinning of the Precast Concrete Hexagonal Blocks for Breakvater $ 375tOOO Phase II Excavation and Fill 10,000 yd3 @ $2.50/yd3 25,000 Access Road and Parking 30,000 sy @ $10/sy $ 300,000 Grading 6" Stone Base 2" Bituminous Base 1-1/2" ID-2 Wearing Course Concrete Boat Launch Ramp $ 50,000 Cofferdam Water Control and Floating Docks Rip Rap Shore and Ramp Protection including Filter Cloth 600 tons @ $40/ton $ 24,000 Grading, Seeding, Plantings, Guardposts, Signs, Lines, and Curbing $ 26,000 Fencing including Entrance Gate $ 75,000 12' x 28' Rest Room Facilities $ 75,000 Electrical $ 12,000 Ph'ise I & II,Sub Total $1,524,500 Engineering, Legal,,Fiscal., Administrative and-Conting.ency 381,125 Total $1,905,625 67 Conclusion This study has found, both through inventory and analysis as well as the review of other current-studies, that a strong need for additional boating access facilities exists. 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 with other similar development costs. Other important facts are: 1. The study site is currently under public ownership; 2. No further property acquisition is required; 3. The proposed use is the same as the current use and involves only an increase in the level of that use; 4. The land is presently zoned recreational. These facts and findings lead to the conclusion that this site offers definite potential to provide needed boating and fishing facilities on Lake Erie. Therefore, steps should be actively taken to obtain funding for redevelopment of this site. 68 Bibliography Bureau of Resources Programming, Office of Resource,, Management. Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program Technical Record, Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program, 1978. Erie County Department of Planning. North East Regional Comprehensive Plan Update, Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program, 1982. Erie Downriggers. Ramp Study Report Erie Dovuriggers. Gaythwaite, John. The Marine Environment and Structural Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1981. Hill and Hill Engineers, Inc. Tventy Mile Creek Public Access Feasibility Study, Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program, 1980. International Lake Erie Regulation Study Board. Lake Erie Water Level Study, International Joint Commission, 1981. Johnson, D. A. and Associates. Elk Creek Public Access Feasibility Study, Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program, 1980. Knuth, Paul. Lov Cost Sh2re Protection's D esign Criteria Adverse Impacts, Expected Results and Model Municipal Ordinance, Lake Erie Institute for Marine Science, 1981. Knuth, Burt, Flood and Nagel. A Geolotechnical Investiga- tion of the Coastal Bluffs of Erie County, Pa., Lake Erie Institute for Marine Studies, .1982. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo D istrict. Boating Facilities Inventory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979. Young, Leroy and Robert Lahr. Lake Erie Angler and Boater Use and Angler Harvest Survey, Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program, 1982. C_ L, JAMES :R. STEADMAN DOUGLAS J. WRIGHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW a4 MAIN STREET FAST GIRARD. PENNSYLVANIA 10417 T=@ZPI-40mlr (814) 774-2628 REFER TO: March 29, 1983 James R. Steadman Mr. Richard M. M ulfinger, P.E. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Fish Commission Special Projects Robinson Lane Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823 RE: Proposed North East/Lake Erie Access Area Dear Mr. Mulfinger: Please be advised that I represent Sarah (Jeannie M. Jones) and John P. Lantzy, who own and reside in the property located at 11986 East Lake Road, North Eest, Pennsylvania, which is adjacent to the proposed NorWEast/Lake Erie Access Area. On their behalf, I would like the Fish Commission's records regarding.tbis proposed project to show that they are unalterably opposed to this project. Since the purchase of the property by Mr. and Mrs. Jones prior to his death in 1975, there has been a continuous and severe problem with vandalism and boisterous be- bavior on the part of those who are using the present facilities at the site. My clients have repeatedly contacted everyone from the Director of the Pennsylvania Fish Corran-ission: to the'ir-,,State Representative to their local municipal authorities -to Police, as well as officers of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, without any success whatever-of abating the nuisance created by the improper behavior of those who are using the facility. My clients are aware that this proposed access area will be a,public park and that it will undoubtedly attract even greater numbers of people to the area. Their concerns.'arle compounded by the fact that -there -are young children residing.in their bome.wbo -have been repeatedly exposed to improper behavior on the part of those -using the premises, including drinking,l use pf drugs, noisy parties and general rowdiness. C_ 1. Mr. Richard Mulfinger, P.E. Page 2 March 29, 1983 our second area of concern is that of the beach erosion which will almost certainly occur to my clients' property, which is located to the east of the proposed development. One only has to look at the walnut Creek Access Area in the western part of Erie County to see what happens when a development of this size is under- taken. The beach areas immediately to the east of the development are seriously eroded. In addition to beach areas, the banks and bluffs along the lake have been @the victims of erosion. The third area of concern is that the construction of jetties or breakwaters causes the area behind or to the east of the jetties or breakwaters to become foul, mucky and filled in with seaweed because of the lack-of free circulation of the water along the beach. The odor and health hazards are considerable. The problem is further compounded by the multitude of people who will use the access area and upon returning will dump their waste materials upon my clients' property or into water which will eddy in behind --thebr@akwater, resulting in a dirty, malodorous mess on their property. Another concern is that the lake bluff will be cut down to make the access easier. This cannot but have an adverse effect upon my clients' property and property values. Again, let us state our opposition to the proposed develop- ment. Please inform us prior to taking any further action on this matter. 'Very truly yours. James R. Steadman JRS/lar CC:.Harry.Bowser 'Buzz Andrezeski Mr. and Mrs. John P. Lantzy C-2 Statement presented to the North East Recreation Commission - June 1, 1983 RE: .Proposed Dewey Road Access Area improvements North East, Pa. 1. The proposed improvements will attract greater numbers of people to the Area. Neighboring private properties and residents will need to be protected from the flow of people and the rersulting increase of current problems - vandalism, improper and boisterous behavior and improper disposal of waste materials. 2. According to imformation from LOW COST SHORE PROTECTION published by the Army Corps of Engineers the construction of breakwaters and/or jetties will certainly cause unpredictable erosion to the beaches east (downdrift) of the access area. The existing erosion problems will only be compounded by the contruction of breakwaters or jetties at the access area result- ing in further deteriorati on of usable beach front and property values of private property. 3.. Again refering to the above publication the natural flow of water will be impeded resulting in the accumulation of debris, seaweed, dead fish and improperly disposed of waste material. This will cause odorous, mucky and hazardous water conditions which will' pese a health hazard and deteriorate the aestbtic appeal of the beach area. 4. Excessive use of the limited land site at the Dewey Road A@cess Area will further destroy the ecological balance. The signatures below indicate that the property owners are opposed to the construction of breakwaters and/or jetties and tbe cutting back of the banks at the Dewey Road Access Area. We also request that we are informe-d of all proceedings and their results and are further give the opportunity for public input. We also request copies of all information currently available and copies of all future information and results. .4- ? 10 C. JOLA@ 4-@O A- f_ol =7 CC-.. Richart Mullfinger, Ha ry Bowser, Buzz,,Andrezeski,.Coastal Zone,Management /)I t-0 I I . I .. . " . . 1@ ,A L4-1 (A IT- rr.Ha @rySowj Army Corps of Engineers. -F,4.sr I C-3 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering Robinson Lane 814-359-2754 Bellefonte, PA 16823 July 13, 1983 Mr. James R. Steadman Attorney at Law 24 Main Street East Girard. Pennsylvania 16417 Dear Mr. Steadman: In regard to your clients' concerns expressed in your letter of March 29, 1983, and the subsequent statement presented to the North East Recreation Commission on June 1, 1983, we wish to clarify the matter in question. The activity to which your clients refer as a "proposed accesss area" and that to which the signers of the June 1, 1983, statement refer as the "Proposed Dewey Road Access Area Improvements," is not a proposal as such. What actually is occurring is that the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, owner of a certain parcel of land bounded by your clients, has entered into an agreement with the Division of Coastal Zone Management, Pennsylvania De- partment of Environmental Resources, to jointly fund a feasibility study entitled-"Feasibility of Boating Access Development on Lake Erie, North East Township, Erie County." This one year study extending from October 1, 1982, to September 30, 1983, is being completed using the following work objectives: Work Objectives: 1. Undertake Task II for studying the feasibility of boating access development on Lake Erie, North East Township, Erie County, as part of Fishery Implementation Segment III-C, Access Development, of the Lake Erie Fishery and Boating Program Plan. 2. Conduct field surveys of land and water areas, plot topography and investigate public utility facilities and rights of way. 3. Inventory adjacent land uses, including highway access, possible local impacts and compatibility with regional comprehensive plans and recommendations for future development. 4. Conduct engineering studies and conceptual planning, including alternate so1utions and cost assessments. 5. Consolidate the project resulting into a final report and submit it to the Coastal Zone Management Office, Department of Environ- mental Resources, prior to December 31, 1983. C-3 James R. Steadman, Esquire Page 2 July 13, 1983 Considerable progress has been made on this study and portions -of the final draft report have been completed. As you are probably aware, angler and boating accegs to Lake Erie in the eastern portions of Erie County are very limited. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has used this opportunity, through the use of supplemental funding, to study the feasibility of developing its property for the bene- .fit of the fishing and boating public. We feel this is a reasonable activity, particularly because of the acute need f or more and better such facilities. We appreciate your clients' concerns, most of which are the tYpe we hope to alleviate by conducting a thorough study. If the study should re- sult in a proposal for further development, certainly your clients, inter- ests would be addressed.in a reasonable fashion. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission'iakes seriously its role both as a good neighbor and a steward of its property on behalf of those we represent. Please be'assure"d that our intentions are not to degrade or impair, in any manner, the property of others. When this project is completed, the report will be a public docum ent available to your clients. Our staff is now and will in the future be available to address any questions or concerns your clients may have. Sincerely, Robert B. Hesser Project Coordinator RBH:dk. W_.--Abele,-_ P'C cc:: 4. F E. R. Miller, PFC R. M. Mulfinger, PFC D. Taylor, CZM A. Andrezeski, Senate H. Bowser, House of Rep. R. Hardiman, COE C-4 JAMES R. STEADMAN DOUGLAS J. WRIGHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 24 MAIN STREET FAST P. 0. BOX 87 GIRARD, PENNSYLVANIA 16417 TELEPH0NE (814) 774-2628 REFER TO: July 15, 1983 James R. Steadman Robert B. Hesser Project Coordinator Pennsylvania Fish Commission Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823 RE: North East Township Erie County Access Area Dear Mr. Hesser: Thank you for your letter of July 13, 1983. Please advise when you intend to have public hearings regarding the development of the North East Township Access Area. My clients will desire to present testimony at such a hearing regarding their concerns and objections to the development of this area so that they may be made a matter of public record. Our position remains substantially that expressed in my letter to Mr. Richard M. Mulfinger dated March 29, 1983, a copy of whicb is enclosed herewith. Very truly yours, James R. Steadman JRS/pg Encl. CC to A. Andrezeski, Senator CC to Harry Bowser CC to Mr. and Mrs. John P. Lantzy COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA C-5 PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823-9616 814-359-2754 August 17, 1983 Mr. James R. Steadman Attorney at Law 24 Main Street East P. 0. Box 87 Girard, PA 16417 Dear Mr. Steadman: I regret that I have not been able to respond more quickly to your recent letter regarding our access study at the North East Township site we previously discussed. You are apparently under the impression that a public hearing will be held concerning the results of the North East Township access feasi- bility study. I felt I had made clear in my previous letter the reason for the study plus the fact that it is not a development project. Appar- ently I did not properly clarify this issue. For the record, the study entitled "Feasibility of Boating Access Development on Lake Erie, North East Township, Erie County," seeks to answer what the title implies, is it feasible to further develop that site for boating access? A public hearing is not necessary as a result of this type of study and therefore none will be held. However, should the Commission decide after evaluating the study results that further development is desirable, such a project would be handled in the same manner as all state agency projects and public comment and input would be sought. We want to reassure you that your clients' concerns are being con- considered, in fact your correspondence has been included in the study report. As reported to you earlier, the study report will be a public document and will be available from the Coastal Zone Management Division following its completion later this year. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact uS. Sincerely, Robert B. Hesser Fishery Resources Biologist RBH; dk cc: E. Miller R. Weis D. Taylor (DER) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES P. 0. Box 2357 I SLL Haffisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 March 18, 1983 t Bureau of opographic and Geologic Survey (717)787-6029 In reply refer to RM-GS Mr. Richard Mulfinger Pennsylvania Fish Commission Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823 Dear Mr. Mulfinger: In the area near the end of Dewey Road in North East Township, Erie County, a veneer of glacial lake deposits comprising stratified sand, silt and clay, and some gravel, rests upon bedrock of the Northeast Shale. The veneer is of variable thickness, usually ranging from 10 to 75 feet. The Northeast Shale is thinly bedded, medium light gray siltstone, interbedded with medium gray clay shale. The Northeast Shale is Late Devonian in age (approximately 355 million years old), is of marine origin, and has a few fossils. The siltstone, tends to break up as flaggy or platy pieces. The clay shale tends to break up as chippy or hackly fragments. The Northeast Shale beds are very close to horizontal, and are not folded or faulted to any measurable degree. 11 you need further information on the geology of Erie County, please feel free to call upon us. S*n66rery-,-- -@a THOMAS M. BERG, Chief Geologic Mapping Division C-7 1A COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION WILLIAM PENN mEmom^L muscum ^Pjo ^acmivcr. BUILDING Box 1026 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 May 11, 1983 Richard Mulfinger, P.E. Pennsylvania Fish Commission Bureau of Fisheries & Engineering Robinson Lane Bellefonte,, PA 16823 Re: Pennsylvania Fish Commission's North East Access Area Property ER 83 049 0223 Dear Mr. Mulfinger: The Bureau for Historic Preservation is reviewing this State funded, assisted or licensed project under the authority of the Environmental Rights Amendment, Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Act of 1978. To our best knowledge, there are no National Rpgister eligible or listed historic or archeological properties in the area of this proposed project and therefore, this project should have no effect upon such resources. Should the applicant- become aware, from any source, that historic or archeological resources are located at or near the project site, please contact the Division of Planning and Protection. If you need further information in this matter, please consult Bill McLaughlin or Kurt Carr of the Bureau for Historic. Preservation at (717) 783-8947. cere -Sin I DL-ai Mlliams Acting Director Bureau for Historic Preservation (717) 783-8947 C-8 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering Robinson Lane 814-359-2754 Bellefonte, PA 16823 March 7, 1983 Buffalo District Army Corp of Engineers 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14207 Attention: Small Projects Section Dear Sirs: The Pennsylvania Fish Commission is in the process of drafting a C.Z.M. Feasibility Study for the North East Access Area. One of the alternatives we are investigating is the possibility of providing a safe harbor of refuge for small boats. Any assistance or information that you could provide us would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Richard M. Mulfinger, P.E. Senior Project Engineer RMM/jaw 2or 0' hqr- tgeT.2qf. 0q@E C-9 DEPARTMEN.T OF THE ARMY BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1776 NIAGARA STREET BUFFALO. NEW YORK 14207 NCBED-HS ,SUBJECT: Harbor of Refuge, North East Access kiea, Pennsylvania Richard N. Mulfinger, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Pennsylvania Fish Commission Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823 Dear Mr. Mulfinger: This is in response to your letter dated-7 March 1983 concerning assistance in providing a safe harbor-of-refuge for small boats in the area of the North East Access Area of Pennsylvania. In accordance with the c6nditions set forth in House Document No. 446 78th Congress, 2nd Session, a total of 21 harbors-of-refuge on the Great Lakes including the Barcelona, N11 harbor were authorized by the 1945 River and Harbor Act. Refuge harbors were authorized approximately 30 mile's f rdm each other in order to produce a chain that would protect boaters cruising the lakes from sudden starms. The harbors serving the north east access area of Pennsylvania are Erie Harbor, PA, and Barcelona Harbor, KY. Since .these harbors are approximately 29 miles apart, I do not have authority to establish any additional harbors-of -refuge in the area of concern. Howeyer-,.,the same law authorized additional studies of small boat harbors and harbors-of -refuge on Lake Erie including one specifically at North East, PA. The Buffalo District completed an Interim Report for North East in 1970. This report was subsequently returned to the District by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors for restudy since the recommended'project was not economically justified. The restudy was never undertaken because funds have never been appropriated for it. Most recently,my staff met with local officials in North East on .24 April 1981 to discuss the possibility-of Federal participation-in construct- ing a small boat facility. Based on the comments received, it was obvious that local officials are opposed to the project in our 1970 Interim Ro-port bacause of* the high cost of construction associated with an extensive lu C-9 NCEED-HS SUBJECT: Harbor of Refuge, North East Access Area, Pexmsylvania breakwater system for several hundred permanently-based boats. As an alter- native, local officials proposed a scaled-down project consisting of a harbor-of-refuge and boat launching facilities for trailer drawn boats at themouth of 12-Mile Creek. This concept may have possibilities under the Corps "Continuing Authority" (Small Projects), program, as discussed below. I do have authority under Section 107 of the River and Harbors Act, as amended, to investigate, design, and construct projects for improvement to general navigation. All work accomplished.under this authority must be economically justified (as opposed to harbors-of-refuge, which do not require economic justification), engineeringly feasible, environmentally sound and socially acceptable. If a project were identified that would meet these criteria, then a commitment from a local.sponsor would be necessary to rovide the following local assurances: a. 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,upon the request of the Chief of Engineers. b. Hold and save the United States from damages due to construction and subsequent maintenance of the project, except for dazages due to the fault or negligence of the United States or its Contractors. c. Provide a public landing or wharf open to all on equal terms.- d. Provide, without cost to the United States, all alterations and relo- cations of existing improvements including utilities, sewers, and other facilities. e. Provide a cash contribution.in-an amount to equal one-half of the construction cost of. the-, general navigation features directly attributable to. recreation. z f. Bear all costs in excess of the Federal f irs@t- cost limitation.-o $2,000,000 for construction of the project, exclusive of aids, to navigation. g. Reserve anchorage spaces and mooring facilities adequate for the acoommodation of transient craft. h. Comply with the applicable provisions,of,.the "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970," Public Law 91-646, approved 2 January 1971, In acquiring lands, easements, and rights- of-!way for construction and subseoent maintenance of the project, and inform affected persons oi pertinent benefit s, policies, and procedures in connec- tion with said Act. C-9 NCBED-HS SUBJECT: Harbor of Refuge, North East Access Area, Pennsylvania i. 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 Fed'eral regulations, in connection with the maintenance and operation of the project. J. Establisli a competent and properly constituted public body empowered to prescribe and enforce regulations pertaining to navigation and to regulate the use and development of the harbor and related facilities, with the understanding that said facilities will open to all on equal terms. These assurances are the requirements at this time and are subject to change. If you have any questions or require any further information,.plea,se contact Mr. Ray Pilon*of my Engineering Division at (716) 876-5454 extension 2146@ Sincerely, ROB RT A417- Colonel, Corps of Engineers District EngqLneer '@@ROB RTI C olon C-10 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BUFFALO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1776 NIAGARA STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207 NCBED-DC MAY 18 1983 SUBJECT: Northeast Pennsylvania Access Area Mr. Richard M. Mulfinger Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Fish Commission Bureau of Fisheries and Engineering Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823 Dear Mr. Mulfinger: The proposed breakwater plans for the Northeast access area in Erie County, PA, which you provided Mr. Richard Gorecki of my Coastal Engineering Section have been reviewed. The evaluation indicates that for severe design conditions (i.e. high lake level and storm waves), the waves will break lakeward of the proposed breakwaters and the regenerated wave will pass over the structures which would be submerged. Therefore, the stability of the blocks were analyzed at a lower lake level. This analysis shows that the top block on the proposed breakwater for the marina plan (Plan 1) would not be stable under its own weight for the condition analyzed. The top block on the proposed breakwaters for the boat launch plans (Plans 2 and 3) would be stable for the condition analyzed. However, under lower lake level conditions, the wave forces on the top block would be increased and the block would probably be knocked off. Therefore, it is recommended that you consider anchoring the top block for each of the plans. Most of the Corps designs consider rubblemound construction and experience has shown us that designing for a severe wave condition is sufficient to assure stability without consideration of ice loads. However, you may want to consider the impacts of ice forces on the top block of your breakwaters in order to develop an adequate anchoring system. Storm conditions can develop on Lake Erie.rather quickly. Therefore, the evaluation also considered a storm event which might occur during the boating season. This analysis was undertaken in order to determine the magnitude of the waves which can be expected in the protected area due to wave overtopping of your structures when boaters would be trying to leave the lake or moor in your marina area. The analysis shows that waves up to three feet in height could be regenerated in the lee of the structures for your marina plan and up to four-foot waves could be regenerated in the protected area of your launching plans. The actual waves could be actually higher due to wave buildup caused by the additive effects of waves as they reflect off the vertical faces of the blocks. Waves or these magnitudes would not be conductive to a berthing area for a marina plan and would make retrieval of a boa during a storm situation near impossible. C-10 NCBED-DC SUBJECT: Northeast Pennsylvania Access Area In summary, it is my opinion that your launching plans would function adequately under the 2 to 3-foot wave conditions which you are considering. However, I feel that it is also necessary to consider the situation when boaters might be caught out on the lake as storm condition develops, especially during the fall season. Also, the crest of the breakwaters for your marina plan requires additional elevation in order to provide a berthing area where the maximum acceptable wave heights are 1 to 1-1/2 feet. In addition, the magnitude of the wave in the protected area should be considered for any shoreline facilities which you may develop. I am enclosing a copy of the evaluation. If you have any questions or comments on the matters presented herein, please feel free to contact Mr. Richard Gorecki of my Coastal Engineering Section at (716) 876-5454, extension 2230. Sincerely, ROBERT R HARDIMAN Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Enclosure as stated 2 DATE SUBJECT Northeast Access Area Erie County, Pennsylvania SHEET NO.1 By RJG A CHKD BY ... .... DATE., .......... . ....... JOB NO ------------------_---------- EXPOSURE TO AND EFFECTS OF STORMS The state access area at Northeast, PA is exposed to storm waves generated by winds from the west-southwest through west to east-norhteast directions. Storms from the westerly directions have the greatest fetch and cause the most severe wave action at NOrtheast, PA. A wind diagram showing the relative directional frequency and intensity of winds at Erie, PA, based on U.S. Coast Guard recorded observations, is shown on Figure 1. The wind diagram is considered to reflect, reasonably well, the conditions that prevail at Northeast, PA. DESIGN WATER LEVELS Design water levels for Lake Erie are based upon the International Great Lakes Datum established in 1955 at Father's Point, Quebec. Low Water Datum (LWD) is 568.6 feet above mean water level. Two water levels will be used to evaluate the State's proposed breakwater plans at the Northeast access area. The higher water level is used to determine the structural stability of the structures during all seasons of the year. The lower water level is used to evaluate the adquacy of the structures in providing a mooring/launching area that will be protected from adverse wave action due to wave overtopping of the structures during the boating season which is assumed to run from the spring through the full months. The design water level is a combination of the joint occurence of the long-term average lake level with a short period fluctuation due to a storm setup. The long-term average lake levels for this evaluation were obtained from the "Standarized Frequency Curves for Design Water Level Determination on The Great Lakes," prepared by Detroit District in 1979. The short period fluctuation due to a storm setup was obtained from the "Review of Reports on Lake Erie- Lake Ontario Waterway, NY" prepared by Buffalo District in 1973. ic 86 Ila 1.7 1. C8i 2KI .8- 4.Oi - -0 TO 12 M. P. H. too -0 7- ----13 TO 24 M.P.H. 3.8 - 2.r. 4AVERIE Eto 1 0.1-0.1 ----- 25 M.P.H. ANO OVER a.0-6.1 L 2qs -%T '/ %v ',& 49 %D 10/ -0-- V pi WIND DIAGRAM FOR ERIE HARBOR, PA. NOTES INDICATES DURATION FOR ICE-FREE PERIOD (MAR. TO DEC. INCL.) IN PERCENT OF TOTAL DURATION. INDICATES DURATION FOR ICE PERIOD (JAN. TO FEB. INCL.) IN PERCENT OF TOTAL DURATION. INDICATES PERCENT OF TOTAL WIND MOVEMENT OCCURRING DURING ICE-FREE PERIOD. INDICATES PERCENT OF TOTAL WIND MOVEMENT OCCURRING DURING COMBINED ICE AND ICE-FREE PERIODS. FIGURES AT ENDS OF BARS INDICATE PERCENT OF TOTAL WIND DURATION FOR ICE FREE PERIOD AND COMBINED ICE-FREE AND ICE PERIODS, RESPECTIVELY. WIND DATA BASED ON RECORDS OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD AT ERIE HARBOR, PA. FOR PERIOD 1 JAN. 1928 TO 31 DEC. 1941 AND 1 JAN. 1945 TO 31 DEC. 1971. FIGURE 1 ctrnl)?A C4 'Ttt@' k4 S+i "OtA lj(*Aovlo -r^ L4*Y?"4 I '1.@WmkaAj %4171 +v"4--7^11 -F'o I A -z-j 4-vols 14 t40w--cl ID '-141/m IAl -7-Irl 24.71" 14"OJ. 'oll o r -x @j 'vr7t4lrLAo-.> L44i,57 V-7 li I -Ao 10 )o, J-@ J-PAI@j -Ag@vM -'T>"k.A-4A7'74 I.AelF C&A-1 1 -7 IAl jo Ilu f.40,?w -VN4 lAt LW*.A@ '7,AVM c 14 u I SA?4,V^TkA@ -7-@4 -%7.A,,) 71 lo ti I bo -a@ o4 r &,, u.. -i -qrp P W @6'* A 11 -4 CC. 4 4.A L-40SVIlT V01 r.@,-4,1, s'6*4 +"'14 (,.f7 It l#0flj--7el(5 %&4-Alf 490@-S#r `0 al" 10, I-r .,- .C. I -0 J-tj @O llrl%rl UWaV4 11*1"VLA'o -.At,-,-A elf Sv7t 'o Porjj 4 -lrrJ +el al" j I 4 ty 4,1 -7>0 Lf k2-> I vs 1.4 Tlf@ W"ll" r.'fv(04;?ftl @V,-A @-ro(y 0 -nl-4 "t v W-A I f I",, W v 0 rj!77.A --;),.Alli -aA r 171v e10 IV 101 -a, 0/1 -4fno@l-, )OUL, 10 45.?,v%tjro5@ 571 w5v) 4"1 "P 5"r I YJ t+5'wl4 A ON #S'-A"A O-e At -7->UO r.Ar-%IC0 -el-5 @/ --@t @vwj-AOANIO @o U"W IVIIUL,,V (AV 4VI+ S?4V'.7FrVj I la".w -e -7AA@lj LIO IfMotr Sl -,@4A@fIrlIll JO 111"LAI 110,AV(Alp rl-4-2@ 4,101s@ 14vow --Cl I- Wa-U4 10/1 CACA 10 -4 vrrA IA& wto t 11 @ 01 @4 l2f 3' "Y4 4" 4741-'-'tl 4"'vP'--)cAl LIA I VA v WA 1101 Lm -A -0 jo A 0 tAl rrvftmA,?@rr -1 111M -Ilr@iOA -VWT@A-Aell'BI-A Aw?j-oz V ........................................... .... .. I................. ................................................. ........................................... ------------------------ ------ ON eor ......... ...... ..... ... ... As ,-Of 94 :3,Lva .......... .. 40 ------- T""'ON L33HS 3-Lvc .111010AIPOLury x to covosioNs turvIL alsstftco 468000 EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY PER HUNDRED YEARS 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 2 1 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 TH 7 573 57 2 in 571 570 569 Ph. 566 "REQUENCT CURVE ANNUAL MEAN LEVELS IT tt LAXE ERIE 19t5 1974 IL 001 005 A 02 O.s 1 2 5 10 20 30 ao r 0 60 j In MO 95 99 911 K 99 ww 'IRE "M 11-111.it r, win, Itt 1111*11:1 t 111-11:1 lit: Him 1, T HIM Mi'll, 1 01 IN 11*01 71-11 7 ON tl Hilt, 1. iJE Al.- ZA ln'l,mf M-11 MW we AM "H H _f f+ -- *tttl"H+ff-ftF wm: X'IM M + Vt Rtt TIM: J- - T_ 7 M NO* at. t#1:14 -44 4SI TTE Wi T Itil @__J_ MU ItH ft M. 7 fl - Al" 7 I . RufmIRIT--t ttd 11-411111 Hi Ht lml 11 N' R - 11 :Tff-FTTl 4 t --l Ittl I t J: 7 ""'TTfl- I'l-mi :H Im V11M. 1--fi MIR 1 14111- .104+1111 M z T W +ff+FH TIE T 1 t T- MIt'111-0 1I Mll 4WOM 11fliffil HVIN fl 1:1 - w X T -vim R-M M T-1 g -ly -1 :@r R-1 M 1@ 7 -pr Hit �ff M T_ ALL Rot Th L Mas 4 f 1 -1 5fl ITI I :.Ril - Off ff ffwml a WE- I -tt"Im .7 .112 ------- =11- -, - 1 . 7 W Mill _lWfil It mill II Tl' fir N -HIM .4 T 1: 1 M, *0 fi.. 11HP-41 Till -910 111t: [ :--.MM-ll$ HIT 4 - --- W I, t M 11MMV: RMI. [M I 1-t _1 44 1R. 4111, M X, OR 411 A N 41:1. 1 fftm! -I lf@ RRM I f I Ift 41[ t f RH lIt TRUS V, la- MTMI: IT 11 -:. t- 11 V M -1 -001 WIN Mq:@ M-04 ltmW -11 - 7. 11 WORK @a_ R il A RUM R X MH 7 . . . . . . . . . 7 _rTr Tf, kv fl Ic w T_ URN]. qW, -41 flit "-Rl Hai IV Al - wl@ NMI 14 IM-46- 411. -11 V -144 Iti 7 NO I it 11 If i I Rl TTR MIT -#ITT UR ............ I m I ...........p T S a it 1:1 V 1 .1111 M R J X -: : - -1 7 + - MOR low 0 M Am PROB '91"LITY x "DIVISIONS furf4t I.S.1110 co 468000 EXCEEDENCE FREQUENCY PER HUNDRED YEARS W" ".9 Wa 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 to 5 2 1 05 0 2 0.1. 0.05 0.01 7- Mil-I 1, 111 --VT I 572 571 7 570 569 :17- 1 1 FREQUENCY CURVE *568 FOURTH QUARTER MEAN LEVELS LAKE ERIE tjt a )915 1974 Ul Mol JO 05, 0.1 0 20.51 2 5 10 70 30 40 50 60 10 RO ql) 95 98 1A 9 BY_IX@_ . DATE.2@F/.?@j SUBJECT.. SHEET CHPID. BY_ DATE ........... ------- JOB 1140 ............................ .. ------------ ----------------------------------- .... ..................... -------- -------- -- .................. ......I.. ................................. fav,43v^ P4 104- _GY)4z c f-t cl 4 f- A)oe+@t&wt JUA@-ttw' jr_v-'L@l of 5'72-.0 %v,+L rA. 3.6'[email protected]. Acet 14-ty-,m @Ive-4va+ivo Y)4.lld.S ,aO- YZAV- V-4CVVrCA4CA- '@OVYf@ t va 6@ f;tv dxs,@,, In 6- Le v4A o +4.9 fA@L+ 0LLVVt- 101A/ 'Di5ei> WA-reR wAviE@ ci+iqtzl4c_-r5K,snc_s A)cwAiAst-,)0#4 4uccess CCtvl 6a- sv@jccf-eo( to I Fo ob) L - Le- E v- a- f -to J-e_X46t-00W@A-tAdr T@ls x4o +0 60 (CA4- vlovKltast) , TAvx_-L@' aw@lt_ das.5 ca,,i loe, defs,zeL. CLS Vit'love-CL b@' cin oiolsgirvc@- S@doll_c_ OW4@ Awf_ oleel-ie't (11) Pl-iz_ CiOCIC I - Mee- klavC, GL)O)Ovoac@.@ otvl@4. 3ve^4tv* f@3aki ao iLc rt@llto@-:L oo@-"70LI +0 slw,e- (a OL2..zts +4wo"54 a po h @ tlL@ CLIJ. ss MZ49t ;I VCIVI_ CtFP&-oQe_L ao 4eyus +0 oll r7ormat 3 4-A vo 3 (3) fip;c@ Cluss Mtaii wajvt@ a)fv@oac@ q@@ 6- 5 vectfito,- thqn 4 ta, t@L !x 0 @ a- rio v""101 I to j @ ole-e_ ('2 Ljo r445 th,.v)4 3470d.91 0&9 Ho). TIA- 519M@lCailti- wir ff-V IA/aV4e_ 61 @VL Cli dtt-to 't .1 Itt, sl'JFv*j @'l e- ki K I t FvA_rowt f,f)-ed- on I-pl, t@-r_ Cl@_Zllf LoLees -kepo'ti @cd&J To., " ,Q q 74, . i R@ " -Is tLc_ +"-I cA.," f d-up Wait I.- LA/ ci V4@ 17 @ +s eA Wovt@ tqs+ P)a faV 1_@ v.CA@ a m C, 1 Q @ 5 1OS qS @)S J;pl3V) 9@t@ ":a pr4ael$ fL wa.V4@ per 0 C-) WA v4- Po- v I o 4- 1 ASSOC4abd & th e %f6k W4 v#- Atti Ott> SC ve w., Ttcl-s.c.4_1 Mo low 30 35 G4 75 37 St Ba,naba@- 4 N f 31 -N 41 4;0 19 -.623 15 lip 6,?4 W Ife, Ombard e0 IW- Cem ZI, 'It t SI, f r - M rre. ou-: Table 1 TABLE OF EXTREMES ESTIMATES GRID LOCATION 5,20 LAT;42.41 LON=79.75 EAST OF NORTH SHORELINE GRID POINT 20 EAST PA WINTBR AN^LG CLASSES 1 2 3 ALL 5 4.6( 0.7) 8.5( 0.4) 12.5t 0.3) 12.3( 0.8) 10 6.6( 1.0) 9,,5( 0.6) 13.1t 0.4) 13.2( 1.07 20 8.2( 1.2) 10.5( 0.77 13.8t 0.5) 141.1f 1.27 50 10.8( 115) 11.8( 0.9) 14.8t 0.6) 15.3( 1.5) too 12.5( 1.7) 12.8( 1.07 15.7( 0.7) 16v3( 1.87 SPRING ANGLE CLASSES 1 2 3 ALL 5 3.6( 0.5) 2,3( 0.6) 7.2( 0.5) 7.6( 0.61 10 3.9( 0.7) 3.9( 0,-8) B.5( 0.7) 8.9( 0.97 20 4.6( 0.8) 5.2( 1.0) 9.8( 0.9) 10,t2( 1.11 50 6.2( 1.0) 7.5( 1.3) 11.5( 1.1) 11.9( 1.37 100 7.5( 1-2) 8'019( 1-5) 12.8( 1.2) 13w2( 1.57 SUMMER ANGLE CLASSES 1 2 3 ALL 5 3.6( 1.0) 4.9( 0.5) 6.6( 0.4) 6,5( 1.07 10 3.9( 1.3) 5,2( 0.6) 6.9( 0.5) 7vO( 1.37 20 4.6( 1.6) 5.9( 0.8) 7.2t 0.6) 7v4( 1.77 50 5.9( 2.0) 6.6( 1-0) 7.9t 0.8) BVI( 2.17 100 6.9( 2.3) 6-9( 1-1) 8.2( 0.9) 8-.6( 2.41 FALL ANGLE CLASSES 1 2 3 ALL 5 6.9( 0.2) 8.5( 0.5) 11.8( 0.2) 12.1( 0.57 111 7.5( 0.3) 9,8( 0.6) 12.5( o.,3) 12t7( 0.67 20 8.2( 0.3) 10.8( 0.8) 13.1( 0.4) 13.4( 0.8) 50 8.9( 0.4)' 12'1( 0-9) 13.8t 0.5) 14.2( 1.07 too 9.2( 0.5) 13."'4( 1.1) 14.4f 0.6) 14.9( 1.17 Table GRID LOCATION 5,20 LATm42.41 LON=79.75 EAST OF NORTH GRID POINT NUMBER 20 EAST PA SIGNIFICANT PERIOD BY ANGLE CLASS AND WAVE HEIGHT WAVE, HEIGHT (FT) ANGLE CLASS 2 3 1 2.3 2.2 2.6 2 3.6 3.5 3.9 3 4.5 4.4 4.9 4 5.2 5.1 5.7 5 5.8 5.7 6.3 6 6.1 6.0 6.7 7 6,4 6.3 7.1 8 6.7 6.6 7.6 9 7.0 6.9 8.0 10 7.4 7.3 8.4 11 7.7 7.6 8.8 12 8.0 7.9 9.2 5.3 8.2 13 9.7 14 8.6 8.5 10.1 15 8.9 8.8 10.5 16 9..2 911 10.9 17 9.5 9.4 ii-3 18 9.8 9.7 11.8 19 10.1 10.0 12.2 20 10.4 10.3 12.6 21 10.8 10,7 13.0 22 11.1 11.0 13.4 23 11,4 11.3 13.9 24 11 7 11.6 14.3 25 1200 11.9 14.7 -7- a Y' D A T E. SUBJECT NP)!#.Vt A V!!@ 4@@. SHEET N 0. (?F CHKO. BY.....- DATE ------------ kl e- - - JOB NO_ .......... .................. -co. f ----- -- --- ----- ---------- ---- --- --- --- ----- -- A-) (.4.) ............................... - - ---------I................................. Tkt- prorol&J 6v-eAkw,-ttrs To, tk,- A/ev'f@oCi3t accless dtv*ea- weve- apla)yZC'elt CL+O@ .51K@14- (CCAJO&I )n t@is CLSI)VI CV44JU4bok7, rht_ s+trvc,+VV4- jejou (ots) of t" foe- @vi- fkg- ty;otcv,l rec4/v" was sk-ticl'-s-S v I C1.4-CIL c C-plo I a " 1 1, W A++*.).. -1) 61 rv,-. ie, c. t, ct L-j m V/4@1 " 7 e-w- - P-(47" 5 Y) vet " 10%- F1 S @ co*" @" 1 $ S J40 nA-th-p- dtsalolll j@brvc-+av-x-- dtcff@ %A/45 c@Jet-m)ntPC A@ f@e- dApf@ comfov@l .;,t VL - , @ + L , " d +-I,, p vopas'j blee'u"14f4v 15 rosl4li-ItU. GAS"t oyl f@le_ )c4yck4+ lcd SAC-tlVl? PV0Vll&d 8. I-Q D (66 & .5 0 S C. 9 G,@) -44f W.-LWP) a's S&L4 lt@ -Th@L dep-tli .1 Fl, " C't w CA tlu@ llot@ P/V'5 Af- dAsilvi WfAtw I-ev'd OWL) onlklws Ap- lovv woft,,- otettom (LWV) tievotvi 't7v-tl5 -Kz CLS)IIn otfv% 4@ WAV ok t fllit- .5, @@- t., c, 4 v --e- f -& A- . T4 o-- itt-SI) PI? /ves oud- t 1 1.5 e vet (loTt o vi, @t i,@ q5 -@o 1/0 A'V-5 7 + D WL k/ vv = "5-& eo ots Vi. j/.5fter, J Ul e VA I UJ) In OF-F-P k/14-rF;e pF-Sjr_,A.1 W14VC.S (P.) Y4 at e YIZC UV'Vlje V7 CjZ-deLp wafti, wL-4ve- wi 11 12t vs-4-,L a.& )U- S i I V7 c-c-101744 I fl 0 ri f%o V- c vot I V 4 fl Ki 1 4'"1 c @et 4r -P-jJ_V-Tl&Al 0 -X- )OW45pos-ei- L"raLLA-0-+WS. 10 - y-e v v @-tz L; Y 1--e " c'-- via tev W gt v lro '" T4 at Wol WIL P-t%el od4 @@'p k*Vl T40t L L C:L W Wt V*4e JjS2@01 fo eVjvcl@'t 51-fi-v'-+Lpv-eSl'P 7:,@L -3 vilso stas vl@', dv. rl" fvt a C Cj j.-5 -t4 wkl"L 144- 44@# m/cifte wetve. .14_QW4L JAX.S WL-e-@ t4t- \A/t4,VE REFJMCTMA.@ aA)1qL'ySr-S R4,64AP" coe-41cfcielfs K14e'Ve- @c 4t C LO !At (I( r) VS -A lo I A 71W. Le cl-v r I'm W/M A 7j W" 14A 0-tf 0 "V.409" Liolps4elcL10-3 W.A2j ?r 7 14 'A LA 1711M WAO.Aj f T (Q4) 10 (0_7/ 1H of?? 0 r -FrVv2.4j'7A lAtl "ISTr LAO -rVq I - -11 ^ -A en -I-p-,Ad0-dd7o Cg41511 Weovrv-,.@oAd 4-.-3-rmp(4l -04 rL4':, -i-a-4t2m -4-aljAoljb@s, o4w vlm 11 -a .4 0-1@ S'-oS 'Q@V -Arl@,,Vj I V?) "r"71@dbt 1-4-17,4@ IA15Tp -.I,,tU Y4 4 fAo tAA.A '4' 04 T X-A)-7UmL4An5 -lip 51 Y"'4 ey fO 5 'a A A el:) -apl+ Sl 51 r4 -;-Ariem --r4%o"rip j 0 aP,41VA 551 -Y@ 9r) -iq cut I -.A 74Y -Y4M0lW0'.) 04 -FIF5(l -YAD-1%4 '7AAC'j) T?-morm 11-A 04 fr4of J-3tIMA A(@ A f4L.Olp r tf --x,r"zddtf tAl 5-v%-4n- ............. .. .............. I --------------- -.- ---- - ----------------------------- .......... ON eor min ZP-) - - ---------- - JO ------ 5- f@t L:3 3 H S ....... 3J-IYC3 A 9 3.LIWC3 g t"INJ N-1 -7- 0.50 800- 0.60 600 - - - - - - - 0.65 41 jee// / 00 60C - 0 0.7 100 50 - 0.15 a. 2CP (deg) O-8D 150 100 50 Kit e 0 Ilk op 300- _@0-85 de / / 0.89 2CP /0.900;92 100 0.97 0 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05 0.1 d/ TS, Wave refraction for S* 4. d = nearshore water deptb of interest 9 = acceleration.of gravity T = Wave Period = dominant deep water wave direction angle = nearshore wave direction angle KR = Wave Refraction Coefficient Figure7 Design. Curves for Determinationbf Refraction -Gener ted Waves -Coefficients for Wind a i, 'n M IMP vem :Vn- Vm IMPOW Aft 4w Ow. ('00 ml 7, ca -rC4 L It, 3- suvo@j V" dA t.- Of V-CSIIIVI Ott-)O KkAft@- WIDVZS 0@ s 0 n V.0, He t C4 W4 (T4 m m 3.7 W1.1 f 4 Ir S 71o, S' 7. Pc 9.57 L 5 7,5",S- +Ir I Fcc4) \A/ vi ft E L 5- -7 4 - 0+ 5-- 4 Fe e-t) c trT Tot q m I V% C, ju il 0@ DEA.V* Wa ft V- kv, ck TS TS P Wave- l4riOif 14.) (FtAJ (ftjL+/Scf&) (s e" 0 1 0,009 0. IN w M z 0 : Z 1.5, 0. oo q 0 30 0, IN 13.1 30' 9. cl. -7 O.oo,3 0- V-3 0 BY'..977&@ DATE-s@/U-, SHEET NO. -4 ----- OF CHKO. By DATE ........... JOB NO..... ........ JA .......... ------- ---------------- -- ...................... -------------- -------- -------- ... ... ............... .. .............................. 1 17- Will it- vs4c) +0 4--valvaie.- T" pi,-t %a-,, fid 14 at@61-L S@ 14011CCJeS A 7, 54aDt i P) c kof a vp- r- 6-L ey-cfed +C, occ,,,r dv..,,) f@-c 4@ 11 seasoe- Wki I-e- C., 9. ?40c+ 101C I o&,,n+,wcgv-(.- Cah 64-- fo occ-vk,- +-4-CWIA+cw 5tv4sov?. An CEPIqlYCIS 7-a 6 Le & +* d-a fev- vr@ , -e- tiv- V14 " 7,0- a f Zko +143 6 Ve, V, WL c L?req@jpkoj Ma@ S@Ay-+ +0 or@4L;v @0101 f@r_ ma'Alv"tow IvIcjjcr%+ waive-.,. 4 45170 @QI)5 wdiijm vV 15 t4a#n t@t rcin@@ AS dtfevmjkv,*d- @@ rl)LIV45 7-2 r,," a( 7-\3 f S on 0 v -t- R, 0 f @e C, fi v "I V& %ov a V will 6z- w-isid-t.-,ci f& @,P, et @vtctlcj-) )AICIVC-. 17\1" EVALLm-rioAj Waft%,- LL/.e-l a-Ict @k'A k./OVZ- V)el Wu L'o, @ja L lei VI i C-4L 4,--f o i@i AL i i i 1), a 4)- 60, C--@Lo, pott 5 1 @, e-A C, fl4a -S I- i j - &e, eT-,JJ Ord ev- 4 to eV4%ILI/"+4r AL- owl f@t-. fo@a I&C-L (4 t@e-- praec"-XI @Yjotc-461 sedj ovis vakztI cL %&Ic-tve- ki+s Vu-- 574Y-L,,c-4vv-v- /Owc@-- wdfe@v, lev-40 C- I oto, Wa v L- co U,/ets 41,1 C--, T@ -te v I&I et 144-4- 1tvi-If o@ 57o.:s- LoI@e- Eva- WQ-s CO- Lneel wlt@ y ltvc I of S7 TIU- It>-Y'tC4L.- @Lt)o vp woos' i@, t@ls- Tke- V@jjjz.,-d V,45L,@/@Inj t 7,17 r, C, I JA-,F 'A/ .-@! VZ- qlv-e- it 5,." 1-tol -P To, Wes 3 @4 k,,, m5 4 6-, 7hz- Min ikin M.Cthol S4.Jsosi 7, 3q @OF tiu-sh"4- P,.i 4.*% 6400^11 WAS V@ 4A. I Mc, u tA WA vtt@ @,--643 744, jh&c-L Tki- likw%la ly sj.$ 1"JWC@14 f es t414 f N-4-. -to bLCL @C-11 Ac- "of 6 s+.-W& low 070 Im iom-, *m- so Oft Aft ow n CD Tc-t 6 I't a c dt #o%+, we, t/f, H4 1@ I-$ 0 p k, 01, s A o 45 WO L 0 RAJ e IL +> 13, 1 0.94 11.0 11's, 9.,7 qS11.7 0.0,23 1.05- 0.01 0.01 11105, 0.84 Jo's' Jo's 6, 4&2. 1 0.0,23 1.00 olol 0.-7/ - c 0-?3 10.9 q, o @17 O.O-Z,3 o.,?3 o-ol 0,71 7.7 FD BVCCALIP15 WOIVC CooAflon TS, WCIJ-1- Ty @C- AA 1. ;L //0 7 o.oo3(, 1.16 .7 O.oO4a 1, 5'-z 17,3 1,5'.;?- 11. 5 14.1 7.-7 32 Z O,Dojq ).IS- 12..7 0. oo4a 1 11,9 16'. -p- 9 13 L 0 1 0 0 BY.C7& DATE SHEET NO-77.... OF__ ------------ SUBJECT CHKD. By- -Ekpl 4-- 1 DATE ...... JOB NO ..... .. ............... ------ ........................ -------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------- ------------------------------- ---- -- - ------------------- k/4tv-LsW&v1j shit &6@@ uVilt5s jtwtvc- )o @ 104- @01-1 ftx IQ V&IC-4 I S49 pl4v%@ (Pi*A4,s 0-as-h) we -dr) @.t- sj@@U-e L1+14 cllldlilal :Ama ly T- el r 144 WAVtv-, (xi, 16wtv- Wafer leve-1 c6njif-lu-is 11vj-'1fV1ecA5 0,1 t114 +ojo "cir, @,w t@tsz pla,,ls also, 71a- c41cw1c,1j CAjn 5 f. W f4j2- sta L I 40L f4%4 c@ Litd. +0 f4o C- 1@ r- 5 T' 14 1E 16@ 14T F L/ A L- U 4T/ v@ s+@,,A,, ly if j+do-es #16f cavse. defm cl@ $#I) I bq 5 , o , 7 tkt e i ) Lf tki- c , 1 + r, f- +L r v c, 4 v v. P- YtjC4fJ4J#- t'o WAWt@ V%hnV)0 WLir,@ e)),j w4vA- 54v,vc,4Lopv,-k, slajap-) povos, @f ) a4-yot vo 6oo V4, V- le, 14 )&, cpvt lUo A otu P-P-4r- e "i Le L,117q C-J--f pts, 1) 1 ct;-,-%,r i A'"d 4-t It 5 4 t I fs I & &I I P1 @kf- lex- 4 jkL 54-@k ,7V W/ N 0cc-L.'s- -4ve- fo V",Avr- avtw +0P)o #&*I A./Li, Wldl$ -P-r4-4tLjtrk4tj -@y aKd VIR"r-.O- @Vovv% c%io..+ s--s- aloov-c- 1011W WAfewc/4W11", AV, e-%41 j,"^1 loan 454 +119- L1L10(V4r_ +ed4ns t-" 1 4 a@ 1@0-sl Wc's cid4a/ y z tl v io? c) fkt rb"4-4 Te t, to* 1 c.4A R.*_ 'Wov-+ IrLo - pi 6" eve s 4 V" cd T4s4s o@ L44#vA4oW' -e"Laaft's 441 jw"4@ 1cfkv TL rk S W I FK I I +. 3 4464'e,91yus cov)) I@L 1-ii ttt Ize'- a J;@W 41%4 b^4 AIV7.1 Jq@ae Walvis r-o%di4d 4L- fowl Tf. WOPWIJ Au4, L,@ c.&oa1vue. +D k' ;0 V- q .0"avo-sk )o @A@ WLPO lot 7 w`k 1A SJ .4 eA oftft W S 9 Aff^ 'A I a I ByJeR&.... DATE_@@/ C.GeSS A-eCL- ---------- ....... CHKD. BY._ DATE-,.... SUBJECT.V SHEET NO ........... OF .......... J013 NO ............................... ............... .................. ............... .............................. ........ --------------------- .............. ............................ 6 7fif3l L ITY NIA LYS 15 v 12 .7 ELS74 .5 z a ft/sz W=6;-.4 WW I dr Kld 6 k" ket)L+ o; 61oc.L.= .2,o cop"10UP14-it pf -k@e, wqve- @owce, = (474-;'-) (2..0 -@+) t 2, JL 2- pt TO ict I @Dwcz-- j 4 V. q j- z 4, jr o 73 c o 4@1 C_ vo-A-2 -ro te., bloc@L 1@s of -@e 3.5Tv -is 700o F Aj '70co TA 'L C-0 C- kf I C I 'd 0 d) Vr7 '@I> W C-0 n C. 601" 44LL 0. 7 r1U L 0,91 CL 100 1 11).4 Will pvoloftL)@, kmpc@L A&. _Fv 0.1-k 04 v A, les f is. 4 7 13 Y DATE.-@/K3. SUBJECT.,o br e, SHEET NO ........... OF_ CHKD. BY ... ..... DATE ............ . JOB NO.- ........................... ................................. --------------- ... -- ------- ............................... ...... .. .. ................ ............. --------- AiUALY515 P@ AA-1 V., Oyt@\\ PL AA) 3 TOP F-LS7qo co For PLavis lowtv- v-1tv4t1#oois P%-Dpoas4-c(1 st@,V-Avvts will vitict @ov-cos 'Ol t4,p- to)o @jcw-je- 'r., V"e- 4 15 o S-0- e &I f C, t, F rw ',I- WcAlrit Lo@ Lk W-C 140 Ivi-ve I" @ov IV W4.v- weft I, /* @OV-r-e- P-4r) +-LI@L- @ovcz, Cob" will fc, r :1010CAL 5@ov(A- ot)S& anc@Lpv@cd @Ljv- DATE4 .54 ..... SHEET No ........... OF -- -------- HKD. BY .......... DATE --------_---- ---- Cc-v--l JOB No. ........................... --------------------------------- ---------------- ........................................... ............................... .......... --------------------------- 4N A L_ -rt@_-57S v\J,,2,,'ViE7 _77ZAN@s oz ZC> C) o c c z C>(=>. -= @. C@ i F= A5.4- 78 S. -151. C@v e-@,-Pv r- IZZ F_ T_?, ro @-T _4 BY@Q\&CA..- - DATE- SU ECT BJ SHEET NO ----------- OF .......... -T4748 AA ........ ------------ CHKD. BY-.,... .... DATE... --------- 6nl-f ...... JOB NO .............. ----------- -------------- ----------------- ------- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- S7 9, S- S 7s, T -7 C:' A7 :5 7 ISE;, SITE PN. IRS. FOR N IA N?,@ IA K PROFOS@-'D b RE k < V 4 N7 Uk i%T RORNIA ENS7 ACc S -S WE( F-Fk@a C-lr@ u m T.%l p F- tA v.-ASl VV A.M I A, SITE PLNM r- ki- F- IS-3-rio, UF C-1 VkOOKS PL NN ?.T le4- F co 5 c E\.-ZV k-7 ko tA r- ELE V. .5 e, ITCP EVEV. .57E. ze-__ PRUPOSM LE@V- ISA-6 LNKE EPLIE "WMA EKIST Kc-r-EsS AP,,EA@ PL A Ai i TYPICA& 'r-ploss STI CT V;YR of 7 SHEET' Z L kKE ER\t SITE 7Z LC)CNV kom M PROP05ED BR@ENK-WATER bc Ln 0 M LNKG ZRkE elf b- I -5 IT F- P L Nl\l sIr-ki-F-. t@'! tool, P L 5VAVEN OF Z pl- kN 2.7 %4- % 'co Al 1 IZV441 on's I note C.,"+,.,/ us c I o E76.-S IT Y-J@ r__ v K7 k 0 V-k 0 IF %Flr-- M I IN IZ7 'MP F-@EV, 576s' PROPOSIE-D ts PE: KK W v ld Vf -1 .5'1 1 V'N LNKE ME -7, -tt, kw k7 %OR7\.k Ek'5T KC.CESS NRX-A@ S RAF- coot-4-T\( P;-r voksx \.VNtAvk J-30 9 14a/1 Tf FKA& CROSS @5z C'T \CAA lie REL ET Z 0 Z- y's ul 10 LOCKV kom m PROPOSED M@klcwp@-,rEp, tx LU 0 Ile PROPOSED AT T"j, PE,.k SITE PL NN. W-F @-PL 0 aK.5 49 fo All UEC 5 ra kL.F- 1. 'a- J!0 -Top EU@V. 5"14-S N - M 01 :77 10D Sd W7 1-1\ 3R7\ F- NIST kc-r-F- s sNPIS A@ I L A),3 T\(Pir-ft& moss sv- c-*T \rA LA *'KEET OF 2- C-11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Post Office Box 1467 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 March 14, 1983 (717)783-9500 In reply refer to RM-WR CZl:C3FC Richard Malfinger, Project Engineer Pennsylvania Fish Commission Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16923 Dear Mr. Malfinger: As you requested in your phone call of March 9, 1 am enclosing two reports which may assist you in completing the North Fast Access Area Project. The first report, "A Geotechnical Investigation of the Coastal Bluffs of Erie County, Pennsylvania", is contained in two volumes and is being sent under two separate covers. This report is an update of Paul Knuth's original "Shoreline Erosion and Flooding - Erie County" study which was used to designate bluff setback distance according to recession rates in each township. Owing to the more recent data contained in the study update, our limited supply of the original Erie County "Coa 'stal Flooding" report, and the fact that the updated study examines smaller study areas (70 sites in all), I think it will be much more useful to you. A copy of the Corps' "Low Cost Shore Proteqtion-Guide for Engineers and Contractors" is also being sent to you. This reportcontains valuable inf or- mation on the effectiveness of various shore protection structures along bluff- type shorelines. Finally, you should also be aware that our office is developin g a predictive model for the placement of shoreline stabilization structures, i.e., groins and jetties. Thiscomputer model will graphically display the changes a -shoreline will go through'over zat on- time f ollowing- the placemehi -of- a siabili i J a"not - u y m ei":- 11 .-d' , , , @il__ --'structure-. bince-1 __pe ion sena -yquT-1ppp; f oe a@@ materials; h6wever, we may vis -to run- a test o your -preliminary -d8ilgj- TV- -1 harbor /shoreline protection structure using this model when your study nears completion. Please let me know when- your design plans will be finalized so we may. set up a test run. I look forward to working with you on the project in the future. Sincerely, DEIRDRE C. TA 0 Project Support Specialist Division of Coastal Zone Management Enclosure PM% C-12 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 2300 Washtenaw Ave. Ann Arbor, F.I.. 48104 March 3, 1983 Mr. Richard Mulfinger Pennsylvania Fish Commission Robinson Lane Bellefunte, PA. 16823 Dear Mr. Mulfinger: In response to your request for wave information in Lake Erie, 71 am enclos- ing a copy of two tables of wave height and wave period distribution in Lake Erie. I hope these will be useful to you. Please let me know if you need-fur- ther information. Sincerely, 1 0/1 aul C. Encl.. C-12 .4v LFWE ER'IE URVE STRT I ST I C'Ss'* SIGNIFICFRiT W.H-VE HE16HT R"6E PERCEhTFt6E OF OCCURRENCE (METER) Cl. 0 - - .7 1:6 24. 1.0 1.3 1 Q. 1.3 1.7 4.71 Z. 2.0 2. . z- 2. 3 2.7 3.0 PEF#X. ENERGY Wn@VE PERIOD RW16E PERCENTWzE OF OCCURRViCE (3-ECOND) 0.0 - 1.0 2.8 1.0 2.0 .6 3.'o 4.0 4.0 5.0 20.5 5. C, - 6.0 3.3 6.0 - 7.0 .5 7.0 - 8.0 1 Z4. 0 9.0 o @P-BRSED ON 5977 HOURS O-r..RECORDIti& DURIN& FtPRIL-DECF-MBERP 2981 FROM NOR"DBO BUOY =45005 LOCRTED F+T 41.7N!, 82.5W. A -ell ? C13 CONCLUSIONS The committee made the following conclusions on the launch remps: 1. There is only one (1) first class launch ramp along the Pennsylvania section of Lake Erie - Walnut Creek. 2. There are two ramps that need immediate work to accomodate the additional growth and safety - East Avenue Ramp Marina Ramp 3. Thought should be given to boat refuge/launch ramps on both the east and west sides of Erie County. 4. Improvement plans should be developed and implemented for - Niagara Ramp Cascade Ramp Chestnut Street Ramp 5. Feasibility studies should be made for the Lagoons Ramp. 6. On all future improvements for launch ramps, piers or docks should be incorporated as part of the design - one common dock for every 2 ramp lanes. Something similar to that being used at the public ramps in Manistee and Luddington, Michigan. The Launch Ramp Facility Study Committee submits the "Ramp Study Report" of the twelve public ramps on Lake Erie for your considera- tion. These individual ramp studies are intended to acquaint you with the general conditions as they now exist. As each of these studies was made, we attempted to talk to boaters that were using that ramp. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any other questions. Cordially, Robert R. Sewell Ramp Chairman Erie Downriggers Banks Whitman John Grode Chet Aleks Roy Tenny Ted Hallgren George Simon 3 6668 1 102 1859