Marine industrial development options for Glen Cove a preliminary assessment

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

HD
2329
.M37
1985
c.2

PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND

AND

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

MARINE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

FOR
GLEN COVE

A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

JUNE 1985

THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED THROUGH
A GRANT FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

WITH FUNDS OBTAINED FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION, AND APPROPRIATED FOR SECTION 306 OF THE
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972.

TAMS
TIPPETTS-ABBETT-MCCARTHY-STRATTON-ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS

PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND

AND

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

MARINE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

FOR
GLEN COVE Property
ry

A PRE LIMINARY ASSESSMENT

JUNE 1985 U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED THROUGH
A GRANT FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

WITH FUNDS OBTAINED FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION, AND APPROPRIATED FOR SECTION 306 OF THE
?f- RCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972.'
f3@ WA

/STE
AL rVA MS
TIPPETrS-ABBETT-McCARTHY-STRATTON 9 ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS

(-6

ABSTRACT

1: Author:

Michael G. Horton, TAMS Engineers, Seattle, Washington.

2: Subject:

Waterfront Industrial Land Use Assessment - Glen Cove, Port Townsend

3: Published: June 15, 1985
4: Sponsors:

Washington State Department of Ecology and the Port of Port Townsend

5: Source of Copies:

Port of Port Townsend,
2529 Washington Street,
Port Townsend, WA 98368

6: WDOE Project No. G 085016 B
7: Series No. N/A
8: Number of Pages 39
9: ABSTRACT

The Glen Cove Site, located just outside the southern boundary of the
city of Port Townsend is a 300 acre area which has been designated
for industrial use in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Master
Plan. The natural slopes over the entire area are relatively steep,
and access to the water is gained through a paved road known as Ferry
Street.

The study is a preliminary investigation of waterfront related
industrial options for the site. Demand is briefly discussed in
order to derive functional requirements for each alternative and
construction costs are presented. Potential environmental concerns
form a major part of the analysis.

The major conclusion of the study is that the topography of the
uplands and the shallow water depth in Glen Cove are significant
constraints to the development of industries such as a commercial
shipyard, pleasure craft repair yard or marine cargo handling
terminal. The only area readily available for medium or large scale
waterfront industrial use is a freshwater lagoon owned by the Port
Townsend Paper Company which was seen to support various species of
aquatic birds, wildfowl and small mammals.

The location of a marina at the site is a long term option when the
capability to extend the present Port Townsend Boat Haven has been
exhausted. Dredge and fill requirements in the intertidal zone would
be significant environmental concerns.

Developments that appear to be more compatible with the site are a
fish processing plant or non water related industries based on 5 acre
parcels. The site would also be a good location for a boat launch
ramp.

CONTENTS

PAGE No.
1. STUDY OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
NAVIGATION . . . . . . . . 2
CURRENTS AND LITTORAL DRIFT 2
WAVES ..................... 2
TIDES . . . . .......... 3
WATER ACTIVITIES GENERAL 3
LAND USE AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . 4
UPLANDS GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . 4
TOPOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ACCESS . . . . .................................... 5
UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . 6
BEACH AND INTERTIDAL ZONE . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
LAGOONS................................................: 7
VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 8
3.PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN . 9
4. PERMITTING PROCESS . . 9
5. POTENTIAL USES OF GLEN C0VE: 12
BOAT REPAIR . . . 12
COMMERCIAL SHIP REPAIR YARD: 12
PLEASURE AND SMALL COMMERCIAL BOAT REPAIR . . . . . 15
PLEASURE BOAT MOORAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
DRY STORAGE MARINA . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FISHERIES ................................... 24
FISH PROCESSING PLANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
AQUACULTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
MARINE TERMINAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
FERRY TERMINAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
GENERAL CARGO TERMINAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
OIL RELATED INDUSTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
OIL RIG PLATFORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
NORTH SLOPE MODULES . . . . . . ............. 31
BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY . . . . . . ............. . . . . 32
SUMMARY . . . . . ...................................... 35

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE Following Page No.

1.1 Site Plan . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . .1

2.1 Wave Heights . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.2 Property ownership . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 Existing Land and Water use . . . .4
2.4 Geotechnical Characteristics. - . .'4

2.5 Site Topography . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.6 Utilities Layout . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.7 Marine Habitats and Uplands . . . . 7
Natural Resources

5.1 Commercial Vessel Repair Yard . . .12

5.2 Pleasure Craft Repair Yard . . . . . 15

5.3 Marina - Conceptual Plan . . . . . . 19

5.4 Dry Storage Yard . . . . . . . . . 22

5.5 Fish Processing Facility . . . . . . 24

5.6 Barge Terminal . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.7 Small Boat Launch Ramp . . . . . a .33

1: STUDY OBJECTIVES

The following analysis addresses a number of alternative
development scenarios for the Glen Cove site. The area shown in
Fig. 1.1 has been identified in the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Master Plan as a major industrial area containing
approximately 300 acres of developable land and a mile of
waterfront. Development options reflect the classification of
the area and are generally limited to industries requiring
waterfront access or adjacency. The purpose of the study is to
provide a review of the suitability of the site for a number of
classes of waterfront related industrial developments. In
reviewing alternatives, a brief assessment of overall planning
requirements is presented but the reader is cautioned that
demand, economic feasibility and conflict or compatibility with
existing facilities are not addressed in detail.

It is also recognized that although the list of opportunities
studied in this report is limited to waterfront related
industries, the site has a number of advantages for a variety of
potential businesses which do not require dire'et access to the

water.

CITY BOUNDARY

<
211 s
off
if

44'(s MILL ROAD

X
0 1-
z cr I 4f 0
Lu 0 A 4f
PORT
TOWNSEND
0 PAPER
COMPANY
cr lu If
0 j# - KRAFT MILL
(L 00 w
0 11 GLEN It 6
C14 1-1-1 -T -T-T 40-
ir N oi-
Lu
z
OAD I CARROLL AVE.
uj

a@ So. 7 TH ST

STEVENS I
AVE. So. 5 TH ST.

C)
CL It

ZOO 3:

G L E N

FERRY ST. C 0 V E

ki
YVI'EW ST
1@13A

"16
GLENCOVE.1- STUDY AREA\BOUNDARY
INDUSTRIAL
PARK

SETON ROAD

r------------
OLD FORT TOWNSEND STATE PARK
OLD FT TOWNSEND ROAD I

I G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S
0 500 1000
ArrRox. SCALF (rFFT) FIG. 1.1 SITE PLAN

2: SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.1: NAVIGATION

The sea bed in front of Glen Cove shelves at an initial slope of
2 percent to 1.3 percent to the 1 fathom line and then steepens
to about 4 percent to a mid channel depth of 60 to 85 ft. The
40 ft contourt which is considered to be adequate for cargo
vessel navigation is located some 1,000 to 1,200 ft from the
beach line.

The approaches to the area are therefore adequate for most
modern cargo or commercial vessels as evidenced by the use of
the Port Townsend Paper Company pier by ships in the 20,000 to
30,000 deadweight tonnage (dwt) range.

2.2: CURRENTS AND LITTORAL DRIFT

The Coastal Zone Atlas published by the Washington State Dept of
Ecology indicates a north-south littoral shoreline movement from
the Paper Company Plant to approximately the mid point of the
beach and a south-north movement from Kala Point northwards.

The drift trend has created the fine sand crescent accretion
beach shown in Fig. 2.1, which extends from the Paper Plant to
the commencement of the Bluff where coarser gravels are found.

Currents in the Cove are mild, circulatory and tidal, being
dominated by the Oak Bay Cut (Portage Canal) - Port Townsend
confluence which generates mid channel currents up to 3.0 knots
at maximum ebb and flow.

2.3: WAVES

As seen in Fig. 2.1, the wave climate at Glen Cove is mild as

the north or south storm directions have limited fetch distances

at the site. The Coastal zone Atlas indicates 6 inch to 2.0 ft
waves from the southeast 5 percent of the time and from the east

-2-

P(W,

Ferri

S,cl

LITTORAL DRIFT (WINTER)

LITTORAL DRIFT (SUMMER)

1%
Wave
sj Fleight 4% 0.5 to 2.0 FEET
S = FINE SAND 13EACH
% 5% St = STABLE SHOR,ELINE

SOURCE: COASTAL ZONE ATLAS OF
OF WASHINGTON

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

FIG. 2.1 WAVE HEIGHTS

4 percent. Similar wave height frequencies of 1 percent are
also shown for north east and southerly directions. The
remainder are waves of less than 6 inches which are considered
to be calms for record purposes.

2.4: TIDES

Neap tidal range is approximately 5 ft with spring tide ranges
increasing to 12 -,13 ft, typical of Upper Puget Sound. Annual
lowest low water is of 4.5 ft below MLLW. Tidal heights are:

Extreme High Water................12.50 ft
Mean Higher High water ... o ....... o.8o4O ft
Mean High ..... 7.70 ft
Mean Tide ft

Mean Lower Low Water...............0*0

Extreme Low Water.................,4.50 ft

2.5: WATER ACTIVITIES - GLEN COVE

The area is used by the Port Townsend Paper Company as an
anchorage for wood chip barges which are buoyed in Glen Cove and
taken to the company dock for discharge, The firm also operates
their own pier for loading exports of paper products and pulp to
ocean going vessels.

Plans by Sea Farms of Norway to establish an Aquaculture project
to the south of the Cove are understood to be progressing to the
operational stage. The project will involve the placing of
salmon rearing pens approximately 1000 feet out from the
shoreline in an area of clean water with moderate but regular

currents,

No buoys for small boat anchorages were observed during visits
to the site.

-3-

2.6: LAND USE AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

Property ownership and land use are shown in Figures 2.2 and
2.3, based upon information presented in the 1982 Glen Cove
Water Supply study prepared by Hosey and Associates. The
largest parcels are owned and currently used by the Port
Townsend Paper Company. The northern parcel, approximately 75
acres, is used for industrial processing and raw material
storage at the Kraft Mill, while part of the' 204 acre southern
1
ot is used for solid waste disposal.

A residential area of some 30 to 35 single family homes is

centered around Carroll Avenue and South 6th Street. A boat
repair operation is located at the shoreward limit of South
6th. No permanent haul out facilities are used by this yard.

The primary access to the beach is through a right of way owned
by Skookum marine, linked to the 30 acre plot shown in Fig. 2.2.

The Glen Cove Industrial Park is located alongside highway SR 20
at Seton Rd. and a number of industries have been established
around Frederick St., connecting with the Park.

The site southern boundary is limited by the old Ft Townsend
State Park and the remainder of the study area is generally
undeveloped.

2.7: UPLANDS GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Geotechnical characteristics of the site are shown in Fig. 2.4.
The lagoon areas are on generally organic silts and reworked
fill material with the uplands portions overlaying clay deposits
identified as "Vashon Advance Outwash

-4-

C
ITY OUNDARY
B

X
It POR TOWNSEND 0
10
PTPC TREATMENT P PER CO.
LAGOON

17-71
I GLEN
X I -T- 40
o
X

SOUTH
LAGOON

CROWN ZELLERBACH

!5
)J' N \0
\FREDEnICK ST. SKOOKUM\
G L E N

C 0 V E
it
1_6

PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CO. t
ST

JANIS BULIS

WOR TH-
PARCELS SMALLER THAN 10 ACRES INGTON
r
OLD FORT TOWNSEND STATE PARK

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

0 r;oo 1000
ArpsoX. SCALE (FEET) FIG. 2.2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
IDURCE: GLEN COVE WATER SUPPLY STUDY

CITY BOUNDARY

0 A, WOOD CHIP

WASTE PROCESSING OPERATING
cj of STO R Ati t
PULP Ml L

GLEN If
4
x 01-
ui I
z I n SOUTH
31 11 LAGOON
uj
CL I

RESIDENTIAL

ZOO-, Of ANCHORAGE
@FIREDERICK ST.
BOAT BUILDING FOR WOOD CHIP

RESIDENTIAL /BARGES

INDUSTRIAL

PARK' kj
LAND FILL&

UNDEVELOPED
PROPOSED

AQUACULTURE

(SALMON

FARMING)

PROJECT

NOT SHADED UNDEVELOPED

STATE PARK

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

0 500 1000
Arpnox. SCALE IFEET) FIG. 2.3 EXISTING LAND USE

00S

af
dvtl

bva ARTIFICIAL FILL

Ob
; . Iaf
via!' -r

SATURATED ORGANIC-BEARING
SAND, SILT, CLAYS

Qva'

Ob BEACH DEPOSITS, SANDS &GRAVELS

VASHON ADVANCE OUTWASH

Ovti

VASHON LODGEMENT FILL Qva@

SOURCE: COASTAL ZONE ATLAS OF WASHINGTON

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

FIG. 2.4 GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS

2.8: TOPOGRAPHY

As can be seen in Fig. 2.5, most of the site is composed of
wooded slopes which average a 10 percent grade or steeper and
the area offers very little flat land for development. The only
level parcel greater than 10 acres is the southerly of the two
lagoons owned by the Port Townsend Paper Company, which would
obviously require filling before conversion to industrial use.
This is especially restrictive for industries such as a ship
yard or marine terminal where flat rectangular or square parcels
which are adjacent to the water are essential to an efficient
and economic operation.

The transition from the uplands to the beach is evenly graded
from the Paper Company Kraft Mill southwards for a distance of
approximately 1,500 ft. At that point the shoreline bluff rises
sharply to a height of 100 ft.

Since the south lagoon is the only area within the study
boundaries that offers the necessary 20 to 25 acre flat open
space adjacent to the waterfront, it is therefore considered to
be the preferred location for any major shoreside industrial
activity.

2.9: ACCESS

The study area has vehicular access from Highway 20. These
roads average 18 ft. width and are paved. However, the access
through the Glen Cove residential area appears to be suitable
only for light traffic. Average slopes on the entry roads are 5
to 10 percent and the most extreme curve has a 120 ft radius.

A non-operating rail line passes through the western edge of the
site and would offer a good rail link if revived in part or

whole.

-5-

CITY BOUNDAny

7-777.7.
1A

40'

SOUTH

LAGOON

G L E N
............
..............
C 0 V E

...........

..........

Ir .........

..........

............ \:
...........
...... V, .......

SLOPES > 10% .......
EJ ..........
SLOPES 10% (APPROX.)

177-1
SLOPES < 10%

OLE) FORT TOWNSEND STATE PARK

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

0 500 1000
APrROX. SCALE (FEETI F I G. 2.5 SITE TOPOGRAPHY

A number of "paper' streets are shown on the Plats for the area,
and a Right of Way extends through an extension of Frederick
Street to the beach at Ferry Street.

2.10: UTILITIES

The main olympic Water Pipeline passes through the site and
serves the paper mill. The recently constructed link from the
10 inch City main links Otto street to the limit of the
residential area with "tees" at Glen Cove Rd., Seton Rd. and
Frederick Street as shown in Fig. 2.6. Plans prepared in 1982
provide for the eventual extension of the water system to the
entire area.

Electricity lines follow Glen Cove Rd to the beach access and
could easily be extended to serve additional development if
required.

There are no sewer lines in the area and the City of Port
Townsend has declared that it will not provide service outside
city boundaries. This decision is, however, the subject for
discussion at an upcoming joint meeting between officials from
Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend and the P.U.D., in
an effort to formulate a regional policy. The steep slopes at
the site are generally unsuitable for drain fieldsand the
random and variable soils are a further disadvantage. Any piped
sewer s stem would require its own local treatment plant or a
y
force main to the City system (assuming the necessary policy
change) and large volume industrial waste water disposal would
require detailed engineering and field studies.

2.11: ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

There appears to be very little documented information on the
environmental inventory of the area. Annual water quality
measurements are taken in the Cove as part of the monitoring
process for the waste water disposal permit held by the Paper
Company but no sampling of marine life, fauna or flora was
available at the time of this study.

-6-

- - - - - - - - - - - / - -TY B -0 U -ND A R-Y
WATER LINE Cl

POWER LINE
..............
4f

40'

LLJ
4f
C, 4f (r

LEN... 0 40

..ROAD
uj
SOUTH
LAGOON

0-1

ol
@FnEDFRICK Sr. z
:m G L E N

C 0 V E
6

SETTON ST

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
OLD FORT TOWNSEND STATE PARK

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

0 500 1000
APPROX. SCALE (FEET) FIG. 2.6 EXISTING UTILITIES

The following comments therefore represent observations taken
during a field visit to the site, discussions with agency
representatives and information taken from the WDEC Coastal Zone

Atlas.

2.11.1: BEACH AND INTERTIDAL ZONE

SHELLFISH

The fine sand beach from the Paper Mill to the southerly bluff,
is reported to support modest clam harvests although no
commercial shellfishing is carried out in the area. Further
south, as shown in Fig. 2.7, geoduck beds are reportedly of
commercial size.

FISH

The area is used from March to June by juvenile migrating salmon
but no critical spawning streams were identified in the study

area.

Pacific herring spawn in a 1 to 2 mile shoreline strip
commencing at the southern half of the study shoreline opposite
the geoduck beds.

CRUSTACEANS

Some Dungeness crab are believed to inhabit the sub tidal zones
in the area although no sampling has confirmed populations or
densities.

2.11.2: LAGOONS

The upper Lagoon is a waste water treatment facility for the
paper mill and therefore supports no wildlife. The southerly
lagoon, which is retained by the beach road, supports various
species of wildfowl and small mammals. No endangered or
critical fish species were identified as inhabiting the pond.

-7-

JUVENILE SALMON MIGRATION

SH E LLFISH/CLAMs

DUNGENESSCRAB

U NO RECOVERABLE SANDS AND GRAVELS
Gl GRAVELS

G
V",

2:2 Ix'

I A
GEODUCK BEDS
W IN S I 'D

Alt

Pacific Herring

SOURCE: COASTAL ZONE ATLAS OF WASHINGTON

G L E N C 0 v E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

FIG 2.7 MARINE HABITATS AND UPLANDS NATURAL RESOURCES

2.11.3: VEGETATION

The uplands area supports a variety of trees and the southern
lagoon is covered with reeds, bullrushes and aquatic plants.
Dune grass is found above the High water mark on the sand beach

areas.

-8-

3: PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN

Although not specifically addressed in the 1981 Port of Port
Townsend Comprehensive Plan, Glen Cove was suggested as a
potential site for a heavy lift and repair facility for boats
over 100 ft long. All other recommendations in the report
emphasized the benefits of centralization of future marine
facility development by expansion at or adjacent to existing
locations.

4: PERMITTING PROCESS

A number of federal, state, county and local permits are
required before any development may take place at the Glen Cove
site. Probably the most significant are the State permits
required under the Washington State Shorelines Management
Act,the Corps of Engineers Section 10 and 404 procedures, and
the Hydraulic Code Rules (WAC 220-110) and permit by the
Washington State Department of Fisheries and Department of Game.

The permitting process applies to any project proposed to impact
wetlands, subtidal and, tidal areas below the Mean High Water
line and all uplands within 200 feet of Mean High Water. This
includes dredging, landfill or over water fill, or any
artificial structure construction, and a large or sensitive
project will also require Environmental Impact Statements
prepared under the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the State Environmental Act
(SEPA).

Greatly simplified, the procedures involve the submittal, to the
US Army Corps of Engineers, applicable state agencies, and the
county of separate permit applications outlining the size,
components, materials quantities and location of the proposed
work. Both the Shorelines Management Act and Corps section
10-404 processes require public notice periods and public
hearings. Public agencies and interested private groups
typically involved might include:

-9-

Federal Agencies

EPA
Corps in house groups (Hydraulics, Coastal engineering,
Regulatory functions).
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
US Coastguard

Washington State Agencies
Dept of Ecology
Dept of Fisheries
Dept of Game
Dept of Transportation
Dept of Natural Resources
- Archaeology and Historic Preservation office
- Conservation Commission

Jefferson County (Shoreline Management Act, Highways, Planning)
City of Port Townsend
Adjacent Land owners.
Special Interest Groups
Local Indian Tribes
Interested private individuals.

Following the review and comment period, one or more public
hearings are held to discuss the application. If Environmental
Impact Statements are required under NEPA and SEPA regulations
they must address agency and citizen concerns, consider
alternative locations for the project and clearly establish the
need for the work, address environmental impacts and propose
mitigation measures to replace loss of intertidal habitat,
wetlands etc,

If all identified local, state, and regional concerns are
addressed to the satisfaction of the agencies of jurisdiction,
the necessary permits will then be issued.

-10-

Evaluation factors used by the agencies in their review include:

Aesthetics

Air Quality
Coastal and Shoreline Processes

Conservation

Economics

Energy demands
Fish and Wildlife values
Flood damage Prevention

Food Production

Historic and cultural Resource values
Impact on infrastructure
Impact on adjacent property owners
Land use appropriateness
Navigation
Need for the Project
Physical environment
Public Safety
Recreational Impacts
Traffic impacts
Waste disposal - solids and liquids
Water Quality

The County, State, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers consider
"Need for Project" to be an extremely important factor when
evaluating applications for projects in areas that are
sensitive biologically or where citizen concerns are
significant. In general, agencies will object to
speculative projects unless there is a strong positive
market or demand analysis to support the application.

5: POTENTIAL USES OF GLEN COVE

5.1: BOAT REPAIR

5.1.1: COMMERCIAL SHIP REPAIR YARD

DEMAND

As a boat repair center, Port Townsend currently offers haul-out
storage and repair facilities to pleasure and commercial craft
up to a total weight of 60 tons. In planning for additional
facilities it is logical to address existing demand that cannot
be accommodated at the existing facilities in the area.

These vessels include Bering Sea crabbers and draggers and the
newer breeds of catcher processor vessel in the slowly and
steadily expanding Northwest and Alaskan bottom fisheries.

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

As distances to the fishing grounds have increased, the trend is
to larger vessels and a typical offshore vessel is now 150 feet
long. In establishing planning criteria for a repair and
service facility for commercial boats, fishing or otherwise, it
is important to realize that 90 percent of all work is carried
out while the vessel is at a wet dock and not on a ramp or
marine hoist. Hence dry storage and shoreside work areas are
less critical to the overall viability of a project than the
need to provide adequate dockside footage and adjacent working
area for on board repairs and maintenance. A commercial repair
yard capable of offering a full and competitive service to the
fleet would require the following elements as illustrated in
Fig. 5.1.

-12-

I- " oov

FUTURE REPAIR BAYS
\T\ SIDE TRANSFE R PIT

REPAIR BAYS

MARINE RAIL
OR SYNCROLIFT

DOCKSIDE
WORKSHOPS/ REPAIR PIER
ADMIN.

N PARKING

G L E N c 0 v E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S
0\, @'

FIG. 5.1 COMMERCIAL VESSEL REPAIR YARD

Sheltered water area of up to 10 acres with 1.0 foot maximum
storm wave height.
Dockside (piers) space for 5 vessels (minimum) - 1,000 to 2,000
feet in length with 18 to 20 feet alongside.
Alongside working area for each vessel - 5,000 square feet.
Ship lift, marine rail, dry dock or graving dock - 1,500 to
2,500 tons.
Cranes at dock (15 to 50 tons) and in repair yard (10 to 20
tons).
Repair yard, flat with rails or transfer pit to haulout area 5

to 10 acres.
Workshops for welding, paint, electrical/electronics, machine
shops - 6,000 square feet total.
Administration building, restrooms etc.
Highway access.
Parking for 25 to 40 employees and visitors.
Electricity,, water, and telephone supply.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

The major environmental constraint to this alternative is the
need to fill in the productive southern lagoon in order to
provide the necessary open space for a repair yard and workshop
area. Other concerns would be for water quality in the area of
the wet docks where repair work is carried out, noise and local
resident concerns over night time work, and the presence of
transient labor or boat crews in the area.

It is likely that an application for permits to develop the site
for a commercial shipyard could meet a number of important
objections from local, state, and federal agencies. Local
citizen opposition could be significant.

-13-

C,@ (:) M IP Y, IF, 7r I C3 DZ Yk IE FC3 Fk r'r

JIEVVIEI:tSC)III.-T c:@C)UWrrN,

JUNE 1985

The preparation of this report was financially aided through a grant (G085016B)
from the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the
United States Department of Commerce, appropriated for Section 306 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972.

SUMMARY OF

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Two tasks were undertaken during the grant period to aid in the management
of the county's shorelines. The completion of the tasks resulted in two

published documents.
The Port Townsend Waterfront Erosion Control and Shore Enhancement study
examines the erosion problems along a portion of Port Townsend's waterfront and
discusses restoration solutions. The Study was done by a consultant, Wolf Bauer,
P. E., for the City of Port Townsend. The study is described under the abstract.
The Marine Industrial Development Options for Glen Cove, A Preliminary
Assessment is an analysis of the Glen Cove waterfront area being developed as a
terminal for marine-related industries. The study was done by consultants for
the Port of Port Townsend, Tipp etts-Abbett-McCarthy-Straton. The Study is

described under the abstract.

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Port Townsend Waterfront Erosion Control and Shore Enhancement

AUTHOR: Wolf Bauer, P.E., Shore Resource Consultant
SUBJECT: The study is on the enhancement of a portion of a waterfront area in
Port Townsend.

PUBLICATION DATE: June 15, 1985

SPONSORS: Washington State Department of Ecology and City of Port Townsend
SOURCE OF COPIES: Wolf Bauer, 5622 Seaview Avenue Northwest, Seattle,
Washington 98107

PROJECT NUMBER: G085016B
CONTENTS: Four drawings and four explanatory pages.
ABSTRACT: The study is an examination of the cause of erosion of 1.5 mile of
shoreline in downtown Port Townsend. These shorelines once were accretion
beaches before their feeder material source was cut-off by development. The
study includes detailed designs and specifications for the restoration of three
sites to accretion beaches.

ABSTRACT

1: Author:

Michael G. Horton, TAMS Engineers, Seattle, Washington.

2: Subject:

Waterfront Industrial Land Use Assessment - Glen Cove, Port Townsend

3: Published: June 15, 1985
4: Sponsors:

Washington State Department of Ecology and the Port of Port Townsend

5: Source of Copies:

Port of Port Townsend,
2529 Washington Street,
Port Townsend, WA 98368

6: WDOE Project No. G 085016 B
7: Series No. N/A
8: Number of Pages 39
9: ABSTRACT

The major conclusion of the study is that the topography of the
uplands and the shallow water depth in Glen Cove are significant
constraints to the development of industries such as a commercial
shipyard, pleasure craft repair yard or marine cargo handling
terminal. The only area readily available for medium or large scale
waterfront industrial use is a freshwater lagoon owned by the Port-
Townsend Paper Company which was seen to support variout species of
aquatic birds, wildfowl and small mammals.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Construction costs for a Commercial Ship Repair,Yard at the site

are:

..................................................

Description Cost

--------------------------------------------------

Site Preparation 1,224,000
Pier 2,420,000
Marine rail 1,300,000
Repair Yard, paving, rails 1,000,000
workshops, office, restrooms 227,500
Utilities 750,000
Parking lot, Access, fence 250,000

---------------------------------------------------

Sub total 7,171,500
Admin, engineering, permit 645,000
Contingencies @ 20 percent 1,565,000

----------------------------------------------------

TOTAL $9,381,500

----------------------------------------------------

Note: Y3 => cubic yard; Y2 => square yard,
F2 => square foot etc; LS => Lump sum.
LF => lineal foot

OVERALL FEASIBILITY

The site is not considered to be a particularly good location
for a medium sized ship repair yard, principally because the
repair docks should be built alongside the repair yard for
operational efficiency. The pier construction shown in Figure
5.1 is a less efficient compromise dictated by the shallow water
depths in Glen Cove. Land reclamation below the Mean Low Water
line was not considered to be an economical means of providing a
more useful facility layout, since the dredging and fill costs
are high and permitting difficulties would be a major obstacle.

-14-

5.1.2: PLEASURE AND SMALL COMMERCIAL BOAT REPAIR

DEMAND

Generally, pleasure boat repair facilities will be combined with
or adjacent to a marina to provide an integrated service to the
boat owner. With a predominance of wooden boats in the Port
Townsend area for repair, weights tend to be higher than found
at yards in other areas. A repair yard at Glen Cove would
therefore expect to handle sailboats and motor boats up to 80
feet in length with the average haul out being for a 35 to 50
foot craft weighing less than 60 tons.

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The travel hoist or straddle carrier is one of the most common
lift vehicles found in boat yards since it offers the
flexibility to both haul and move the vessel around a work area
at an economic cost. Most units are in the 40 to 80 ton range
but 150 to 250 ton hoists are occasionally found. Tire loadings
are, however, extremely high with the larger lifts and concrete
runways are often needed where soil conditions are less than
ideal. A limitation of the travel hoist which particularly
applies to Glen Cove is the need for a level grade for moving
boats to and from an open storage area. A 6 percent grade is
generally accepted as the maximum for lifts running on a paved
surface, and this is considerably less than the grades at Glen

Cove.

In comparison to the significant amount of work done at a wet
slip for large commercial craft, most maintenance work on
pleasure craft is more conveniently accomplished out of the
water. Dockside requirements are therefore minimal. The scheme
shown in Figure 5.2 illustrates a typical repair yard for the
fleet mix currently found in Puget Sound marinas.

-15-

REPAIR/STORAGE
BAYS

WORKSHOPS/
BOAT SHEDS

PIER FOR
OFFICE
STRADDLE LIFT

FUTURE
EXPANSION
\rl

L J

i r

POTENTIAL FOR
CAMPING/RV SITE

0 500 FEET

SCALE

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

FIG. 5.2 PLEASURE CRAFT REPAIR YARD

Elements required include:

Hoist - Straddle carrier (60 to 80 tons) on purpose built pier.
Water depth 12 to 14 ft at hoist at MLLW.
Average wave height not more than 0.5 ft.
Paved, flat access way to repair/storage yard.
Fenced, secure repair yard 2 to 4 acres.
Covered storage bays (10 to 15) for boat repair or construction.
Workshops - 3,000 to 5,000 sq ft.
Employee/customer parking for 50 vehicles.
Water, electricity telephone and sewers.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

The major environmental concern is the loss of the wetlands as
for the commercial shipyard option. Other concerns, such as
noise, traffic, and nuisance level, are not considered to be
serious factors since the area is already designated for
industrial use.

-16-

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Construction costs for a Repair Yard for Pleasure Craft at Glen

Cove are:

------------------------------------------

DESCRIPTION COST

------------------------------------------

site Preparation 204,000
Pier for travel hoist 1,650,000
Travel Hoist (80 ton) 250,000
Repair Yard 120,000
Covered storage 200,000
Workshops, office, restrooms 120,000
Utilities 150,000
Parking lot, Access, fence 125,000

------------------------------------------

Sub total $2,819,000
Admin, engineering, permit 300,000
Contingencies @ 20 percent 600,000

-------------------------------------------

TOTAL $3,420,000

-------------------------------------------

OVERALL FEASIBILITY

Although a repair yard handling pleasure boats and small
commercial craft is considered to pose few compatibility
problems with the surrounding area and property owners, it still
requires a useful flat parcel of land adjacent to the water.
Since the natural slopes on Ferry Street are steeper than a
travel hoist can handle this again means filling in part of the
lagoon to provide a repair and storage yard this presents
environmental obstacles to the acquisition of a permit.

A further detracting element is the separation of the facility
from the existing commercial center. Port Townsend, while
lacking the capacity to haul larger vessels, has considerable

-17-

area available for expansion and an established infrastructure.
This significantly affects the outcome of the permit
applications since it would be difficult to demonstrate that the
demand could not be accommodated elsewhere with a lesser impact.

A major advantage of a yard at Glen Cove might be the
possibility of providing a RV park or camp site nearby to enable
boat owners to stay near their boats at low cost during the
winter or while working on long projects. While this land use
is not completely compatible with the designated use for the
area it would address a definite need that the Boat Haven area
yards are unable to address due to City regulations.

No major difficulties are seen with utilities or access since
electrical and water demands are light.

5.2: PLEASURE BOAT MOORAGE

5.2.1: DEMAND

The Port master plan recommends expansion of the existing boat
haven to accommodate future demand for pleasure craft moorage.
This would be accomplished in the short te rm by reorientation of
the floats and later by expansion and dredging to the west.
Increased participation in Point Hudson was also recommended.

In fact, the high level of demand for additional slips in
Jefferson County and Puget Sound originally forecasted by the
Corps of Engineers (1980) and others has not yet materialized
and the current Boat Haven waiting list could be accommodated by
the addition of 50 new slips in the existing basin. The Old
Alcohol Plant marina at Hadlock is also being expanded, and
therefore there is unlikely to be any severe pressure for a
completely new facility at Glen Cove within the next 10 to 15

years.

-18-

5.2.2: FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Based upon current trends, construction costs, and moorage
revenues, any new purpose built marina will require on the order
of 500 slips in order to be economically feasible (this assumes
that a major breakwater would be required) together with up to
30 acres of upland facilities and parking as shown in Figure
5.3. Functional requirements for such a facility at Glen Cove

are:

Breakwater, vertical wall or rubble mound - 2,100 ft long.
Permanent (400) and transient floats 3,000 lineal ft.
Water depth in basin 10 to 18 ft at MLLW.
open area for concessions, yacht club etc - 4 acres.
Space for residential or condominium development (to assist
project financing) 10 to 20 acres.
open parking area 400 cars - 5 acres.
Restrooms, showers, office, shop.
Public and private telephones.
Holding tank disposal, sewers, electricity to floats and
landside, area lighting.
Fire protection system.
Fuel storage and supply float.
Boat haul out, marine rail or hoist (optional)
Tidal grid.
Launch ramp ( optional)

-19-

N-F

RUBBLE MOUND
LAUNCH RAMP
BREAKWATER

FUEL TRANSIENT
UPLAND DOCK MOORAGE
DEVELOPMENT U) FLOATS FOR
Lu 500 BOATS

DREDGE BASIN
TO -14.00/-18.00

N
0

0-
COVERED
SLIPS

FILL FROM
DREDGE SPOILS

0 500 1000 FEET

SCALE

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

FIG. 5.3 MARINA

5.2.3: CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Costs for a marina at Glen Cove are:

----------------------------------------

DESCRIPTION COST

----------------------------------------

Uplands Preparation 100,000
Dredging 750,000
Breakwater 3,750,000

Floats 3,000,000
Ramp or Hoist 150tooo
Fuel float, grid 50,000
office, restrooms, showers 67,500
Utilities 100,000
Parking, security 50,000

-----------------------------------------

Sub total $8,017,500
Admin, engineering, permit 1,200,000
Contingencies @ 20 percent 1,843,500

-----------------------------------------

TOTAL $11,061,000

----- -----------

5.2.4: OVERALL FEASIBILITY

The capital construction cost of a new marina at Glen Cove is
seen above to be on the order of $11 million or equivalent to
$22,000 per slip (excluding land acquisition). In order to
recover the expenditure over 20 year period, revenues of up to
$7.00 per foot would be needed, over double the current average
rate for existing marinas in Jefferson and Clallam Counties.
Many authorities and private developers, such as the Port of
Seattle and developers in Anacortes are now looking to uplands
development as a means to assist with financing moorage
construction. While this approach might be viable at Glen Cove
for industrial development it would not work for pleasure or
commercial options such as condominium development, a shopping

-20-

mall or convention center since it would not only conflict with
the designated use but the site is also too far removed from the
downtown area and main tourism destinations. The presence of
the Mill is a further deterrent to residential or commercial use

of the area.

Given the demand limitations, and potential difficulties in
incorporating "spin off" development in the overall marina
package, the Use of Glen Cove for a large marina is considered
to be unlikely.

5.2.5: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Marina development proposals are often the subject of
considerable objection by public agencies and citizen groups and
the loss of the beach habitats and lagoon at Glen Cove would
require considerable mitigation measures before Corps,
Shorelines, and Hydraulics permits could be obtained. Although
pleasure boat development in the area might be considered to be
more palatable than the construction of industrial facilities,
the impact of the large enclosed water area and breakwater is
likely to be a source of concern to a number of agencies.

5.3: DRY STORAGE MARINA

5.3.1: DEMAND

Dry storage of boats is a popular alternative to a full fledged
marina in highly developed residential areas with limited
parking space or where wet moorage is at a premium. It offers
relatively cheap storage for trailerable size boats and an owner
does not need to be concerned with regularly checking his boat
for leakage etc. It is not so applicable to rural areas or
residential areas with a predominance of single family homes
since it is much cheaper and almost as convenient as the dry
storage option.

-21-

It is however, considered to be a valid alternative for this
study since it eliminates a number of the cost and environmental
difficulties expected with a marina development.

5.3.2: FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The dry storage concept is primarily applicable to motor boats
of less than 25 feet but sailboats and larger craft are often

handled.

A large modified fork lift truck or similar device picks the
boat out of the water at a special ramp and stores it either in
a covered rack type building with up to 3 levels or on blocks or
cradles in an open storage area. Boat owners wishing to use
their boats call in advance and the craft is placed in the water
at a short term float to await their arrival. The system is
efficient, economic on water space and easier from a permitting
standpoint. However many boat owners, particularly of
sailboats, are reluctant to allow their boats to be removed and
placed in the water so frequently, fearing hull damage or
distortion.

A typical layout for a facility capable of storing 150 boats
under cover and 300 in an open yard is shown in Figure 5.4.
Functional requirements for the scheme shown are:

Ramp - slope 12.5 to 15 percent grade and 100 to 150 ft wide.
Lift machines - 25 ton capacity, 15 ft height capability
2 or 3 units
Storage building three levels 10,000 sq ft. (150 boats).
open yard 3 to 5 acres.
Workshop, machine shops etc.
Customer parking for 250 cars.
Telephone, electricity, water, sewer.
Restrooms, showers office and shop.

-22-

4op

Alo

WORKSHOP BOATSTORAGE
Ik I HOLDING FLOAT

BUILDING AND
OFFICE

LAUNCH
RECOVERY RAMP

PTPC ACCESS

0 500 FEET

SCALE

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

FIG. 5.4 DRY STORAGE YARD

5.3.3: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

The concept presents few environmental problems and little
impact on the area apart from the need to fill in the south
lagoon wetlands and reclaim a strip of land along the shoreline
for the ramp and holding pier.

5.3.4: CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Costs for a Dry Storage Facility at the site are:

-----------------------------------------

DESCRIPTION COST

----------- ----

Uplands Preparation 400,000
Ramp and holding Float 750,000
Lift Trucks 900,000
Open Storage Yard 250,000
Covered storage building 300,000
office, restrooms, showers 67,500
utilities 100,000
Parking, security 75,000

-----------------------------------------

Sub total 2,842,500
Admin, engineering, permit 342,000
Contingencies @ 20 percent 640,000

-----------------------------------------

TOTAL $3,824,500

-----------------------------------------

5.3.5: OVERALL FEASIBILITY

Although compatible with land use designations for the area and
relatively cost effective, the dry marina concept is not
considered applicable to Port Townsend. Given the character and
attraction of the region with its emphasis on preservation, it
is also most unlikely that conditions favorable to economics of
a dry marina will occur in the future.

-23-

5.4: FISHERIES

5.4.1: FISH PROCESSING PLANT

DEMAND

As public awareness of the nutritional and health value of fresh
fish products continues to grow, the Pacific Northwest bottom
fishery is also growing and supplementing the traditional
salmon, shellfish and Dungeness crab fisheries. Sea farming and
aquaculture projects are also becoming more common in the
Pacific Northwest. Although 1980s projections (Washington
Public Ports Study) of over 20 new shorebased processing plants
in the Puget Sound are unlikely to be achieved, it is expected
that a number of new plants will be established in the region in
the next 5 to 10 years. A plant at Glen Cove would serve the
immediate Port Townsend and East Jefferson County and as
production grew, product could be trucked to Seattle to link in
to the main domestic distribution channels.

A major advantage for Port Townsend is the reduced sailing
distance from the plant to the fishing ground, cutting a day off
the trip time when compared with Seattle.

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

A new shore based fish processing facility will include an
unloading dock, coldstore and central processing facility.
Although the facility does not require flat land, it should be
as close to the water as possible. Many also include fish meal
and waste processing plants to meet discharge water quality
requirements. A typical plant capable of processing 120,000 lbs
of bottom fish per day with a work force of 50,, will require:

Unloading/loading dock .... 300-500 ft and 16-18 ft deep at MLLW
Land ....................... 3 to 5 acres

Cold store..... ............ 60,000 to 100,000 cu ft
Freezer unit .............. 10,000 cu ft

-24-

FERRY STREET oo FISH DOCK
<;

INTERNAL ACCESS ROAD

w
LL
w
w <
(n w

< 0
> i@
v 0

PROCESSING PLANT/COLDSTORE/

FREEZER/OFFICE

0 500 FEET

SCALE
(FIS

G L E N C 0 V E INDUSTRIAL A N A L Y S I S

FIG. 5.5 FISH PROCESSING FACILITY

Filleting/processing line
Waste disposal, processor or fish meal plant
Water service up to 75,000 gallons per day
Electricity, telephone, sewers
Fuel facility for fishing vessels (optional)
Chandlery (optional)
Dormitory or rest facilities (optional)
Reefer van storage and truck load out area (25 to 50 40 ft vans)
Employee parking
Gear Storage and net repair .... up to 5 acres (optional)
Moorage for fishing vessels

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Construction Costs for a typical Bottom Fish Processing Plant

are:

-------------------------------------------

DESCRIPTION COST

-------------------------------------------

site Preparation 40,000
unloading Pier 650,000
Vacuum Pump, hoists etc 170,000
Reefer yard 50,000
Processing Plant 360,000
Cold store and freezer 375,000
Cafeteria, workshops, office, 160,000
Utilities, waste disposal 350,000
Employee Parking, Access 75,000

-------------------------------------------

Sub total 2,230,000
Admin, engineering, permit 200,000
Contingencies @ 20 percent 486,000

------------- - -- ------- -------

TOTAL $2,916,000

-------------------------------------------

Equipment excluded from costs

-25-

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

The main environmental concern over a fish processing plant will
be the treatment and discharge requirements for waste products.
Screening and treatment will be required for potentially large
volumes of waste water and solids will require hauling off site
or incineration. Care would be necessary to prevent any water
quality deterioration that might affect the proposed aquaculture
project.

Since the uplands area is located away from the lagoon wetlands
there are no problems with fill and impacts on the surrounding
area are not significant. An open piled unloading pier fits
Dept of Fisheries Hydraulic permit guidelines and the project
would cause only very minor loss of intertidal habitat.

OVERALL FEASIBILITY

The establishment of a small fish dock and processing facility
at Glen Cove is compatible with the designated use of the site
and environmental limitations are minimal. The feasibility of
the option appears to be hopeful and the level of business of
the existing plant in the City is steadily growing.

A fish processing plant is therefore considered to be one of the
favored development options for the site.

5.4.2: AQUACULTURE

The number of salmon rearing or farming projects in Washington
is increasing with facilities recently constructed in Port
Angeles and Crane Point off Indian Island. Plans to locate a
series of pens to the south of Glen Cove are already in the
permitting process and no major concerns have been expressed to
date. Several other fish farming operations are proposed in the
County and are currently under review. The development is
compatible with the designated use of the area and in fact

-26-

requires very little land, except for access. Since the site is
selected principally for the high water quality and moderate
currents, any adjacent future development should not cause a
deterioration of the water in the area.

5.5: MARINE TERMINAL

5.5.1: FERRY TERMINAL

An increase in ferry traffic to Port Townsend is likely to
result from the development of the Point Hudson area as a
festival and convention center, the increasing attractiveness of
the downtown district as a tourist destination, the proposed
catamaran ferry service to Seattle and the possible stopover by
the new hydrofoil on the Seattle - Victoria run.

The new state ferry terminal adequately addresses the need for
vehicular service and any new passenger only service would also
choose a downtown location as a first choice. Development of a
terminal at Glen Cove is therefore most unlikely.

5.5.2: GENERAL CARGO TERMINAL

DEMAND

With the demise of the Seattle and North Coast Railroad, the
only general cargo terminal in the area is owned and privately
operated by the Port Townsend Paper Company. Their dock is used
for loading pulp and paper products and the receipt of wood
chips from barges moored in the Glen Cove area.

The establishment of a barge feeder service from the area to
lower Puget Sound has been the subject of discussion since the
closure of the railroad facility. Containers could be loaded
onto a barge for transfer to shipside or railroad cars in
Seattle or Tacoma and take advantage of the economies of
interfacing to a large load center.

-27-

However, one of the main reasons for the railroad's failure was
the impact of reduced truck haul costs following deregulation of
the trucking industry. The cost of barging a container from the
Port Townsend area to Seattle (assuming recovery of construction
and operating costs) is likely to be on the order of $300 to
$350, compared with $200 to $275 by road. This gap is unlikely
to close in the near future as truckers are meeting increased
competition by improved productivity and larger load capacities.

In the past, the railroad carried sufficient timber products to
enable it to compete with a regulated trucking industry. The
regional economy has become much more service based in recent
years, as evidenced by the increasing median age of the
population as the timber business has declined. This has caused
a centralizing of ship bound peninsula log exports from Port
Angeles and very little lumber now moves by waterborne
transport.

A reopening of the mills in the future is expected but demand
will almost certainly be domestic and again the truck haul from
Port Townsend to lower Puget Sound or the main rail routes will
be more economic than a barge system.

It should be noted that regional government entities are in the
process of negotiating the acquisition of the railroad between
Port Townsend and Port Angeles. A short line operation using
the existing pier and transfer span has been determined to be
economically feasible and competitive.

FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

In the event that a strong demand was established for a barge
dock in the Port Townsend area, the Glen Cove offers a potential
location for the loading pier, access trestle and back up area
for a modest general cargo operation shown in Figure 5.6.

Functional requirements for a terminal capable of handling 200
foot dry cargo barges (5000 tons) are:

-28-

\Nit\
Vr

OPEN STORAGE
CONTAINER'a
FREIGHT
STATION OPEN
STORAGE

GATEHOUSE/
OFFICE TUG 200,
ACCESS TR S E BARGE
E TL :> E@@
MARSHALLING AREA
VEHICLE HOLDING 400, BARGE

AREA

C:>
c

0 500 FEET

SCALE

G L E N C 0 V E I N D U S T R I A LA N A L Y S I S

FIG. 5.6 BARGE TERMINAL

Water depth ......... o.s.,*20 ft at Mean Low Water
Maximum wave for loading. 0.75 to 1.0 ft
Length of dock ............ 500 ft (2 barges or I plus tug)
Back up storage area ...... 10 to 20 acres
Equipment...... .....o .... Mobile or fixed crane (40 tons)
................ Fork lift trucks ( 15 and 40 tons)

.... .,Trailers
Acces s.......... ***..o* ... Truck access (32 ft width)
Truck holding area .... o ... 2 to 3 acres
Weighbridge (optional)
Buildings... ...... *** ..... Warehouse/container freight station
(6000 sq ft)
Utilities ....... o ... ......Water (low), fire water
..Electricity (2 and 3 phase supply)
..Telephone (5 lines)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The major impact associated with the construction of a barge
dock at the site will be the demands on the local road system of
large trucks and trailers. Additionally the large wetlands fill
requirement at the South lagoon would cause state and local
agencies considerable concerns. As for almost all developments,
sewer system needs are also a problem.

-29-

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Construction Costs - Barge Feeder Service Terminal

-------------------------------------------

DESCRIPTION COST

-------------------------------------------

Uplands preparation 1,000,000
open piled cargo dock 1,440,000
Access pier lr625,000
open storage yard 750,000
Container Freight Station 180,000
office, maintenance shop 45,000
Utilities 100,000
Parking, truck holding area 75,000

--------------------------------------------

Sub total 5,215,000
Admin, engineering, permit 625,000
Contingencies @ 20 percent 1,200,000

--------------------------------------------

TOTAL $7,040,000

--------------------------------------------

OVERALL FEASIBILITY

It is doubtful that Eastern Jefferson County could generate
enough cargo within the next 10 years to support a new barge
terminal at Glen Cove. Much more probable might be the
reconstruction of the existing Railroad pier at the Boat Haven
to handle containers with much less impact on wetlands areas and
the intertidal habitat.

A further deterrent to the Glen Cove site is the shallow inshore
depth in the cove. While a dredge and fill solution might
create a marginal type wharf alongside a reclaimed open storage
area, costs would double and the procurement of the necessary
permits would be extremely difficult.

-30-

5.6: OIL RELATED INDUSTRIES

5.6.1: OIL RIG PLATFORMS

A number of companies have investigated the Puget Sound area as
a location for the construction of oil rigs for North Alaskan
exploration and petroleum production wells. The units are
either steel or concrete structures which are assembled at yards
adjacent to deep water and then towed, usually as a complete
unit, to the well location. Since most rigs sit on the sea bed
in up to 80 feet of water, the depth required for towing often
is as much as 100 feet. Rigs are also towed on barges and
tilted into position, requiring 40 to 50 feet of water for the
initial launch.

Functional requirements for a rig fabrication yard vary with the
type of rig to be constructed but an all purpose yard will
require the following:

Access to deep water - 100 ft preferred at launch site.
Sheltered anchorage to hold rig and complete final assembly

process.
Good soils for support of marine ways or launch ramps.
Work yard up to 25 acres, flat and adjacent to water.
Highway access with mild slopes and few curves for large trucks.
Parking for 500 to 800 workers (peak).- 2.5 to 5 acres.
Assembly, welding and misc workshops - up to 200,000 sq ft

total.

Cafeteria and rest rooms for workers
Local accommodation for temporary workers.
Electricity - 2 and 3 phase supply -
Telephone.

Sewers.
Water supply (20 to 25,000 gals per day).

-31-

The Glen Cove site offers few advantages for a rig fabrication
yard. It has little flat land without filling the entire south
lagoon, the cove is too shallow for a deepwater rig and local
objections to a sudden influx of almost 1,000 workers is likely

to be intense.

5.6.2: NORTH SLOPE MODULES

The construction of modules for the North Slope of Alaska and
the Canadian Beaufort sea is likely to continue for at least the
next 10 years, Complete buildings, with all machinery,
utilities, and fittings are assembled in Tacoma and Everett for
barging up to the oil fields once a year when the arctic ice
retreats for a few weeks in late July. Requirements for a
module fabrication and assembly yard are similar to those
described above with the exception that the completed units are
moved onto large barges over a dock or concrete apron by special
jack up trailers. While marine side requirements such as water
depth are less severe than for oil platform launching, a
sheltered location is critical to the complicated and delicate
launch process. Additionally the time window for barging the
units to the Arctic is extremely short and weather delays at
launch time could cause the failure of the entire operation.

I
A typical yard will require the following:

Water depth - 35 to 40 ft at launch site.
Sheltered anchorage for module loadout.
Good soils for support of module.
Bulkhead, dock or apron with 30 to 35 ft depth alongside.
Work and materials storage yard up to 25 acres, flat and within
1000 ft of load out area,
Highway access with mild slopes and few curves for large trucks.
Parking for 250 to 600 workers (peak).- 2.0 to 4 acres.
Assembly, welding and misc workshops - up to 200,000 sq ft
total.

Cafeteria and rest rooms for workers

-32-

Local accommodation for temporary workers.
Electricity - 2 and 3 phase supply.
Telephone.

Sewers.
Water supply (20 to 25,000 gals per day).

The environmental problems associated with a module fabrication
yard are a little less than for the rig assembly yard since
almost no work is done on the water. However, the wetlands fill
issue is critical and local objections to the increased employee
population would be equally strong. The provision of an
adequate sewer system would also be expensive.

It is not therefore considered that the Glen Cove site would be
attractive to potential developers of a yard in the Port

Townsend area.

5.7: BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY

5.7.1: DEMAND

While not strictly an industrial use, the provision of a small
boat launch ramp at Glen Cove would fit in with an industrial
park development and also raise few environmental issues.

It appears that there are never enough boat launch ramps in
Jefferson and Clallam counties in the summer months. An
additional facility at the site would relieve pressures on the
downtown area for trailer storage and parking.

Although an area reserved for RV parking and hook up might add
to the attraction of the area, it could be considered a non-
compatible use of the site.

-33-

M
c m
0

OPTIONAL

RV PARKING/ m

CAMPSITE/

ADO'L TRAILERS cn
> --i
r- rn
m m m

m TRAILER PARKING
C) F7-M

cn
03 RESTROOMS

-n
m
c) m
r- -4
RIGGING/
-n m DERIGGING
z C77
q ccr--Ss
7`0 P7-pc
0
<
W m

r- z
00
C) c
>

c > >
z r

93
ff
OPTIO N @A
RV PARKIN G/

Mp IT
@ @CA EL
S
O'L TRAILE@S
@_T R A LERSPA@K-ING@
TROOMS
@RE

5.7.2: FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

The facility shown in Figure 5.7 would handle an average of 160
launches (=160 in and 160 out) on a peak day or up to 12,000
launches a year. Functional requirements are:

Four lane launch ramp with one float per 2 lanes.
Parking for 200 cars and trailers - 3 to 4 acres.

Rest room.

Water for wash down.
Public telephone, electricity.

5.7.3: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

The wetlands fill issues associated with the southern lagoon are
avoided by terracing the area to the south of the Frederick
street right of way at the beach.

The construction of the ramp will cause a minor loss of
intertidal habitat but this is not expected to warrant
mitigation on a large scale. other concerns will include run
off from the parking areas and drain field location for the

restrooms.

5.7.4: OVERALL FEASIBILITY

Although it falls outside the scope of industrial development, a
boat launch ramp fits in well with the characteristics of the
site. The construction of the ramp would also facilitate an
extension of the existing repair business adjacent to the beach
and could serve as a catalyst for more development.
Unfortunately boat launch ramps generate little, if any revenues
and therefore sponsorship of construction would almost certainly
be a major obstacle.

-34-

6: SUMMARY

The Glen Cove site presents a number of significant constraints
to large or medium scale marine or waterfront related industrial
development.

Probably the most significant limitation is the lack of readily
developable flat land in parcels larger than 5 to 10 acres.
Although a number of industrial options, such as a marine repair
facility, will require less than 10 acres at the outset, future
expansion potential must be considered and a 20 acre developable
parcel is considered a minimum requirement.

This lack of available usable waterfront land then directs

attention to the south lagoon of the Port Townsend Paper Kraft
Company, Although the formation of the lagoon was partly man
made it is now an important habitat for waterfowl, small marine
mammals and a variety of wildlife. Any application to fill in
the wetland area to create an industrial park, although
compatible with local land use comprehensive plan designations,
would certainly meet strong opposition from county, state, and
federal agencies.

The shallow water depth in the cove is a restriction on
developments such as a general cargo terminal, oil rig platform
assembly yard and a large vessel ship repair facility. Dredging
is not considered be a viable means of attaining the required
depths, since the littoral patterns point to an accumulation
zone at the site.

Other development constraints are less significant but detract
from the attractiveness of the area for large scale development.
These include the need for a complete sewer system and possible
treatment plant and the limitation of the entry roads for high
volume traffic or heavy trucks.

-35-

Any loss of the intertidal habitat and sand beach will require
mitigation by replacement of lost areas or extremely strong
justification before County, State, and Corps permits could be
issued. This would be a strong impediment to development of
pleasure boat moorage or any extensive shoreside construction
since it would be difficult to reply to arguments that demand
could be accommodated in the Boat Haven area, in accordance with
the recommendations of the adopted Port of Port Townsend
Comprehensive Plan.

As shown in the accompanying table overleaf, the most favored
forms of water depend ent development for the area are those that
occupy a minimum length of shoreline and also do not require
immediate adjacency to the waterfro nt for back up land. In
order of apparent overall feasibility these are:

1. A fish processing plant (Limited scale operation - no
long term moorage)
2. Pleasure boat repair on a small scale (Limited storage
for haul outs).
3. A marine rail or graving dock for large commercial boat
repair.

and although not an industrial development - A small boat ramp
and parking area would fit well with the site characteristics.

Although the main conclusion of the study is that the site
offers little attraction to large scale waterfront development,
it does appear to have a lot to offer as a general industrial
park. The sloping wooded basin could be subdivided into 3 to 5
acre plots with interesting views on the water and quick access
to the City. Development of the fish processing plant and the
aquaculture project both fit in to this scenario.

-36-

A road and utilities network running parallel to the natural
site contours. With access to the beach, walking and jogging
trails and some minimal beachside recreational facilities, Glen
Cove could become an attractive and active industrial/business
park.

-37-

Industrial Development options - Comparison

Compatibility
Development Environmental with site. utility Construction
Alternative Demand Impact Uplands Marine Concerns Cost

Commercial Vessel moderate moderate poor moderate moderate $9.84
Repair Yard

Pleasure Boat Repair moderate moderate fair good minimal $3.42

Pleasure Boat Moorage moderate severe good good moderate $11.06

Dry Storage Facility low moderate fair good moderate $3.82

Fish Processing Plant moderate minimal to good good waste/sewers $2.92
to high moderate

Aquaculture Projects moderate minimal good good minimal not priced
to high

Barge Terminal low moderate poor poor moderate $7.04

oil Platform Yard moderate high poor poor sewer not priced

North Slope Modules declining high poor fair sewer not priced

Boat Launch Facility fair minimal good good mimimal not priced

REFERENCES

Telephone conversations with:

Juan De Valier - Port Townsend Paper Company
Scott Flickenger - Fresh Fish Market.
Phil Kauzloric - Wa Dept of Fisheries
Alan Moore - Wa Dept of Ecology
Mary Schroeder - Port Townsend Paper Company
Gerald Thorsen - Dept of Natural Resources

Interviews with:

Mark Burn - Port Townsend Boat Works.
David Goldsmith - Jefferson County Planning Dept.
Gail Gunderson - Jefferson County EDC.
Dick Kint - P. U. D.

Bob Leach - Port of Port Townsend
Casey McKinney - Admiral Marine.
Mitchell Press - Jefferson County Planning Dept.
George Yount - Port of Port Townsend

Reports:

Port Systems study for The State of Washington (1980)
CH2MHill
Recreational Small Boat Moorage Study (1980) Corps of
Engineers
Glen Cove Water Supply Feasibility Study (1982) Hosey and
Associates
Comprehensive Plan for the Port of Port Townsend (1981) - Reid
Middleton

Shoreline Management Master Program for Jefferson County and
Port Townsend (1983) - Jefferson County Planning Dept.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (1979) - Jefferson County
Planning Dept.

-38-

DATE DUE

I
I
- I

GAYLORDINo. 2333 PRINTED itl U S A

I-
II I I 1 1111111111111011
3 668 14107 734
1111111111 1
6 4