[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
.i I I PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT I FOR I I LAKE SHORE PARK MARINA II CONSTRUCTION PROJECT I - I ASHTABULA, OHIO I I I I I I I I I I - PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR LAKE SHORE PARK MARINA CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ASHTABULA, OHIO PREPARED FOR: ASHTABULA TOWNSHIP ASHTABULA COUNTY PARK COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED AS A PORTION OF A LOAN APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION FUNDS To THE OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT.) NOAA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WITH FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM THROUGH THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, r-@' -'4 aft Ashtabula County Commissioners Alfred Mackey, President Peter Iarocci Harold Christian Hugh Thomas, Deputy Administrator & Project Manager Ashtabula Township Park Commission Richard Charles, President Homer Nevel, Vice-President Marie Vocca, Secretary-Treasurer Ohio Department of Energy James A. Rhodes, Governor Wayne S. Nichols, Director Jaqueline F. Bird, CEIP Coordinator Prepared By: Woodruff, Inc., Consulting Engineers 23875 Commerce Park Road Beachwood, Ohio 44122 Vincent J. D'Angelo, P.E., President Albert J. Malinak, P.E., Project Engineer Table of Contents Subject Page Table of Contents List of Figures iii List of Exhibits iv List of Tables v Section I Requirement REQUIREMENT FOR PROPOSED PROJECT 1 Section II Project Description SITE DESCRIPTION Location 2 Soil Conditions 2 Existing ownership/improvements 4 SITE ACCESS Highway 4 Water 7 BOATING CONDITIONS 9 SUMMARY 9 III STO RY OF LAKE SHORE PARK 11 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES 11 SERVICES TO BE OFFERED IN THE MARINA 23 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 24 Section III Project Analysis LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS 31 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES 31 REAL ESTATE 31 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Other Federal Agency Involvement 34 Description of Proposed Project 37 Description of the Surrounding Environment 37 Temporary Impacts of the Proposed Project 37 Permanent Impacts of the Proposed Project 42 Floodplain Concerns 46 Wetland Concerns 46 Historic Preservation 46 Alternatives 48 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 0-54 SITING 54 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 5 4 Table of Contents (Continued) Subject Page Section IV Construction Criteria CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA 57 Section V Cost Estimates CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES 61 BUDGET ESTIMATES 70 DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 70 Section VI Appendices Appendix A Financial Feasibility Study Economic Environment 71 Competitive Environment 84 Demand Analysis 88 Financial Analysis 100 Appendix B Illustrations Appendix C Soil Report Appendix D Preliminary Section 404 (b) Evaluation Beach Erosion and Shoreline Protection Project, Lakeshore Park Ashtabula, Ohio List of Figures Page Map 1 Planning Area Location Map 3 Map 4 Ashtabula Area External Traffic Flow 5 Figure 11-1 Regional Highway Map 6 Figure 11-2 Ashtabula Harbor & Existing Marinas 8 Figure 11-3 Wind Diagram for Ashtabula, Ohio 10 Figure 11-4 Lake Shore Park Recreation Plan Boat Marina "B" 12 Figure 11-5 Site Plan Alternate 1 14 Figure 11-6 Site Plan Alternate 2 16 Figure 11-7 Site Plan Alternate 3 18 Figure 11-8 Site Plan Alternate 4 20 Figure III-1 Beach Restoration Study Selected Plan 35 Figure 111-2 Ashtabula Harbor Waterfowl Area 39 Figure IV-1 Vicinity Sanitary Sewer Map 60 Figure A-1 Project Market Areas 74 Appendix B Illustrations Aerial Photo of Lake Shore Park Site Plan-Alternate 1 Site Plan-Alternate 2 Site Plan-Alternate 3 Site Plan-Alternate 4 Sections for Alternate 3 List of Exhibits Page Exhibit III-1- Certification of Title for Lake Shore Park 3-4 Exhibit 111-2 Letter from U.S. Coast Guard Ninth District 36 Exhibit 111-3 Ashtabula Port Authority Resolution 38 Exhibit 111-4 Letter from the Ohio Historic Preservation Office 47 49 Exhibit 111-5 Harbor Marina Master Plan Study Ashtabula, Ohio 55 Exhibit 111-6 A-95 Clearinghouse Comments iv TiSt of Tables Page Table A-1 Market Area Population 76 Table A-2 Households in Market Areas 78 Table A-3 Median Household Income 79 Table A-4 Household Incomes 80 In 82 lable A-5 Retail Sales Table A-6 Competitive Marinas - 1979 25,85 Table A-7 1979 Registration Totals According to Boat Type 91 r" 92 lable A-8 Boat Registrations in Market Areas Table A-9 Project Cost for Alternate 3 28,101 Table A-10 Annual Revenues and Costs 30,104 v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION I I REQUIREMENT I A HQUIRDIEN-I FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT lake Shore Park is a recreational asset to the Northeast Ohio area. 'Ihe Ashtabula Townshin Park Cormission, the Ashtabula County Planning Commission and the County Commissioners recognized the need to develop a plan to protect Lake Shore Park from current and potential impacts of adjacent enemy-related industrial activities Including the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Comnany's @renerating plant, oil storage facilities, and coal transhipment facilities. this end, a comorehensive plan, the Lakeshore Park Recreation Plani 3has been developed. 'ihe objectives of the Plan are to improve and broaden the recreational activities available in the Park. '-This study was coT=leted under a CEIP (c)(1) planning grant. This pro,lect, a public recreational sma-11-boat marina Is one of the pro- nosed improvements in the Park. A number of studies have been done concerning marinas in Northeast Ohio. P11 of these studies have found 99% occupancy of existing facilities and stated the need for additional dock srace. A derand analysis demonstrating the present need for additional recreational dock spaces is included in this renort. Construction of this marina would eXT)and recrea- tional boating opportunities and help meet the present demand for slips. 1 Lakeshore Park Recreation Plan , T.,"Oodruff, Inc. for Ashtabula County Cornissioners and Ashtabula Township Park Commission I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 11 I PROJECT DESCRIPTION I I SITE DESCRIPTION Location The proposed marina is located in Lake Shore Park on Lake Erie in Ashtabula, Chio. The park is approximately 56 miles east of Cleveland, Chio; 50 miles north of Youngstown, Ohio and 45 miles west of Erie, Pennsylvania. Fegional and local locations are shown on Mai) 1 entitled "Planning Area Lo- cation Man" from the Lake Shore Park Recreation Plan. The Park is on the eastern edge of the City of Ashtabula. Immediately to the west on the Lakefront is Pinney Dock and Transport Company and Ashta- Lula's deenwater harbor. r1hese facilities are capable of handling oceangoing freighters. Pzhtabula harbor's east breakwater extends east past the Pinney docks toward the pro@ect site. To the east is Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company's Ashtabula generating plant with its intake and outflow structures extending into the Lake. To the south of the proposed marina is Lake Shore Park and further south, residential neighborhoods. Lake Shore Park is a multiple use facility. Present Park facilities in- clude two boat launching raTms, a pavillion and concession stand, a children's playground, picnic facilities, tennis courts, baseball diamonds and more. Active planning has been done to improve and expand the Park facilities via the Lake- shore Park Recreation Plan. Improvements recamrnended in this plan that are presently under develonment leading to construction are replacement of the existing boat ranms and providing a paved parking lot, reconstruction of the beach which was lost due to erosion, and a modernized playground. The addition of a marina to the Park would further broaden the recreational options available. Soil Conditions The soils at the Lakefront are mostly made land. Under this was found hard durable shale. Sediments overlie the rock on the west side of the project site. Appended are the Soils Report and nertinent correspondence with the soils con- sultant. c II 1C.1 PLANNING AREA LOCATiON MAP --S 1! -@Jo miDDLE- k it 46 Poorr 0@ r-- W.CF-\ V, CChWJF_AUT Poprr ABN'rA*LJLA VF lu.8 00 @Amhtabuio Crawfor!.,J, Gocuf Cuych T WAROWN 1-00 AXFOC*4 umbuit Met-cor re UNG WN PortC LawronC 07* cft@ "an Existing Ownership/Improvements There are no problems for this site with regard to land or r-Ight-of-way accuisition. .411 access will be through Lake Shore Park which is owned by the Ashtabula Township Park Commission, the sponsors of the marina project. P-11 the additional land needed for the marina is submerged land in Lake Erie. '1he State of Ohio owns this larxi so that a lease must be obtained for the required area in the lake. Application for such a lease is being made and no problems am anticipated. SITE ACCESS Highway State Route 531 (Lake Road) runs along the fmnt of Lake Shore Park. Access to the marina site is on park roads and city surface streets. Ps stated in the Recreation Plan, some slowdowns may be expected on park roads on peak user days (e.g. aolidays) but even these should be toler"able. With the marina located east of downtown Ashtabula, local traffic disruption should be minimal. State Road (Ashtabula County road) ends at Lake Road directly across from the eastern park entrance. See Map 4 "External Traffic Flow" prepared by the Ash- tabula County Planning Commission. Regional access is excellent in that State Route 11, a four lane limited access highway, ends at Lake Road (S.R. 531) within one quarter of a mile of the park minimizing local traffic interference. State Route 84 and U.S. Route 20, major east-west roadways, are connected to S.R. 11. More importantly, Route 11 is directly connected to Interstate Route 90 south of Ashtabula. This provides a direct, limited access highway , route from Cleveland, Ohio or Erie, Pennsylvania and all the area between which is connected to Interstate 90. Such a route.re- duces travel time and is convenient and easy to use. See Figure II-1, a map show- ing regional highway access. 4 ASHIABULA AKtA map 4 External Traf f ic Flow Lake LAKE ERIE 6th cr IL -2A SIL 45 Z 2 @c L S 0 3@: All Ashtabula Couni PORT ERIE ERIE PORT CONNEAUT PROPOSED MARINA SITE 20 PORT ASHTABULA X... ASHTABULA ...:X GENEVA PORT FAIRPOR -CONNEAUT NORTH- KINGSVILLE PAINESVILLE 20 EFFERSON MEADVILLE CLEVELAND L 44 PORT CLEVELAND Ash 3n tabula 58 Q2 CUYC36090 Geougo 79 Ohi Turnpi@e RREN T(umbull 77 44 Marc& AKRON )r 76 19 R X" YOUNGSTOWN HIG@ 422 SuMrn Mahoning Lowfence FIG. 11-1 1he proposed extension of the Lakeland Freeway (S.R. 2) from Painesville to S.R. 11 would add another major east-west route for regional access. It can be seen that both local and regional highway access are excellent at present and should remain so with future increases in traffic. Most of the roadways involved are capable of larger volumes than they are presently carrying. Water '"his site will provide direct access onto Lake Erie. Presently, most of the marinas in Ashtabula are located upstream on the Ashtabula River, see Figure 11-2. When a boater wishes to go out on the Lake he must travel down the river, with its 6 mph speed limit., through Ashtabula Harbor which has a 10 mph speed limit, and then out onto Lake Erie. Cormcunding the problem for large powerboats and sailboats are the two lift bridges on the river. The first upstream is the S.R. 531 lift bridge which opens on the half hour when necessary. Boaters must schedule boat trips accordingly or spend their time waiting for the bridge to oren. Further unstream is the Conrail lift bridge. On a tour of the existing marinas on the Ashtabula River, the author experienced the kind of delays that can occur. Passage is obtained by signalling an operator who raises the bridge. In atte=ting to return down river we experienced a 45 minute delay. A coal train had pulled in for off-loading and extended past the bridge so that it could not be raised. Such delays are not only inconvenient but also dangerous in creating boating bottlenecks on the river. Ashtabula is a busy harbor capa- Lle of accommodating ocean-going vessels and large ore freighters. The boater must make his way through this traffic to get to the Lake. For the proposed marina there is direct access to the open Lake without the above mentioned obstacles. This will make the marina attractive to boaters nresently docked on the Ashtabula River. 7 PROMW MNINA 0 Ave. AV Dxlq@ Tr,717SCO. A ve. @12 97A T/O/V -IT Ow A51 ASUA 5R 531LIFT BRIDGE ahave Mosl Re-Ziqh,1- limv-6 uter a 7o' /67/7 Cloln@Vl CV. 01-e Avk. Indiote3 Z1014- BOATD4G CONDITIONS Lake Erie is well known for its ability to beccme dangerous in a 3torm due to its shallow depth. Quick and easy access in a marvina on the Lake is a ordme concern. The Droposed marina would lorovide such access. The site is only exposed to open lake wave action from the North to Northeast. North- west storms and wave action inmact the Ashtabula Harbor breakwaters so that the site is somewhat protected in this direction. The breakwaters to be designed for the marina would nrotect it and allow 1 foot waves inside and are there- fore one of the major cost items. It is desirable to have a minimum deDth of 6 feet below Low Water Datum UGLD) for the entire marina. With the present proposed alternates some dredging and excavation are mquired to achieve this minimum depth. Excavation is also another major expense. Creating a safe harbor with sufficient deDth will incur significant costs but should still prove to be technically.and economically feasible. SUMMARY The proDosed marina is an offshore facility. Az such it involves obtain- ing a lease for submerged land and filling to make land. The site has excellent highway access for both local and regional traffic. Direct access to Lake Erie rather than using the Ashtabula River and Dassing through Ashtabula Harbor is a major advantage of this site. Breakwaters, dredging and excavation will be required for protection and safety of the boats in the marina. It should be noted that the Snell Envirormental Gro= T)erformed a study entitled, Harbor Marrina Master Plan Study - 1978 for the Ashtabula Port Author- ity. in the study, six sites were evaluated for a number of characteristics for suitabiity for a marina. Lake Shore Park was one of the sites evaluated and was rated the most suitable of the six for a marina. 9 'TIT j /*V ol SHTABI.J a 2.7-13----Q TO It N. R @L E 0.6 - Q.7 TO 24 K. F! K. 2.91-2.2]l I I I 0.1-0.1 ---- --- 25 WPM. AND OVER 7.s-5.9 C30M 0/-. 2 WIND DIAGRAM FOR ASHTABULA, OHIO NOTES INDICATES DURATION FOR ICE-FREE PERIOD (MAR. TO DEC. INCL.) IN PERCENT OF TOTAL DURATION. INDICATES DURATION FOR ICE PERIOD (JAN. TO FEB. INCLA 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 13ASED ON RECORDS OF THE U. S. COAST GUARD LIFE BOAT STATION AT ASHTABULA, OHIO FOR PERI00 I JAN. 1937 TO 31 DEC. 1968 INCL.,LESS 1944,AND 1960. FIGURE H-3 10 HISTORY OF LAKE SHORE PARK The Ashtabula Township Park Corrmission purchased Lake Shore Park's land in 1910 for $15,000. In 1914, Volney Pogers, landscape architect, and Harry M. Pell, Civil Engineer of Youngstown, Ohio, laid out the roads and- designed the park. The roads were completed in 10-16. J.L. Wilson was emploved as the Paxk Commission's architect in 1919 to design the Lake Shore Park main pavillion. The twenty-four foot by four hundred forty'foot structure cost about $40,000. The pavillion still stands today as a historical landmark in Ashtabula County. Since the time of these early capital improvements and park planning, many small changes in the park have taken place. The park, however, has remained the same in character as its original design. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES j1he idea of a smll boat marina in Lake Shore Park was proposed in the Lake Shore Park. Recreation Plan. In that plan two designs, Alternate A and Alternate B, were presented. Although Alternate A was the recomnended alternate in the Recreation Plan, a number of serious problems were found upon re- evaluating this design both in physical design and costs. The designs developed in this report are based primarily on Alternate B. Parking for marina users located elsewhere in the Park with shuttle service to the marina was proposed for Alternate B. Parking has been added within the marina site in this report's designs for convenience to users and to avoid the purchase of real estate upland of the Park. See Figure 11-4 for the Alternate B layout. LAKE SHO' uleE -+ RE IcDA RK RE-CRZ-A TION AE OAT MARINA 8" SCALI: PROPOSED RUBBLE SHORE P1?07'Z-CT10A1 PpoposEL), MARINA 7-0 ACCORADATE -400 BOATS )fE 6 T,4 UgA Al 7' 6 OA T, 5 709E BOAT eA M,,O BOA T eA A1jP FA el< I k6 ZAUIVC@l A)@@EA 7 FIG. IE-4 Five alternates are considered. The first four alternates, .,@lternate 1 through 4 consist of basically the same components arranged in different orien- tations or different areas. See the illustrations of the alternates in Appen- dix B. The fifth alternate is the "No Build" Alternate. All the alternates use the boat ramp launching area driveway a@ the en- trance noint. A discussion of the features of the various Alternates follows. Alternate 1: Plternate 1 is develoDed Darallel to the existing boat ram parking lot. Made land for the marina parking extends about 225 feet out from the T)resent land. The breakwater consists of two sections in a somewhat arrowhead shaped configuration. ':,his puts the main channel into deeper water keeping excavation quantities smaller. it also provides two entrances to the marina, the second being on the far west side near Pinney docks. r1he existing sediment pattern indicates that there is little or no sediment in the main channel area presently. It can be expected that the silting problem should remain minimal in the future recuiring less dredging and thus resulting in a cost savings. The future U.S. Coast Guard.Station is located on the west side of the marina. This is the shallowest portion of the harbor and therefore will involve more excavation to achieve the required depth of six feet below low water datum. 1his would be especially true if a variable draft is acceptable in the marina. Auto access to the Station would be through either the marina or boat ram iDarking lots, on acceptable but not hiptily desirable situation on peak user days. This also incurs additional costs to the Park Commission since they are respon- sible for maintaining an access roadway to the Station throughout the winter. P two lane roadway would have to be kept plowed the length of one of the park- ..ng lots. The fact that the made land doesn't extend verj far into the Lake, 13 AKNW" LJVktA(lAVER i A zo s ,A'-- 4AW9?APi4X VA s CA V 40 4-- f -FISHING ALTER POKING NUMBER ;ey z kiff4afft 04 z "'p, ING MARINA BOAT kLftiH- RESTAUR CAR-TRA f RESTAURAN FACILITIES VUHJHE us MADE LAN Ca4sr GUOO BREAKWAT STATION- WLK"EAO VMUME Of ------ - FKVEMINT ESTIMATED COST NOTE: ELEVATIONS SHOWN A.@ 1. FlIT lL.W LM WATER DATUM LOW WATER DATUM Av /w Ls NOTE: AREA SOUTH Of --------- LINE BY OTHERS increases the amount of excavation needed to obtain the required harbor depth. Since the possibility of a Coast Guard move is at least seven years in the future, the construction of a warehouse type building Is proposed in this location at present. it would be leased to a boat repair and service outfit until the Coast Guard is prepared to move. Alternate 1 provides 408 slips arranged in eight lines. Parking is provided for 396 cars for the marina and for 35 cars for fishing. Tihe fishing oarking is located on the east side of the site near the east breakwater. -his breakwater is the site of the new fishing access provided. 1'b additional car-trailer parking is provided for the boat ramps in this design. 'One cen- trally located marina building is the source of many of the services provided. q1-iis building would contain a restaurant, a boat store, the marina office, Tmn's and women's showers and restrooms and an area for the gasoline attend- ant. -Uthough it could cause sane traffic problems, it is convenient and easy to have everything in one central location. Alternate 2: Plternate 2 is oriented in a north-south direction. 7-his results in the made land area being nearly triangular in share, the base, 400, long, teing on the west side of the site. "Ilhe breakwater is continuous around the east and north sides of the harbor. The result is a single entrance channel on the west side of the site. This is the shallower nortion of the harbor so that considerable excavation will be reauired. ',,!hat sediment there is on the site is located in this area. Since this is where silting occurs at present it would be expected to continue in the future, incurring significant annual dredging costs to maintain entrance channel depths. r-The continuous breakwater allows minimal water flow through the marina possibly causing a stagnancy problem. The Coazt Guard is located on the west side of the site in this 15 AkNa?341 IjVktRiAVtf7R ARAW640 n" Aws @z Ct z 1 6 9 1 @ -m-l I p 4 F4 u 0' ce At- ALTER 0 z h. 00 T STORE stwitcEs ")-I - 4 aotW-E MMINA BOAT RLPAIR - A\ PESTAU MARINA FtM4 CAR-Tw RESTAURAI FACALITIES t1 fullimf us MADE LAN COAST Gl,@@RD GREAKWAT STATION .... . . FAW FAVRAJON BULKHEAD VOLUME 0 PAVEMENT ES11MAXED C03T NOTE: EIEVATIONS SHOWN ANE IN FEET BELOW LOW WATER DATUM LOW WATER DATUM -564.6143LLI. GF03USGS NOTE: AREA SOUTH Of ....... LINE BY OTHERS layout. All the items mentioned for this location in Alternate 1 apply here also. Housing a boat repair and service facility in this area is the present proposed use. The parking arrangement may make auto access a little more difficult than Alternate 1. The depth at the border of the made land is about four feet below low water datum, requiring considerable excavation and dredging. 414 berths are provided in seven lines. A person owning a slip on the east side of the marina must travel the entire len gth of the harbor to get onto the Lake. Parking is provided for 381 cars for the marina. The arrange- ment of spaces is oriented east-west resulting in differing lengths of lines of cars since the lot is triangular in shaDe. No seT)arate parking space is provided for fishing so that fishermen would have to pay to park in the marina lot. No additional car-trailer parking is included for the boat ramps in this layout. Two separate smaller buildings are proposed in addition to the boat repair building. A building housing a boat store and the gasoline facilities is located on the west side of the marina parking lot. This is a logical location for the gas station since the boats must pass by to get out of the marina. Ihe restaurant, rarina. office and shower and restroom facilities are in a building on the east side of the site. The east side of the parking lot could be under considerable demand on peak days between marina users, fishermen, and restaurant clientele. Alternate 3: P-1ternate 3 is oriented parallel to the existing boat ramp parking lot. "4ade land for the marina parking lot extends 300 feet into the Lake from the present land. The breakwater layout is in two sections similar to that in Alternate 1. Eue to the parking lot extending further the main channel is in deeper water than for the first Alternate, an additional advan- tage. All comments regarding marine access and siltation problems for number 1 1 '7 tjv4mAWR APA&W6_14 (MMAYEK mvwp QQ RamwLks U. \ it Ac, iA -ta Vl@_ STA U) z 40 ST gp 0 60 44, ALTER NUMBER OF NUMBER OF z MARINA IL sift 5_4 FIESTAUR CAR-TRA RESTAURAN FACII-ITI93 MADE LAN A 4G60 DREAKWAT BULKHEAD VOLUME Of F@VEMENT ESTIMATED COST NOTE. ELEVAPONS 511OWN ARE IN FEET KLOW LOW WATER DATUM LOW WATER OATUIA N FP -560.6iGLD, 5703USCS .00 200 NOrE AREA SOUTH fil OTHER3 ICALI IN t9lT are equally applicable here. ihe future Coast Guard Station is located on the east side of the site near the main entrance. A short, separate roadway is provided for auto access. Both from the standDoint of r)ublic interference and maintaining winter access this location is superior to the west side of the marina. The eastern portion of the harbor is deeper so that less excavation will be required to,obtain the six foot below low water datum depth needed. A boat repair and service facil- ity is proposed as the present use for the future Coast Guard Station. Although extend.ing further into the Lake recuires making more land, it results in less underwater excavation to achieve mininn depths. The arrangement of slips and marina parking for Alternate I are similar to that for alternate 1. 408 slips are provided along with 396 marina parking spaces. Parking spaces for 40 cars for fishing access is proposed and additional present use of the future Coast Guard area. The car-trailer parking for the boat launch r-dmp is expanded to accommodate an additional 58 vehicles. This brings the number of parking spaces closer to the cc=acitv of the three lane boat ramp providing full use of an existing facility. Me single, central marina building housing a restaurant, boat store, marina office, and shower and restroam facilities is included in the layout. ",lternate 4: Alternate 4 is devc-oced oaralle.L to the existiniz boat ramn parking lot. @-'Iade land for the marina parking lot extends approximately 300 feet I'T out from the present land. The breakwater is a continuous @" shane similar to that for Alternate 2. "Ihe single entrance is on the west side of the site. A-11 comments concerning siltation and achievina minimum denths for number 2 also anDly here. The situation is a little better since the extended parking lot outs the main channel in slightly deeper water. The Coast Guard Station is sited at the west end of the marina narkinF-r lot. Me comments made in the Alternate 1 discussion apply here as to siltation, required depths, and auto 19 'ode, AVVZ iA& row, -AW iLWIN A04W he b 0VfQAliRtkl4lvl IA z tt"s jk 40 0 ALTER -iu-Faii o wwaFR 0 z WMINO MARINA a SIP SERVICE-- - - RESTAURA FACILITIES f0WHE kISCOASS MADE LAN "RD TA740N,-- BREAKWAT A PAM mll@ft BULI(HEAD VIDLUME 01 PAVEMENT 95TIMATED COST NOTE: ELEVATIONS 3HOWN ARE IN F&ET OELOW N LOW WATER DATUM. LOW WATER DATUM -116a.611OLD. .5703LISGS NOTE. AREA SWTn Of ....... LINE BY OTHERS access. With the marina entrance on the west, it provides quick and easy access onto the Lake for the Coast Guard. ?-ere again a boat repair and ser- vice facility is proposed for present use of the area. The extension of the made land to accamodate additional parking increases the amount of fill re- -.,uired but decreases the quantities of excavation and dredging due to the greater natural depth. '-Lhe slip arrangement for this Alternate is similar to.that for Alter- nate 2 providing 414 slips in seven lines. The marina parkim lot r)rovides sDaces for 396 cars. A small parking lot with a 40-car capacity is iocated on the east side of the site. This lot will be used by fishermen and by restaurant clientele. As in Alternate 3, 58 additional car-trailer parking spaces are included to bring the boat i-an- up to full usage. Two separate buildings are proposed. The one on the east side would contain the marina offices, a restaurant and shower and restroom facilities. The other on the west would include a boat store, gas pumps, and restrocms. Camarison of Alternates: The features, and some advantages and dis- advantages have been discussed in the previous descriptions. Pertinent con- struction quantities are listed on the site plans and in the cost estimates. Cost estimates are developed in another portion of this report. Alternate 4 is the least expensive of the first four alternates with re- gard to construction cost. Its main cost savings compared to Alternates 1 and 2 is in excavation. and dredging costs to obtain minimum harbor depths. The smaller quantities of these two items must outweigh the exrense of making addi- tional land. This also is true for Alternate3 as compared to the first two Alternates. In addition, both Alternates 3 and 4 provide additional car-trailer parking for the boat ramp. This will bring the rarm closer to capacity and therefore represent better utilization of Park facilities. Since all of the 21 features in Alternates 1 and 2 are included in either Alternate 3 or Alternate 4 and the latter are less exnensive in addition to providing this extra park- ing, Alternates 1 and 2 are not recommended. The major differences between Alternates 3 and 4 lie in two areas: the breakwater arrangement and the location of the future Coast Guard Station. A nunber of points concerning the two breakwater arrangements were dis- cussed in the previous descriptions. The 'T' shaped continuous layout in Alternate 4 affords very good protection. It puts the single entrance channel toward the shallower Dortion of the site where siltation occurs. P-nnual dredging will definitely be required to keep the marina in operation. It may be a large, costly operation. Inconvenience to boaters docked on the east side of the marina was also mentioned. The arrow arrangement of Alternate 3 Pro- vides two entrances, decreasing the chance of traffic bottlenecks. The main entrance channel is deeper therefore requiring less excavation to attain mini- mum depths. There is very little sediment around the main entrance so that siltation should be minimal in the future. Dredging costs wo uld certainly be less for this arrangemnt. The other consideration is the future Coast Guard Station. Location on the west side of the marina as in Alternate 4 has drawbacks which were cited previously. The expense to the Park in maintaining auto access throughout the winter would be considerable. The location on the east side of the site pro- vided in Alternate 3 has the advantages discussed in the descriptions and minimizes costs to maintain winter access. '1he other alternate is "No Build". Although no money would be expended, none of the stated goals would be achieved. For the above reasons the recannended alternate is Alternate 3. S=CES TO BE OFF= IN THE IMARETA In sane of the studies cited concerning marinas, surveys were done to determine what type of services boaters wanted in marinas. '1hese were used as a basis to decide which services are to be nrovided in Lake Shore Park Marina to make it attractive to the boating nublic. The following services are nrovided. Walkways and finger niers are the floatinFr tyr)e to eliminate inconvenience in boardinq7 due to Lake level variation. Water and electrical service are oro- vided to each berth and the main walkways will be lighted. Haul-out facilities are included and two haul-outs ner year are included in the slip rental fee. A marine fuel station is nrovided since it would man a trip into Ashtabula Harbor otherwise to obtain fuel. A sewage pump-out facility is located nPRr the gas station for those boats with holding tanks. qhe slin rental fee also includes winter storage at the marina. Boats will be stored on wooden cra- dles on the marina and boat r-amp area parking lots and other open areas in the marina site. Security parkim- is Drovided for the marina and yearly narkim oermits are available to slin owners. Festroom and shower facilities are in- cluded. A boat store is a great convenience to boat owners who discover they need something for the boat and they are already at the marina. Finally, a restaurant is included not only to serve the slin owners but also other Park users and the public in general. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Economic Environment The market areas chosen for this demand analysis took a number of factors into consideration, such as travel time, highway access, similar faciltties, and so on. Upon investigation, it was found that population, business and industry are all experiencing moderate growth and this can be expected to continue or improve in the future. This kind of growth indicates an increasing number of potential boat owners and marina users. Competitive Environment A listing of the'marinas on Lake Erie within the total market area is given in Table A-6. There is a total of approximately 5,900 existing dock spaces within the area. Of the four Lake Erie counties in the market area, Ashtabula County has the fewest slips presently so that it is an appropriate location for adding new dock spaces. A number of marina studies have found occupancy rates exceeding 95/10 in the marinas on Lake Erie. These studi6s also inventoried the services available at the marinas. Some of the older marinas lack one or more services such as running water or electrical service for each berth. All the modern conveniences for boating are included in Lake Shore Park Marina to make it competive and attractive to the boa'ting public. A new 360-slip marina is planned for Geneva State Park in Geneva-on-the- Lake, Ohio. The park is located in western Ashtabula County, about 12 miles from Lake Shore Park. This proposed marina is taken into account in the demand analvsis performed for this project. 24 TABLE A-6 COMPErl= MARINAS - 1979 ASHTABULA COUNN NUMBER OF NAME SLIPS City of Conneaut 150 Conneaut Boat Club 58 Snug Harbor Marina 20 Sutherland Marina 25 Ashtabula Yacht Club, Inc. 110 Jack's Marine 200 Riverside Yacht Club, Inc. 30 Redbrook Boat Club 150 Bmckway Marine 30 r1btal 773 LAKE COUNTY NAME NUMBER OF SLIPS E1ricounter Yacht Sailing Centers 30 Winfield Marine 15 Douglass & McCleod 20 Rutherfords Landing 50 Grand River Yacht Club Fairport Yacht Club 135 Grand Harbor Hacht Sales 132 Western Reserve Yacht Club 50 Mentor's Lagoon Marina 650 Mentor Harbor Yacht Club 160 Chagrin Harbor Beach Marina 23 Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club 150 West Channel Yacht Club 70 Hi-Skipper Marina 80 Lake Shore Marina 85 Chagrin River Yacht Club Bolten Marine Sales, Inc. 165 M-K 32 Tbtal 1,847 Information not available. 25 TABLE A-6 (Contintied) CgeMI= MARITIAS - 1979 CUYAHOGA COUNTY (EASTERN HALF) NAME NUMBER OF -SLIPS Wildwood Yacht Club, Inc. 60 Northeast Yacht Club 180 East 55th Street Marina 292 Gordon Shore Boat Club Forest City Yacht Club 135 Lakeside Yacht Club 200 Edgewater Park Marina 306 Edgewater Yacht Club 375 Cuyahoga Boat & Engine Co. , Inc. 85 Total 1,633 ERIE CMWN, PENNSYLVANIA NAME NUMBER OF -SLIPS Freeport Yacht Club Presque Isle Lagoon Boat Livery 55 Bayshore Marine 13 Tund Boat Works, Inc. R.D. McAllister & Son, Ltd. 95 BrockwaY Marine Erie., Inc. 75 East & West Canal Basin 33 Gem City Marina 35 Sailyard 24 Presque Isle Yacht Club 89 Erie Marine 46 Chestnut Street Marina 62 Polish Yacht Club Camiodore PerT-j Yacht Club 78 Presque Isle State Park 498 FurnclifT Beach Association 6 Erie Yacht Club 360 Sarrierheim Moorings Walnut Creek 75 * Information not available. Total 1,544 Source: Boating Facilities Inventory for Lakes Erie and Ontario and Connecting Waterways., U.S. AimW Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207, December 18, 1979. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY (CONTINUED) Demand Analvsis In recent years, a number of feasibility studies have been done for marinas in Ashtabula Countv. All of these agree in stating that demand for additional dock spaces exists in this area. An analysis of boating statistics for Ohio results in a figure of 321 boats indicating a preference for Lake Erie waters per existing dock space in 1977. (See Appendix A.) This indicates considerable boater pressure along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie. It is to be noted that the number of slips in Ashtabula County has grown 260% from 1965 to 1979 without any problems with excessive vacancies. The results of the analysis performed in Appendix A indicate demand for 3,270 dockspaces in the primary market area. When the demand is proportioned to the two Lake Erie counties within the primary market area, an additional 670 dock spaces are needed in Ashtabula County. Despite the fact that this number is less that the combined total of new spaces provided by the Geneva-on- the-Lake Small Boat Harbor and this project,with as little as 3% growth in boating, both marinas can expect to be full within less than three years. Financial Feasibilitv The financial analysis for this project involves the deter- mination of the Park Commission's ability to repay the construction loan from revenues generated by the marina. Table A-9 develops the total project costs for Alternate 3, the recommended alternate. The $8.4 million total is the amount of the loan reauired for design and construction of the project. I@ABLE -A- 10 PROJEC7' COST F'CR Al="IA"-E 3 Administrative Cost CEIP (d)(1) loan and guarantee $32,700 Architectural fees Estimate from 6/80 $38930,00 +1 year delay q 10% $ 38,1000 $427,900 -308 (c)(1) gr-mt $-16 000 $411,Q00 Construction cost Estimate frcm 6/8o $6,233,000 +15% for 1.5 year delay $ 935,000 $7,lb8,OOO $7,i68,ooo $7,612,600 Required Contingency factor (10%) $ 761,300 Total Project Cost $8,373,900 Annual Payment for 5% Interest t 544,700 30 year term 28 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY (CONTINUED) Fi nancial Feasibilitv The annual operating costs and yearly revenues are examined for the first, fourth, and fifteenth years of operation in Table A-10. It is expected that the marina will be fully occupied by the fouth year and the fifteenth year is the median year for a thirty year loan. Revenues include seasonal slip rental fees, rents from leases for a boat store and a restaurant, parking fee, and fuel sales. Operating costs include payroll, administrative and general costs, energy costs, repairs and maintenance and insurance. The difference between yearly revenues and annual operating cost is the amount available to repay the loan. The $546,00 available in the fifteenth year exceeds the annual payment of $545,000 required for a thirty year loan @A, ith 5% interest for $8.4 million. Some type of arrangement allowing graduated payments will have to be worked out so that the Park Commission can repay the loan in accordance with the revenues available. 29 TABLE A-10 ANMJAL REVENUES AND COSM 1982, 1986, 1997 1982 1986 1997 Occupancy 86% 100% 100% Revenue 1) SliD rental Season 217,500 330,500 695,000 Transient 2,200 2,900 6,400 2) Building leases Boat store & restaurant 48,000 48,000 12031000 3) Parking Fees Season nermit 8,700 11,300 26,300 General-day 3,600 5,400 10,800 $280,000 $398,100 $858,500 4) Fuel sales 8 4oo 9,700 15,000 -9-07,600 $873 51057 OPERATIM EXPENSES 1) Payroll & related expenses $62,4oo $81,ioo $171 '000 2) Adninistrative & general 8,4oo L1,900 25,800 3) EneTrj costs 14,000 19,900 42@1000 4) Repairs & maintenance 5,600 8,000 17,200 5) Property insurance 30,000 35,000 60,000 6) .Reserve for renlacement 5,000 5,000 10,000 7125,400 M05900 T77-,500 Amount available for loan payment $1635000 $246,900 t546,000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION III I PROJECT ANALYSIS I I @ LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS The breakwater design made use of rubblemound construction because of its economy and durability. The design criteria used will insure the breakwater's longevity. Other materials used in construction will be specified in the final design so as to provide durability for the project life. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The following schedule of activities is anticipated: Months After Award. 1. Preparation of final design 9 2. Final plans and specifications 11 3. Construction bids solicited 11 4. Construction contract finalized 13 5. Construction period 30 6. Initial operation of marina 31 REAL ESTATE Since the marina is an offshore facility, a lease for the required area must be obtained from the State of Ohio, which owns the lake bottom land. No problems are anticipated in obtaining this lease. All utilities are accessible within Lake Shore Park and since the Township Park Commission are the applicants for this loan no easements from other interests will be needed. See Exhibit III-1, a copy of a certificate of title for Lake Shore Park. 31 OFFICE OF' THE PROSECUTINs ATT13RNEY AsHTAE3ULA COUNTY COURTHOUSE JEFFERSON, OHIC 44047 PHONE: JOHN G. CARDINAL 216-S713-20401 PROSECUTING ATT13RNEY EXT. ZSI ZS3 OF T;-,e January 17, 1980 Ohio Department of Energy 30 East Broad Street 34th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attn: Ohio CEIP Coordinator Gentlemen: I have examined the records of Ashtabula County, Ohio, in reference to premises certified by Hugh L. Thomas, Assistant Director, on April 16, 1979 and described as follows: 'Situated in the City and Township of Ashtabula, County of Ashtabula, and State of Ohio, known as being part of sections, numbers two (2) and three (3) in township number thirteen (13) range three (3) Connecticut Western Reserve. Commencing in the west line of Minnesota Street in the Harmon Park Plat at a point where the centerline of Park Avenue intersects the same. Thence easterly along the centerline of said Park Avenue about ten hundred fifty (1050) feet to a stone at a point where the centerline of Manola Street will intersect the centerline of said Park Avenue; thence southerly along the center- line of Manola Street about ten hundred eighty-seven (1087) feet to the center of the Lake Road so called. Thence easterly along the center of the Lake Road to the west line of lands now or formerly owned by Sheldon Harmon, which point is supposed to be at the intersection of the east line of the East Village Road with the center- line of said Lake Road. Thence northerly C_.. . - . - T T T along the westerly line of the lands,of said Harmon about ten hundred forty-nine (1049) feet to the waters of Lake Erie. Thence westerly along the waters of lake Erie about twenty-five hundred forty-two and fourteen hundredths (2542.14) feet to a point, which point would be in the northerly extension of the west line of University Street. Thence southerly on the line which would be the northerly extension of the west line of Minnesota Street to the place of beginning, except- ing and reserving however from the above described premises lots numbers one hundred eighty (180), one hundred ninety- four (194), one hundred ninety-five (195) and one hundred ninety-six (196) in said Harmon Park Plat heretofore sold and con- veyed. I find title to be good in the Ashtabula Township Park Board,subject only to the following liens and encumbrances as of December 31, 1979, at 10:00 a.m. 1.) zoning regulations imposed by the Council of the City of Ashtabula, Ohio, and the Board of Township Trustees of Ashtabula Township, Ashtabula County, Ohio Very truly yours, JOHN G. CARDINAL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY BY R-DWARD G. ;ZEK Assistant Prosecutor EGP/wa EXHIBIT III-1 ENVIROM=AL ASSESS.%= ENFOMIATION Other Federal Agency Involvement An application for a 404 permit has been filed with the U.S. ArrW Corms of Engineers, Buffalo District. This is necessary since the marina construction involves placing structures and fill materials into the waters of Lake Erie. The Corps of Engineers bas done a number of studies in relation to their pro- posed Beach Erosion and Shoreline Protection Project for Lake Shore-Park. Among these are: Section 103 Shore Erosion Report,, Section 111 Ashtabula Harbor Renort and the Lake Shore Park Beach Erosion and Shoreline Protection Study. Inciuded as -Appendix D is - the Preliminary section 4o4 (b) Evaluation for the Beach Erosion and Shoreline Protection Project which contains information appli- cable to the marina as well since the-beach project is innediately to the east of the proposed marina. See Figure 111 -1 In the preparation of this preliminary Engineering Report other agencies have been consulted on various subjects. Since the possibility of moving the U.--. Coast Guard's Ashtabula Station into the marina exists, a number of meet- Lngs were held with representatives of the 9th District Staff. Input as to physical requirements for a station and the time frame involved in such a move were obtained as well as review of the various alternates proposes. Included as Exhibit 111-2 is a letter from Captain E.H. Daniels, U.S. Coast Guard, out- lining their position an a possible move at the present time. A meeting was held in Columbus, aAo with members of the staff of the Chto Department of Natural Resources to make them aware of the proposed marina project. '1hey are involved in the funding of the Lake Shore Park Boat Ramp Project, which is immediately south of the proposed marina. Car-trailer parkirug expansion for this boat ramp is part of two of the alternates for the marina. The Port Authority of the City of Ashtabula has been informed of the olans for a marina in Lake Shore Park; 34 Xw 'Zo Pl m IV > m C-) C> Pq 0 Zn F rn 01 30 0 rn z -4 -L cm rn rm WATERANTAKE On A c 0 z --I o > rn = > AD < 5 ; T rri z 4A C: c lop 100@@ Address reply to: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMANDER (dpl) UNITED STATES COAST GUARD Ninth coast Guard District 17.40 1240 East 9th St. ClevelaneR@ 51V29293 Phone: 2 5 Mr. Albert Malinak Woodruff Engineering Inc. 23875 Commerce Park Road Beachwood, OH 44122 Dear Mr. Malinak: For some time now, your firm has been working with The Ashtabula Township Park Commission and County Planning Commission on the Lakeshore Park Recreation Plan. The present plan does affect the Coast Guard by including a proposed new site for our Station in Ashtabula. As Commander Peterson of my staff has mentioned to you, the relocation of our station is a very indefinite matter. Although we do have some very real problems with our present site, relocation is only one of several available alternatives. The proposed site in your Recreation Plan is certainly attractive for a potential Coast Guard Station, but it is not possible to determine at this time if such a site will actually be needed. We do appreciate being included in your marina development plans, and sincerely hope that the option of relocation will remain open for us. Sincer ly, E. Daniels Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Chief of Staff Ninth Coast Guard District INC. H Exhibit 111 -2 qr, although it is out of their jurisdiction. A copy of a resolution fran the Port Authority expressing their support for the Lake Shore Park Marina is included, see Exhibit 111-3. Descript ion --)f Proposed Project The description of the marina project along with discussions of con- struction methods and tim frame estimates are given in corresponding sections of the PER. DescriDtion of the Surrounding Envirommmt See the Site Description portion of the Project Description section of this revort for a discussion of the surrounding environment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service informed the Corps of Engineers of a water fowl area south of the East Breakwater of Ashtabula Harbor in relation to the Beach Erosion Study. This area is indicated in Figure 111-2 and it can be seen that the marina will not intrude into this area. '!he marina should, in fact, reduce pleasure craft traffic through this area since it will provide direct access to the omn Lake. An aerial photograph of Lake Shore Park is in- cluded, see Appendix B. Temporar7 Impacts of the Proposed Project It should be mentioned that simultaneous construction of the proposed marina and the loroDosed reconstruction of the beach immediately to the east by the Coros of Engineers would be beneficial. Such coordination of construction activities would minimize the duration of termoorary impacts caused by construction and minimize the inconveniences to park users. Pir Quality: It would be exDected that there would be minor increases in fumes and dust levels due to the heavy machinery used during construction. These increases should not be significant due to the normal levels generated by coal and iron ore handling facilities and the nover generating facilities in the area as well as normal park maintenance equipment and automobile traffic. Water Quality: An increase in turbity will accomoany construction activi- ties. All efforts necessary will be talmn in order to minimize both the amount 0 A HTABU' \ PORT AUTHORITY Port of Progress P.O. B0X 889 BOARD MEMBERS ASHTABULA, OHIO 44004 Harold Leehan, Chairman Joseph Lovas, Vice-Chairman Alex Patterson William Herzog Carmen Corbissero Armando Santilli HARBORMASTER Nicholas Poulchel NOVEMHBER 3, 1980 A RESOLUTION WHEREAS; THE ASHTABULA PORT AUTHORITY MET ON NOVEMBER 3,1980 AND DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED MARINA AT LAKE SHORE PARK,and, WHEREAS; THE ASHTABULA PORT AUTHORITY IS TOTALLY COMMITTED TO THE BETTERMENT OF THE SHORELINE OF LAKE ERIE IN ASHTABULA COUNTY, and, WHEREAS; IT IS DETERMINED THAT THIS IMPROVEMENT WILL GREATLY BENEFIT ALL THE CITIZNS OF ASHTABULA COUNTY AND IN PARTICULAR THE CITIZENS OF ASHTABULA CITY. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ASHTABULA PORT AUTHORITY HEREBY UNANIM0USLY ENDORSES AND SUPPORTS THIS VENTURE AND PLEDGES FULL COOPERATION TO THE ASHTABULA TOWNSHIP PARK BOARD IN THIS ENDEAVOR. HAROLD LEEHAN, CHAIRMAN ARMAND0 SANTILLI W1LLIAM HERZOG, SECRETARY JOSEPH LOVAS CARMEN CORBISSERO ALEX PATTERSON Exhibit 111-3 38 PK0M9fPhWW1NA Aw 81ine Ave ..... . Ave WATERFOWL AREA @12 US MAW OaTAR7P MWO/I Pr, PA TION 0* RITA VR531LIFr JORIDGE COMMA t1Fr MIME ASHTABULA HARBOR WATERFOWL AREA SCALE mo low and sr)reading of stirred sediments. It is anticioated that sediments shall be dredged hydraulically with minimal suspension of sediment. '.L'he bottan material to be excavated is dense shale and should therefore settle out Ouickly after excavation operations. 7he stone in the rubblemound break- waters shall be obtained from uDland commercial sources and free of contami- nants. Once the breakwaters are constructed they should help to contain the spread of suspended sediments. It is anticipated that filling to make land will be done with clean fill materials and in such a manner as to minimize introduction of fill material into the water. Safeguards will be taken to minimize any spillage of oil, gas or other contaminants from equipment and barges operating on the water. Erosion: No significant erosion will occur during construction since little land excavation is anticipated. Field offices and equipment will occupy ex- isting parking lot space. 'dildlife: Fish will be driven fran the immediate area for the duration of construction. Important fishing areas such as around the Illuminating Company outflow and East Breakwater of Ashtabula Harbor will be unaffected. As was stated earlier, the Corps of Engineers consulted with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in preparing the Beach Erosion Study. No mention was made of the existence of any threatened or endangered species in the Park Area. The waterfowl area mentioned earlier will not be affected. There are no known water- fowl nesting areas in the iTmTediate project area. A 1979 CEIP project conducted by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources identified no rare, threatened or endangered plants or plant communities within the project area. Noise: There will be a temporary increase in noise level in the immediate area due to the operation of large construction equipment. This noise should be restricted to the waterfront since the land rises 45 feet immediately south 40 of the project site and will direct the sound upward. This should effectively buffer the upper portions of the Park and inland residences from this construction noise. Sane increase in truck traffic and accompanying noise may be experienced due to delivery af-equipment or materials but this should not be much greater than noise associated with daily maintenance of the Park. Correspondingly, there will be a decrease in recreational traffic due to construction and closure of the Park campgrounds while the Beach Project is built. Recreation: -Since a oortion of the boat ramn narkinz lot. will be used for a field office, equipment storage, and other things; the parking area will be reduced and traffic natterns will be affected. This will in turn reduce the nossible launch rate of the boat ram. Necessary precautions will have to be taken to Drevent-the-public frcm enterIng the construction site either on land or in the water. It is possible the x-an. would have to be closed when work is being done on the west end of the marina, but this work may be scheduled early in the construction season to minimize its effect. Security fences shall be used on land and aDpmpriate buoys and warning devices in the water to protect the site and the nublic. Construction will temDorarily remove access to approx- :@.mately 1,000 feet of lakefront abutting the marina. It will have to be deter- mined during the project whether it will be possible to open the eastern break- water to the public.-for fishing access before construction is comnleted. "I"'his would orovide over 1,400 feet of access. It is anticinated that breakwater con- struction will be one of the first tasks achieved. This will provide a safe harbor for the waterborn construction ecuirment and also for boats using: the launch ramn. Boaters could use it as a refuge in ca se of a sudden storm. Traffic: Construction will not sig:nificantly affect traffic flow in the 'Oark excent for the boat launching rwm area. 7-here are sufficient parkinz spaces elsewhere in the park to absorb vehicl es displaced frcm this area. Both the Park Recreation Plan and the Corns of Ena-ineers found the nar* roadways caDable of handling the additional traffic related to [email protected] 41 D TNIPAC. ERMA1,MT - T OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Pdr Quality: Increased auto and boat traffic will cause a slight increase in internal combustion engine fumes. 'Zhe significance of this increase is minimal considering the industrial facilities in Ashtabula Harbor and the surrounding area. Industrial activities included are materials handling such as coal and iron ore, power generation, and chemical manufacture and storage. Develorment of other areas of Lake S17iore Park will result in increased auto traffic regardless of the marina. Thus it can be expected that oresent air quality would not be significantly degraded by the construction of the marina. 'dater Quality: Recreational boats generally contribute incidental amounts of gasoline and motor oil to a harbor. The increase in marine traffic will re- sult in slight increases in the amounts of these substances in the harbor. This situation can be minimized with strict sunervision by the marina management to orevent larpe snills. Stirring of sediments can be minimized by enforcement of harbor speed limits. This problem will be minimal since a large portion of the marina bottom is rock and sediments are present only on the west side of the site. Considerable amounts of this sediment will be removed by hydraulic dredging in the construction phase to achieve the desired depth. It is proposed to open-Lake dump the dredgings. A chemical analysis of the sediments is pro- vided in the Project Soils Report, see Appendix C. --he Corps of Engineers will make the determination as to whether open-Lake dumping is permissible in reviewing the project for the Section 404 (b) perrdt. Resuspension of sediment due to annual maintenance dredging should be no worse than that associated with annual dredging for the boat rams at present. The effect's are temporary since the water clears auickly after the dredging for the rams. There will be no degradation of water quality resulting from deposition 42 ()f maif-rials connected with the project. All stone used in the rubhl@-,nound breakwater shall be clean and uncontaminated stone obtained from upland sites. All fill material shall be clean. Anv metal associated with the bulkhead or floating docks shall be specified so as to prevent release of any contaminants into the harbo r. Thus there will be no significant impact on the existing water quality. Beside the information provided in Corps of Engineers t-valuation for the Beach Erosion and Shoreline Protection Project included as Appendix D,a number of other reports involving marinas and deposition of rubblemound materials in this general area of Lake Erie have been published. Two such documents are Draft Enviromental Impact Statement for the Cooperative Beach Erosion Project at Presque Isle Peninsula in Erie, Pennsylvania May 15, 1973 and Sta e 2 Document for Reformulation Phase 1 General Desizn Memorandum Geneva-on-the-Lake, Ohio Small Boat Harbor April 1980; both published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer. Erosion: There will be very little land excavation involved @@ith this project with no surface vegetation removal to expose earth for erosion. Therefore, there won't be any permanent erosion impacts associated with the marina. Wildlife: As stated earlier, the waterfowl area inside the east breakwater of Ashtabula Harbor will not be affected by the marina and should benefit in the decrease of pleasure craft traffic through the area. The fish population tolerates the launching and operation of boats in the area at present. It-is to be expected that they will return to the area once construction is complete if speed limits are enforced minimizing bottom disturbance and noise. As the number of launchings and docked boats increase, it is expected that the fish %Vi 11 leave the marina basin itself, but make use of the north side of the new breakwaters. 43 There will be greater water depth provided than previously. This loss of shallow water habitat will be offset by the construction of the beach immediately to the East of the marina. Breakwaters and made land will occupy 11.4 acres of lake bottom,potential yellow perch spawing area. The rubblemound breakwaters will provide 1.4 acres of new and more varied habitat.- With 'the interstices in in rubblemound construction, the area provided is actually much greater than 1.4 acres. This new habitat would attract additional fish to the area. Noise: The natural rise of the land south of the project site should protect neighboring houses and the rest of the Park from anv increases in noise due to the marina. Noise attributable to increased car traffic and increased number of individuals using the Park should not be greater for the mairna than for other improvements planned for the Park such as the beach reconstruction. Increases were found to be insignificant for that case. Enforcement of marina regulations regarding noise levels (such as radios) and harbor speed limits will help to minimize any noise level increases Recreation: The basis of this project is providing additional recreational opportunities for the public. There are no negative re- creational impacts. The marina will provide additional and improved dock space on Lake Erie. The need for additional space is demonstrated in the Financial Feasibilitv section of this report. The project also provides safer and more convenient boating access than the existing marinas on the Ashtabula River. The lengthy trip down the river and through harbor freighter traffic isn't nec essary. Access to Lake Erie is increased with additional dock space and the full utilization of the 3-lane boat launching ramp. An additional harbor of refuge is provided for small craft and fishing boats in case of a sudden s.t.orm. 44 Fishing opportunities are increased and improved. The east breakwater will provide approximately 1,400 feet of fishing access. In addition, access to deeper water will be provided, offering the opportunity of catching a greater variety and larger size fish. Moderate size commercial fishing boats can be docked in the marina. This project augments the use of other Lake Shore Park facilities such as picnic facilities, the beach, the new playground and so on. 1he east breakwater separates boating and swimming activities. Enforcement of regulations in both the marina and swimming areas will minimize any safety risks. Safety will be maintained in the marina through clear marking of navigation channels and strict enforcement of speed regulations. This will be an improvement over current unmarked condititons. Safety.equipment shall be available at both the beach and the marina and all Park personnel shall be acquanted with its use. Other impacts: Since the location of the marina is at the extreme western end of the Park, scenic vistas will be relatively unaffected. The marina will become part of the vista currently dominated by the Pinney Dock. The possible relocation of the Ashtabula U.S. Coast Guard Station into the marina would be a beneficial impact. The Coast Guard could respond more quickly to emergencies on the open Lake. 1his is true because from their present location on the Ashtabula River thev must observe river and inner harbor speed limits as well as avoiding harbor traffic in responding to an emergency. No other impacts have been identified. 45 Floodplain Concerns: 'Since the project is construction of a recreational boat marina on Lake Erie, the project site has to be within the Lake Erie 100-year floodplain. There is no viable alter- native to this development site. This project is not likely to encourage residential,-commercial, or industrial development in the 100-year floodplain as adjacent lands are comnletely developed. The Lake Shore Park. Development Plan, which contains information regarding the construction of this project, has been publically available since December 1979. Various announcements in local newspapers have identified the availability of the Plan and solicited comments on any portion contained therein. No comments on the proposed construction have been received. Wetland Concerns: This project is not located in a wetland, nor is it likely to promote residential, commercial, or industrial development in a wetland, as there are none in the immediate vicinity. Historic Preservation: The Ohio Historic Preservation Office has been consulted concerning this project. Included is a copy of their response stating that the project won't affect any property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, see Exhibit 111-4. 46 1 0 lh@(:D G0flZQ(1)1FnQ (DTnQC07, 10hio Historical Center 1-71 & 17th Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43211 (614) 466-150( October 22, 1980 Mr. Albert J. Malinak, P. E. Woodruff, Inc. 23875 Commerce Park Road Cleveland, Ohio 44122 Re: Lake Shore Park Boat Marina Ashtabula, Ohio Dear Mr. Malinak: This is in response to your letter of October 8, 1980, requesting our comments on the above proposed project. The staff of the Ohio Historic Preservation Office has reviewed the maps and other documentation provided with your correspondence. It appears from this information that the-proposed undertaking will not affect any significant cultural resources, either historic or archaeological, eligible for, nominated to or listed in the National Register of Historic Places. We recommend that you proceed with this project. T@ank you for the opportunity to review' and comment on the Lake Shore Park boat marina. Si erely, L Dellas H. Harder Acting State Historic Preservation Officer DHH:LS:as V-%rhil@it TTT-A Alternatives: As has been previousiv stated, a number of studies for developing a marina in the Ashtabula area have been done. In 1965, the City of Ashtabula had a feasibilitY study done for the development of a municipal recreational marina on land it had bought along the Ashtabula River. The report entitled Feasibility Survey Report (Technical and Economic) of Proposed Recreational Marina, Ashtabula, Ohio was done by Rosenstock-11olland-Associates of Akron, Ohio as a Technical Assistance Project for Area Redevelopment Administration of U.S. Department of Commerce. This report concluded that there was a great need for additional dock space in Ashtabula and spelled out the features the marina should have. The City never built the marina and, in fact, a private marina operator purchased the land from the City. The extensive rehabilitation and expansion of the site proposed in the report was not done however. In 1978, the Snell Environmental Group performed a Harbor Marina Master Plan Study - 1978 for the Ashtabula Por-L Authority. This report involved six possible marina sites in and around the Ashtabula Harbor, among them was Lake Shore Park, referred to as "Size F". The various sites were evaluated on 15 different criteria and assi-gned a certain po--'-nt value accordingly. Included as Exhibit TI1-5, are the site plan and description of "SiteF"and the table "Surnmary Comparison of Sites". As can be seen from this table, Lake Shore Park, "Site F". was the highest rated of the sites. A more complete copy of this study was included with the loan application for this project. The alternative of no development would not alleviate the demonstrated need for permanent recreational docking space in the area. Neither would this option permit satisfaction of local priorities nor implementation of redevelopment activities identified in 308 (c) (1) Park Development Plan. Implementation of completed local plans is an expressed objective of the Coastal Energy Impact Program and the Ohio Coastal Zone Management program 10 J-4 7. SUM A@_ Via seat* Ift feet a* 5w vow 'am 30OCr JLJ1 I @vg SITE F Legend cogo-saw IOWA Lxt g StrAIMMM, ONOW SM" skip" 0*1%. ASM Asomes to SVa mew PMAM Th"Mok CRY M,@u ism yambH,2% NZ@RTZR PLL/%LH e7U[DV -prepared by: Site F LOCATION- Of this site is considered excellent because it is in the AshtabuTA Harbor on the Lake and is adjacent to Lake Shore Park. AUTO ACCESS- Is considered very good because it is off of Harmon Road or State Road #531 and is also very close to the termination point af Route f1l which enters the City from the south. DRAW- Would be ve!D@ good for several reasons@ including its relationship toTake Shore P-aftwhich already draws many persons to the area and Its overall location and access by auto. AREA CHARACTER- Is very good because it is located within the Harbor area and located adjacent to many recreational facilities. 'Perhaps the only scar on the quality of the surroundings would be the power plant directly east. SIZE&SHAPE- Is considered very good. The land area will require expansi-o-ninto the lake, but,there is plenty of water area to do this. DISTANCE FROM LAKE- Is excellent,for obvious reasons. WATER FACTORS- Are only fair and-this is because of wave action and other influences of the lake wFTET would be rough on small boats. This would change with construction of a breakwater. In facta breakwater is a pre- requisite for a marina in this location. OGRAPHY- Is considered as good. The land area between the existing .,nor-eMin-eand the steep embanZiWn-t is limiting. PRESENT CONDITION- Is very good and includes many ideal features, such as, views and good'support facilities. ' COMPATIBILITY TO SURROUNDINGS- Are rated very good. The park is of excellent quality and would provide an ideal working relationship. UTILITIES- Are rated good, as are all sites. DEMAND FACILITIES----I-s considered very oood, not only for the marina, but also for one in this location. PRESENT OWNERSHIP- Is very good as it is available through cooperation with the AshtabuTa To p Parks Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT- Is also very good, Since the site is already intensely used, little overall change to environmental quality would result. SUMMARY- This site should receive high consideration for a small craft marina. It should be pointed out,however, that an additional breakwater is a prerequisite to such a development. The most positive aspects are the location on the lake, its juxtaposition to Lake Shore Park and its auto access. EXHIBIT 111-5 NEEDS There have been numerous boat counts in the pastwhich all indicate a need to develop marina space in Ashtabula. The need as exhibited in a 1965 report by Rosenstock-Holland Associates states that the projected need as of 1970 would be 1500 mooring spaces. This need for mooring spaces also included the area around Ashtabula. Also considered in this study were present plans, at that time, (1965) for marina development in both Ashtabula and Conneaut which still left the 1500 projected figure. Since the 1965 reportthere have been facilities developed in Conneaut and plans for Geneva on the Lake, however, the 769 spaces projected for Ashtabula, at that time, have not been developed and 298 berths in the report have only increased by an estimated 50 spaces. An official 1978 count is not available, but it has been estimated at 350 mooring spaces by the Ashtabula Port Authority. Based on these figures. the need for the Ashtabula Area is still in excess of 1500 and perhaps as high as 2000. The actual need for berthing spaces in Ashtabula is influenced by development at other facilities along Lake Erie, since this shoreline actually serves an approximately 50 mile radius. Only a percentage of persons with boats berthed in Ashtabula, actually live there. So it is conceivable that if the market is not developed in Ashtabula, expansion of facilities at other ports along the lake could absorb much of the needs projected for Ashtabula. This would represent a lost revenue for the City of approximately $2,140,000 per year. This figure was derived from "a study by the Army Corp of Jneers titled "Evaluation df Economic Feasibility of Maintenance of a Recreational Channel at Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio" which was completed. to determine the cost/benefits ratio of dredging the river for continued use by the recreational fleet in Ashtabula. The benefit of $476,540 to be derived for boats permanently docked was based on a fleet of 239 boats ranging in size from 16'-2S' to 40'-64'. Note: This figure used a percentage of the actual value of the boats as an annual benefit. For instance, a cruiser of 40'-64' in length has an average value of $86,825. In this case, the annual cost to maintain and use the boat would be 9% of its value or $7,800. This figure includes; cost of maintenance, storage, fuel, supplies and other associated costs. Assuming a fleet of 1500 boats to have a similar representational cross section, the revenue generated from 1500 additional mooring spaces would be $2,850,000. However, we know that the average size of boats berthed would be smaller, If sufficient facilities existed, since a lot of boats now launcbed would be berthed and these are generally smaller boats. Hence the revenue per boat is estimated at 25: less, which would reduce the $2,850,000 estimate to $2,140,000 per year. In addition to the potential revenue of $2,140,000 based on 1500 additional mooring spaces, there are numerous indirect economic benefits. All of the additional persons employed to meet the needs of the marina would have needs of their own.such as,food, housing and clothes. This, along with the taxes they pay,would provide much additional revenue for Ashtabula and should not be overlooked as a benefit to the City. SUMIARY The estimated shortage of berthing spaces in the Ashtabula is in excess of 1500 and perhaps as high as 2000. Keep in mind that there are a lot of factors which determine the needs and not any one survey can be depended on to represent the actual need. For this reason, it. is recommended that any such development should be done in stages "RYNTRTT TTT -R 34 Snimnary Comparison of Sites A B C D F CRITERIA Evaluation Pts Evaluation Pts Evaluation Pts Evaluation Pts 7EMOMan Pts Evaluation Pts LOCATION excellent 60 good 30 fair 15 qood 30 poor 0 excellent 60 AUTO ACCESS good 50 very good 75 fair 25 very qood 75 very qood 75 very good 75 DPAII very good 45 good 30 good 30 Igood 30 aood 34 very good 45 I AREA CHARACTER very good 30 fair 10 very nood 30 very good 39 very qood good 20 3n w SHE - S11APE good Sq excellent 00 good Sn nood 5(k very qood 75 Ivery good 75 @A DISTANCE FROM LAKE excellent 80 fair 20 Ifair 2() poor 0 poor 0 excellent 00 WATER FACTORS fa I r 25 good 50 good 50 poor 0 poor 0 fair 25 TOPOGRAPHY good 30 good 30 poor nood 3n very good 45 Qood 30 PRESENT CONDITION fair 5 fair 5 good 10 good 10 good 10 very good 15 SURROUNDINGS good 40 fair 90 good 40 Igood 40 nood 40 very good 60 COMPLEMENTARY FACILITIES _ good 30 fair 15 fair 15 Inoor 0 poor 0 qood 30 DEMAND FOR FACILITIES good 10 good 10 good 10 Igood 10 good 10 pood 10 UTILITIES very good 30 20 good 20 oood 20 nood 20 very good 30 good PRESENT OWNERSHIP very good 30 fair 10 fair 10 good 20 nood 20 very nood- 20 EHV I ROWIFUTAL Eva c ua ere Pts q od 6- 0 very qi v r : e yqj good ASSESSMENT. Fair 15 very good [45. very oood 45 very nond 145 poor 0 very qood 45 00 1 TOTAL POHITS 530 470 370 19n 355 620 The design alternatives considered are presented and discussed in the Project Description section of this report. Alternate 3 is the preferred alternate for a number of reasons spelled out in the discussion. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION A description of the involvement of the various Federal, state and local agencies in this project can be found in Environmental Assessment Information section of this report. All concerned state agencies have reviewed the loan application through the State of Ohio A-95 Clearinghouse Review process. See Exhibit 111 -6. SITING The marina is sited in accordance with the latest master plan for the area, that being the Lakeshore Park Recreation Plan. As is discussed in the Financial Feasibility Study, Appendix A, the site has excellent highway and water access. Users will be able to use the many other recreational facilities available in Lake Shore Park, such as tennis courts, playground, picnic areas, and the future beach. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE No relocation assistance is required for this project. All additional land required for the project is Lake Erie submerged land which is owned by the State of Ohio. An application to lease the land required has been filed. 0 WILLIAM P. FERGUS P E. DIRECTOR July 14, 1980 Ashtabula Twp. Park Board E. First Street & Minola Ashtabula, Ohio 44004 ATT: MICHAEL ADAMS A-95 AREAWIDE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW RE: Lake Shore Park Marina Construction Project Dear Mr. Adams: The A-95 review of the above referenced proposal was completed on July 14, 1980 Clearinghouse review comments, if any, and a copy of the official resolution of the General Policy Board of the Eastgate Development and Transportation Agency indicating support for your proposal are enclosed. We recommend that you include a copy of the resolution with your application and proceed with your request. If you have any questions concerning this action please contact the Eastgate Development and Tranportation Agency. We thank you for your cooperation and wish you success in your endeavor. Sincerely, EASTGATE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY RECEIVED William P. Fergus, P.E. Director APR 1981 WPF/ml Enclosure WOODRUFF, INC. cc: State Clearinghouse EASTGATE DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTAION AGENCY 130 JAVIT COURT. YOUNGSTOWN. OHIO 44515 216/ 793-3282 YOUNGSTOWN 373-1921 WARREN Exhibit III-6 55 GPB RESOLUTION r"r 131 A-95 LOG # 80-200 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THROUGH THE A-95 REVIEW PROCESS AN APPLICATION BY THE ASHTABULA TOWNSHIP PARK BOARD TO THE OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT FOR FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT A RECREATIONAL BOAT MARINA IN LAKE SHORE PARK WHEREAS, the Ashtabula Township Park Board is@ making application to the Office of Coastal Zone Management for funds to construct a recreational boat marina in Lake Shore Park; and WHEREAS, the Eastgate Development and Transpor- tation Agency (hereinafter called EDATA), State of Ohio, has reviewed this application under requirements issued by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in Circular A-95. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the General Policy Board of EDATA that this application being submitted to the Office of Coastal Zone Management be hereby supported. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the EDATA staff be directed to review this proposed project for its conformance with areawide plans and that said comments be made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the EDATA staff be directed to forward a copy of this resolution and a copy of all written comments to the applicant and applicable local, state, and federal agencies. Passed this 10th day of July 1980. ATTEST: Director Chairman Exhibit III - 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION IV . I CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA I I CONSMUMON CRITERIA A discussion of the design criteria used for the various portions of the oroject follows. Breakwater design was accomlished using methods for rubblemound construc- tion frcm the Shore Protection Manual oublished by the U.S. Army Coastal Engi- neering Research Center. A 10-year maximum monthly mean lake level plus 1-year short term fluctuation were used for the design lake level (DEL). A 20-year deerwater wave was used in desipm. r-1hese values were obtained from Technical Renort H-76-1, Desipm Wave Information for the Great Lakes Penort Lake Erie from the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Exreriment Station. The design allowable wave height within the harbor is one foot. After considerable research, it was decided that the desirable denth for the marina would be 6 feet below Low Water Datum (LWD). LWD is elevation 568.6 feet above Mean Water Level at Father Point Quebec, (International Great Lakes Datum 1955). This depth was found to be acceptable to the Coast (-)T@ should they relocate to the marina. The use of floating docks is nronosed for the marina walkways and finger piers. '-his is the most direct method of coDing with the large possible vari- ation in the Lake Erie water level (5-8 feet between highest and lowest recorded monthly mean levels). Layouts were based on the use of 5' wide walkways and 3' @-.-ide finger piers, 25' long. The clear width between fingers is 25'. In the final design, various length finger piers with variation in slip widths would be designed. Water and electrical lines would be run out along the sides of walkways to Drovide these services to each berth. A steel bulkhead is proposed to contain the fill for the marina parking area. It would consist of steel H piles concreted into the existing shale with horizontal beans connecting: them to form a steel framework. Steel sheet oiling 57 would be attached to this framework. Sheet piling cannot be driven because of the hard shale bottom. A concrete bean would be noured at the base of the sheet piling to create a seal and concrete caD beam would be noured at the ton. Filling would start inrediately behind the bulkhead and work inward. r1his is just one possible scheme of attack. Discussions would be held with experi- enced Lake contr-actors before a system was proposed for the final design. Pavement designs take into account exoosure to the Lakefront weather and the use imposed. Ttm access roadways will receive heavy use and the boat launching r-am parking involves the extra loads of trailered boats. The pave- ment for these areas would consist of 8" of aggregate base, a 1-112" asphalt intermediate coarse, and a 1" asphalt wearing coarse. The marina and fishing parking should handle only passenger cars and the pavement is a little thinner. It consists of 6" of aggregate base, a 1" asphalt interiwdiate coarse, and a 1" asphalt wearing coarse. All reinforced concrete desiM shall be in accordance with the latest edition of the Anerican Concrete Institute Building Code and applicable local codes. Steel design shall be done according to the latest edition of the AISC code and local codes. Specialized steel design such as a steel bulkhead will be designed using appropriate guidelines. Lighting for both the parking lots and the marina walkways would be de- signed according to accepted industry standards. E'lectricity for the lighting .as well as providing electrical service to the berths and buildings is avail- able along Lake Shore Drive south of the project site. It is a similar situation for water. Storm drainage will be provided for the parking lots and the water routed back into the Lake. A pumo-out station for boats and sanitary facilities in the main building will require a small holding tank and pump station. The 58 sewage will be pumped to the large Park pump station located on the south side of Lake ':Tmre Drive across from the Park Pavillion. A man., Figure IV-1 illustrates the sanitary sewer system in the local area. The anticipated aver-age daily flow is 51,000 gallons based upon 125 gpd per slip. The existing Park facill- ties should be capable of handling this additional flow. 59 SOW he /2r 51 3) flit A ILI 5fafiOt7 L3 n-- "44 VICINITY 1_ TV WIT SEWER J Tj I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I SECTION V I COST ESTIMATES I I CONSMUMON COST ESTIMATES Following are construction cost estimates developed for the four alter- nates. The various items are listed and p7nuned under the headings of Break- waters, Harbor, Parking Lot, Utilities, and Buildings. 1979 unit orices for the Northeast Ohio area are used. Lhese estimates are used in comnarwing the Alternates to make a recomwn- dation for the preferred one. It must be noted that all these estimates are nrenared based on the design criteria exolained. in the Desim Criteria Section of this report and therefore, are on an eaual footing with each other. A num- Iter of changes can be made to lower construction costs, but they would result in a slightly less satisfactory design. Breakwater sizes could be reduced if the design year or allowable wave height within the harbor were changed. If it were decided to accent a variable draft harbor instead of the six feet below LWD depth, dredging and rock excavation costs could be reduced. If scme type of dock system such as the use of nrecast concrete double tees would be acceptable, savings could be realized over floating docks. Something would have to be done to cone with the variation in Lake level so that the nossible trade-offs would have to be examined. Changes in items related to the parking lots such as navement designs, curbs, and so on could effect cost savings. It would be expected that other opportunities for cutting costs could be found. One major consideration is the future Coast Guard Station area. Should it be decided that the Coast Guard won't relocate to the marina before final desimn is accomolished, it is recommended to delete that area from the desian and make necessary changes in the layout. 'i-his would result in great savinvs in made land and bulkhead construction. These estimates represent a sound basis for cost camarison of the studied alternates. '--hey should not be reszarded as final design construction estimates. 61 COST ESTIMATE FOR LAKE SHORE PARK MARINA ALTERNATE 1 ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMAJD ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE Breakwaters I Mobilization & Demobilization LUMP Armor Stone sum 50,0 6-14 TONS 39,800 TON 30.00 1,194,000 2- 4 TONS 8,240 TON 32.00 263,71 1- 2 TONS 10,500 TON 32.00 336,0 Underlayer Stone 700-2900# 9,920 TON 27.50 273,00J 190- 775# 2,360 TON 29.00 68,40 100- 400# 3,220 TON 29.00 93,40 Bedding Stone 2-145# 15,100 TON 21.00 317 001 40# 5,210 TON 21.00 109:00 TON 22.00 156,000 a- 20?# 7,090 Harbor SUBTOTAL $2,860,501 Mobilization & Demobilization LUMP sum 50,001 Rock Excavation 19,700 C.Y. 25.00 493 001 Dredging 8,950 C.Y. 8.00 71:60 Floating Docks-including water, electric & lighting PER 408 BOAT 1,750.00 714,001 SUBTOTAL $1,328,607 99. 0 ALTERNATE 1 (CONTINUED) ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMAT ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE Parking Lot Steel Bulkhead 1,857 L.F. $ 300.00 $ 557,0 Excavation not including embankment 3,000 C.Y. 6.00 18,01 Embankment 88,100 C.Y. 7.00 617,081 Asphalt Pavement Parking Lot 14,600 S.Y. 13.50 197,01 Roadways 3,540 S.Y. 20.00 70,86 Curbs 3,400 L.F. 8.25 28,08 Concrete Walk 7,700 S.F. 2.75 21,22 Reinforced Concrete 300 C.Y. 300.00 90,106 Handrail 1,250 L.F. 12.00 15,06 Lighting-includes lighting standards, cable & all other necessary equip- LUMP ment in place SUM 12,04 Topsoil 500 C.Y. 10.00 5,O0 Seeding & Mulching includes fertilizer 5,300 S.Y. 1.50 7,95 Landscaping LUMP SUM 8,00 Subtotal $1,646,95 Utilities Storm Sewer 900 L.F. 30.00 27,00 Storm Manholes 2 EACH 1,000.00 2,00 Catch Basins 5 EACH 800.00 4,00 Sanitary Sewer 900 L.F. 25.00 22,50 Sanitary Manholes 2 EACH 1,000.00 2,00 Pump Station LUMP SUM 10,00 Waterline 1,350 L.F. 35.00 47,30 Fire Hydrants 3 EACH 1,500.00 4,50 Subtotal $ 19,30 Buildings Restaurant/Boat Store 3,750 S.F. 100.00 375,00 Shower/Rest Rooms 1,750 S.F. 100.00 175,00 Marine Service Station LUMP SUM $ 15,000 Subtotal $ 565,000 Aids to Navigation 3 EACH 15,000.00 45,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PRICE 1979 $ 6,565,350 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PRICE 1982 @ 10% INFLATION $ 8,740,000 63 COST ESTIMATE FOR- LAKE SHORE PARK MARINA ALTERNATE 2 ESTIMATED UN IT ESTIMATt I71MS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE Breakwaters I Mobilization & Demobilization LUMP Armor Stone sum $ 50,001 6-14 TONS 45,100 TON $ 30.00 1,353,000 2- 4 TONS 6,700 TON 32.00. 2 1 4,40f 1- 2 TONS 7,350 TON 32.00 235,200 Underlayer Stone 700-2900# 11,200 TON 27.50 308,00 190- 775# 1,920 TON 29.00 55,701 100- 400# 2,250 TON 29.00 65,300 Bedding Stone 2-145# 17,000 TON 21.00 357,00 40- 4,240 TON 21.00 89,000 14- 20# 4,970 TON 22.00 109,30 SUBTOTAL $2,836,901 Harbor Mobilization & Demobilization LUMP sum 50'00J Rock Excavation 20,300 C.Y. 25.00 507,50C� Dredging 9,780 C.Y. 8.00 78,200= Floating Docks-including water, electric & lighting PER 422 BOAT 1,750.00 738,501 $1,374,200 ALTERNATE 2 (CONTINUED) ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATED 17EMS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE Parking Lot Steel Bulkhead 1,640 L.F. S 300.00 $ 492,000 Excavation not including embankment 3,000 C.Y. 6.00 18,000 Embankment 85,700 C.Y. 7.00 600,000 Asphalt Pavement Parking Lot 13,500 S.Y. 13.50 182,000 Roadways 3,440 S.Y. 20.00 68,800 Curbs 2,900 L.F. 8.25 23,900 Concrete Walk 4,630 S.F. 2.75 12,700 Reinforced Concrete 450 C.Y. 300.00 135,000 Handrail 800 L.F. 12.00 9,600 Lignting-includes lighting standards, cable & all other necessary equip- LUMP ment in place sum 14,000 Topsoil 500 C.Y. 10.00 51000 Seeding & Mulching includes fertilizer 7,090 S.Y. i.50 10,600 Landscaping LUMP sum 7,000 Utilities- SUBTOTAL $-1,578,600 Storm Sewer 740 L.F. 30.00 22,200 Storm Manholes 2 EACH 1,000.00 2,000 Catch Basins 5 EACH 800.00 4,000 Sanitary Sewer 1,020 L.F. 25.00 25,500 Sanitary Manholes 1 EACH 1,000.00 11000 Pump Station LUMP sum 10,000 waterline 1,050 L.F. 35.00 36,800 Fire Hydrants 3 EACH 11500.00 4,500 SUBTOTAL 1,061000 Buildj= Restaurant/Boat Store 1,500 S.F. 100.00 150,000 Shower/Rest Rooms 1,700 S.F. 100.00 170,000 Marine Service Station LUMP sum S 15,000 $ 335,000 Aids to Navigation 1 EACH 15, 000.00 $ 15,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PRICE 1979 $.6,245,70C TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PRICE 1982 @ 100% INFLATION $ 8,310,OOC 65 COST ESTIMATE FOR LAKE SHORE.PARK MARINA ALTERNATE 3 ESTIMATED UN IT ESTIMAN: I'TEMS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE Breakwaters I Mobilization & Demobilization LUMP Armor Stone sum 5 501 6-14 TONS 37,300 TON S 30.00 1 - - 2- 4 TONS 8,040 TON 32.00 257,000 1- 2 TONS 6,720 TON 32.00 215,01 Underlayer Stone 700-2900# 9,290 TON 27.50 255,000 190- 775# 2,300 TON 29.00 66,71 100- 400# 2,060 TON 29.00 59,7 Bedding Stone 2-145q' 14,100 TON 21.00 296,000 4 0 A; 51090 TON 21.00 107 00 20#' 4,540 TON 22.00 99:901- SUBTOTAL $2,525,30 Ha rbo r i Mobilization & Demobilization LUMP sum 50'00J Rock Excavation 10,200 C.Y. 25.00 255 000 Dredging 7,920 C.Y. 8.00 63:401 Floating Docks-including water, electric & lighting PER 408 BOAT 1,750.00 714,00 SUBTOTAL $1,082,40 66 ALTERNATE 3 (CONTINUED) ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATEL ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE Parkinq Lot Steel Bulkhead 1,940 L.F. 300.00 582,000 Excavation not i-ncluding embankment 3,000 C.Y. 6.00 18,000 Embankment 104,000 C.Y. 7.00 728,000 Asphalt Pavement Parking Lot 14,300 S.Y. 13.50 193,000 Roadways 8,260 S.Y. 20.00 165,000 Curbs 4,520 L.F. 8.25 37,300 Concrete Walk 7,400 S.F. 2.75 20,400 Reinforced Concrete 300 C.Y. 300.00 90,000 Handrail 11050 L.F. 12.00 12,600 Lignting-includes lighting standards, cable & all other necessary equip- LUMP ment in place sum 14,000 Topsoil 500 C.Y. 10.00 5,000 Seeding & Mulching includes fertilizer 6,260 S.Y. 1.50 9,400 Landscaping LUMP sum 10,000 SUBTOTAL T1,884,700 Utilities- Storm Sewer 1,250 L.F. 30.00 37,500 Storm Manholes 2 EACH 1,000.00 2,000 Catch Basins 7 EACH 800.00 5,600 Sanitary Sewer 930 L.F. 25.00 23,300 Sanitary Manholes 2 EACH 11000.00 2,000 Pump Station LUMP sum 10,000 Waterline 1,310 L.F. 35.00 45,900 Fire Hydrants 3 EACH 1,500.00 4,500 Buildinas SUBTOTAL T 130,800 Restaurant/Boat Store 3,750 S.F. 100.00 375,000 Shower/Rest Rooms 1,750 S.F. 100.00 175,000 Marine Service Station LUMP sum S 15,000 $ 565,000 Aids to Navigation 3 EACH 15,000.00 45,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PRICE 1979 $6,233,200 IOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PRICE 1982 @ 100% INFLATION $8,300.000 P7 COST ESTIMATE FOR LAKE SHORE PARK MARINA ALTERNATE 4 ITEMS ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMJEC OUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE Breakwaters I Mobilization & Demobilization LUMP Armor Stone sum S 50,Cf 6-14 TONS 27,600 TON 30.00 828,000 2- 4 TONS 9,370 TON 32.00 300,01 1- 2 TONS 10,400 TON 32.00 333,0 Underlayer Stone 700-2900# 6,870 TON 27.50 189,01 190- 775# 2,690 TON 29.00 78,0 100- 400# 3,190 TON 29.00 92,5 Bedding Stone 2-145# 10,400 TON 21.00 218 01 40- 5,930 TON 21.00 125:0 20# 7,030 TON 22.00 155,000 SUBTOTAL $2,368,5 Harbor Mobilization & Demobilization LUMP sum Rock Excavation 8,980 C.Y. 25.00 225 Dredging 9,930 C.Y. 8.00 79:4 Floating Docks-including water, electric & lighting PER 422 BOAT 1,750.00 738,51 W $1,092,900 68 ALTERNATE 4 (CONTINUED) ESTIMATED UNIT ESTIMATE ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE Parkinq Lot Steel Bulkhead 1,755 L.F. S 300.00 $ 527,001 Excavation not including embankment 3,000 C.Y. 6.00 18,001 Embankment 95,100 C.Y. 7.00 666,001 Asphalt Pavement Parking Lot 13,700 S.Y. 13.50 185,00( Roadways 9,680 S.Y. 20.00 194,00( Curbs 4,770 L.F. 8.25 39,40( Concrete Walk 51100 S.F. 2.75 14,00( Reinforced Concrete 300 C.Y. 300.00 90100( Handrail 910 L.F. 12.00 10190( Lignting-includes lighting standards, cable & all other necessary equip- LUMP ment in place sum 14,00C Topsoil 350 C.Y. 10.00 3,50C Seeding & Mulching includes fertilizer 4,000 S.Y. i.50 6,OOC Landscaping LUMP sum 8,OOC SUBTOTAL $1,775,80C Utilities Storm Sewer 1,030 L.F. 30.00 30,900 Storm Manholes 2 EACH 1,000.00 2,000 Catch Basins 8 EACH 800.00 6,400 Sanitary Sewer 1,210 L.F. 25.00 30,300 Sanitary Manholes 2 EACH 1,000.00 2,000 Pump Station LUMP sum 10,000 Waterline 1,200 L.F. 35.00 42,000 Fire Hydrants 3 EACH 11500.00 4,500 Buildings $ 1-2-8,100 Restaurant/Boat Store 11500 S.F. 100.00 150,000 Shower/Rest Rooms 1,700 S.F. 100.00 170,000 Marine Service Station LUMP sum S 15,000 SUBTOTAL @_335,000 Aids to Navigation 1 EACH 15,000.00 15,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION PRICE 1979 $5,715,000 TOTAL ESTINATED CONSTRUCTION PRICE 1982 @ 100A01 INFLATION - $7,610,000 69 BUDGFF ESTIMATE Budget estimates are calculated using the eauation: Budget estimate = E(1.00 + C)(1-00 + F) E is the engineering estimate which are contained in the previous section of this report. C is the contingency factor which is taken as 10%. F is the cost rise factor. This factor is taken as 15% anticipating a one and one-half year time lapse from submittal of the PER to acceptance of construction bids. Budget Estimate Alternate 1 $8,305,200 Alternate 2 $7,900,600 Alternate 3 $7,885,000 Alternate 4 $7,229,500 DESI(Ri AND ENGINMING SERVICES The design and engineering fees are calculated in accordance with the Guide- lines for Professional Services of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE). Marina Drojects are included in Schedule 2. The cost calculated for the recommended alternate Nunber 3 is $389,000. This includes supPlementarnj services such as survey work and additional soils work needed for final desip-r. See the Financial Feasibility portion of the report for a summation of the total project cost for Alternate 3. 70 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION VI I APPENDICES I I I I I I I I I I I APPEND I-X A .1 FURAINCIAL FEASIBILITY SSTUDY I I I I I 1,1 I I I MONOMIC INVIROM= Market Areas The first step in trying to determine how much of a demand there would be for a =all boat marina in Ashtabula is to define the areas from which boaters would be attracted to the facility. These areas are referred to as the potential market areas. Several factors have to be considered in de- limiting the market area, a few of them being: travel time and highway access; similar facilities and their locations; the type of boater to be served, and 3o on. As was stated earlier, highway access is excellent for the proposed site. There is a direct limited-access freeway, State Route 11, linking Ashtabula to Interstate 90. S.R. 11 continues south through the Youngstown- ',iarren area in Ohio (nop. 208,000), providing a direct freeway route to the city of Ashtabula. Other U.S. and state highways feed into both freeways creating an effective highway network to the proposed site. One of the primary considerations in defining the market areas is travel time, that is, how much time would a person be willing to spend driving to where his boat is docked. Lake Erie offers opnortunities for a wide and attractive variety of recreation. Boating on the lake is different from boating on a wall inland lake. The largest inland lake in the area, -1matuning Reservoir, has a horsepower limit on motors effectively limiting the size of boats using it and the types of uses. Other lakes in the area are considerably smaller and again this limits the available uses. Larger power boats and sailboats are attracted to Lake Erie where the boater can spend an afternoon or a weekend cruising or visiting other parts on the Lake including Canadian ones. The above reasons provide additional incentives in accenting longer travel time to a marina on Lake Erie. 'eople of Northeast Ohio are willing to travel an hour or more to attend sporting events such as a professional football game in Cleveland which lasts only a few hours. Other attractions such as Cedar Point Amusement Park near Sandusky in western Ohio or Sea World in Aurora, Chio, draw people from the market areas and represent an hour or more of travel time. Boaters would be willing to spend one hour travelling to the marina to spend one or several days on their boats. Idith regard to similar facilities within a reasonable distance from the project site there are three Ohio counties: C%kyahoga, Lake and Ashtabula and one Pennsylvania county, Erie, that border on Lake Erie. Azhtabula County has the least existing dock spaces of these. People living south of these counties must use the facilities located in the above mentioned counties to boat on Lake Erie. A large portion of the existing marinas are in poor condi- tion and do not offer all the facilities planned for the Lake Shore Park Marina. All of the above factors are considered in delimiting the primary market area. The primary market area is that area for which there is a high proba- bility of attracting boaters to use the marina. An one-hour travel time is used as a reasonable limit for this area. The following counties will define the primary market area: Pshtabula, Lake, Geauga and Trumbull Counties in Ohio and the western half of Crawford County in Pennsylvania. Ashtabula and Lake Counties are included for obvious reasons. People in Lake County can use U.S. Route 20 or 1-90 to get to the marina where there is less boating traffic. 3eauga County is inland south of Lake County and has only a few smaller Lakes available for boating. Tlhere are a number of state highways that nm north to Interstate 90 providing easy access. '11@mbull County is inland south of Ashtabula County. Direct highway access is available via S.R. 11. One larger inland lake, Mosquito Creek Reservoir, -,ith a small number of dock spaces, is located there. 170 Although Erie County, Pennsylvania borders Ashtabula County on the east, it isn't included in the primary market area because of the great number of ex- isting slips there. A person living in the western portion of Crawford County, Pennsylvania is approximately the same distance from Ashtabula as from Erie, Pennsylvania. A good portion of the users would prefer to berth their boats where there wouldn't be as much marine traffic as in the Erie area. For these reasons, the western half of Crawford County is included in the primary market area. It is also necessary to delimit the total market area. The total market area is that area for which there is reasonable probability of attracting boaters to use the marina. The primary market area is a part of the total mar- ket area. Travel time of two hours is one of the criteria considered. The desire to get away from more crowded areas and clusters of marinas can be factors. More importantly the limited availability and the lesser quality of closer facilities will result in accepting longer travel times. The follow- ing Ohio counties campose a portion of the total market area: Ashtabula, Lake, the eastern half of Cuyahoga, rjeauga, Portage, Trumbull and Mahoning Counties. The reason for including only the eastern half of Cuyahoga County is the avail- ability of similar marina facilities approximately the same distance west of Cleveland, Ohio. People would rather not drive through large metropolitan areas if they have the choice. The other counties included in addition to those in the primary market are located inland and have mostly small lakes with limited boating. The remainder of the total market area consists of the three Pennsylvania counties bordering, Northeast Ohio: Erie, Cr-awford and Mercer Counties. Reasons were stated for not including Erie County in the primary 73 PORT ERIE ERIE N PRO 10SED MARINA 511E PORT CONNEAUT PORT ASHTABUL ASHTABULA GENEVA PORT FAIRPORT ONNEAUT NORT INGSVILLE PAINESVILLE JEFFERSON 90 _A_A-A- IAEADVMLE 3n CLEVELAND L ..r PORT CLEVELAND Ashtabula q22 Cuyahoga Geoug 79 Ohio Turnpike WARREN Irumbuli 77 AKRON 180 efcvf 76 ......... PoFfago YOUNGSTOWN Summit Mahoning L EM PRC Lawrence MARKE FAM - market, but it must be considered part of the total market due to its proxi- rity to the proposed site. Crawford and Mercer Counties are inland and have good highway access to Ashtabula within the suggested travel time, so they are included. See figure A-1 for a map showing the market areas. Population Onee the market areas are defined it is necessary to look at these areas from a number of different considerations. One of the first things to consi- der is the gross population of t.he area. Is it growing or declining? An in- creasing population represents increasing numbers of potential users. Census data for the population of the primary and the total market areas in 1960, 1970, 1975 and estimated for 1979 is presented in Table A-1. it is noted that two-thirds of the population total for Crawford County is included in the primary market whereas, geographically, the western half of the county was used. ri-he reason for this is that the major portion of the county's population is concentrated around the city of Meadville which is in the western half of the county. The dramatic population growth experienced in the 60's has slowed. The primary market totals represent a 3.9% increase from 1975 to 1979. r1his moder- ate growth rate can reasonably be expected to continue and possibly increase as urban growth expands further into the area. ihe population of the total market area has declined 0.9% from 1975 to 1979. This is a sign that the area is basically stable at this time. The largest population loss is due to out- rdgration from the city of Cleveland in Cuyahoga County. Much of the increases experienced in Geauga,Lake and Ashtabula Counties can be attributed to the movement from the city to the suburbs. 1he population p:rew in a majority of the counties in the market area. TABLE A-1 PRIMARY MARKET AREA POPULATION COUN7_,r 1979 (1) 1975 (2) 1970 (2) 1960 (3) ASHTABULA 104,800 101,940 98,237 c)3,o67 GEAUGA 74,000 68,144 62,977 7,573 LAKE 214,700 206,881 197,200 148,700 TRUMBULL 251,500 241,219 232,579 208,526 CRAWFORD, PA. 56,700 56,,qo5 54,228 51,971 (2/3 Total) TOTAL 701, 700 675,089 645,221 549,837 TOTAL MARKET AREA POPULATION COUNTY 1979 (1) 1975 (2) 1970 (2) 1960 (3) ASHTABULA 104,800 101,940 98,237 93,067 CUYAHOGA (112) 765,700 796,307 86o,418 823,948 GEAUGA 74P000 68,144 62,977 47,573 LAKE 214,700 206,881 197,200 148,700 MAHONTNG 295,600 307,339 304,545 300,48o PORTAGE 134,300 132,257 125,868 91,798 TRUMBULL 251,500 241p219 232,579 208,526 CRAWFORD 85,100 85,357 81,342 77,956 ERIE 268,300 273,396 263,654 250,682 MERCER 126,400 127,741 127,225 127,519 2,320,400 2,340,581 2,354,045 2,170,249 Sources: 1. 1980 Survey of Buying Power Sales arxi Marketing Management, July 28, 1980 2. County and City Data Book, 1977 A Statistical Abstract Supplement Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Comerce 3. Feasibility Survey Report (Technical and Economic) of Proposed Recreational Marina, Pzhtabula, Ohio-, R6senstock-Holland-Associates for Area Redevelopment Ad- ministration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1965 76 A more representative basis for indicating potential demand is the number of households. A household,, be it a family or a single person, is a more likely unit to represent a potential boat owner. Total numbers of house- holds in 1970 and 1979 for both the primary and the total market areas are given in Table A-2. increases of 37% and 30%, respectively, are signifi- cant. They indicate appreciable growth in potential boat buyers and conse- quently., marina users. Tables A-3 and A-4 contain information concern- ing the econcmic status of households in the market areas. Table A-3 gives the median household incomes for 1960, 1969 and 1979. One of the most signi- ficant aspects of this data is that the majority of the counties have consistent- ly been above the state median income level. This would indicate a better than average econmic situation. 'fhe median incomes in the Pennsylvania counties included in the market area are below the state median. Major urban centers such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh raise the state median income. Without a large city in this area, this portion of the state could be expected to be below the state level. Table A-4 shows information concerning income levels of households in 1970 and 1979. Sharp increases in the number of households in the $15,000 - $24,999 and over $25,000 categories are noted. A major portion of this growth in income has been consumed by inflation, but some growth in real income must also have occurred. This growth in income represents additional disnosable income that can be used on leisure time items such as boats. Business and Industry P large portion of the total market area has been rural in land use. With Urban sprawl continuing, this is changing somewhat. Lake and Geauga Counties are greatly built up compared to ten years ago. Ashtabula County is also beginning TABLE A-2 HOUSEHOLDS IN PRr'4ARY MARKET AREA % CHANGE COUNTY 1979 (1) 1970 (2) 1960 - 1970 (3) ASHTABULA 359500 25,000 10.2 GEAUGA 22,400 15,400 35.2 LAKE 67,800 49,8oo 37.5 TRUMBULL 79,800 59,900 17.3 CRAWFORD, PA. 19,500 13,900 9.2 (4) (2/3 r1btal) 225,000 164$000 HOUSEHOLDS IN TOTAL MARKET AREA % CHANGE COUNTY 1979 (1) 1970 (2) 1960 - 1970 (3) ASHTABULA 35,500 25,000 .10.2 CUYAHOGA (1/2) 279,600 219,900 11.5 GEAUGA 22,400 15,400 35.2 LAKE 67,800 49,800 37.5 MAHONDiG 98,200 78,200 8.2 PORTAGE 28,100 28,300 39.4 TRUMBULL 79,800 59,900 17.3 CRAWFORD, PA. 29,200 20,900 9.2 (4) ERIE, PA. 89,200 65,000 8.8 (4) MERCER, PA. 41,900 32,200 5.5 (4) 771,700 594,600 Sources: 1. 1980 2@ey of Buying Power, Sales and Marketing Management July 28, 1980 2. County and City Data Book 1977, A Statistical Abstract Supplement, Bureau of the Census U.S. Dept. of Commerce 3. 1970, General Population Characteristics: Ohio Bureau of the Census U.S. Dept. of Commerce 4. 1970, General Population Characteristics: Pennsylvania Bareau of the Census U.S. Dept. of Corffmrce TABLE A-3 INCOME MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD MEDIAN FAMILY MEDIAN FAMILY COUWY EBI 1979 (1) INCOME 1969 (2) INCOME 1960 ASHTABULA 17,906 9,889 5,651 CUYAHOGA 20,824 11,299 6,943 GEAUGA 23,158 12,411 6,916 LAKE 24,974 11,964 7,146 MAHONING 19,414 10,095 6$076 PORTAGE 19,525 10,989 TRUMBULL 22,113 10 777 6,391 CRAWFORD 14,605 8:658 5,110 ERIE 17,744 9,362 5,617 MERCER 16,957 9,286 51872 OHIO 19,274 10@,309 6,171 PENNSYLVANIA 18,265 9,554 5,719 Sources: 1. 1980 Survey of 2yio Power Sales & Marketing Managment, July 2d, 19dO 2. County and City Data Book 1977_ A Statistical Abstract Supplement, Bureau of the Census U.S. Dept. of Commerce 3. Feasibility Survey Report (Technical and Econanic) of @!:2posed Recreational Marina Ashtabula, Ohio, Rosenstock- Holland-Associates for Area Redevelopment Administration, U.S. Dept. of Cammerce 1965 Note: EBI is effective buying income. 7his is personal income including wages, interest, etc., minus taxes, Social Security payments and so on. '7 n TABLE A-4 HOUSEHOLDS WITH VARIOUS INCOYES 1970 (1) 123000 - 15,000 - 25,000 50,000 25,000 COUNTI! 14,999 24,999 49,999 OR MORE OR MORE ASHTABULA 3,818 3,580 643 98 741 GEAUGA 22767 4,185 994 127 1,121 LAKE 10,820 11,822 1,826 276 2,102 TRUMBULL 10,652 11,319 1,817 384 2,201 CRAWFORD (2/3) 19884 -1,4o3 203 41 -244 TOTAL PRIMARY 29,941 32,309 5,483 926 6,4og MARKET CUYAHOGA (1/2) 37,222 47,489 11,590 2,935 14,525 MAHONING 11,920 12,569 2,286 455 2,741 PORTAGE 5,230 5,383 1,157 159 1,316 CRAWFORD (1/3) 922 701 101 21 122 ERIE 8,754 8,o66 1,734 341 2,075 MERCER 4,11o 3,781 704 50 754 TOTAL OTHERS 68,158 77,1989 17,572 3,961 21,533 TOTAL MARKET 98,099 110,298 23,055 4,887 27,942 AREA 1979-EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME 10,000 - 15,000 - 25,000 Note: Effective buying income is COUNTY 14,999 24,999 OVER Dersonal. income including wages, interest, etc. minus taxes, Social ASHTABULA 5,110 13,280 8,340 Security payments and so on GEAUGA 2,200 7,350 9,770 LAKE 4.%880 21,700 33,800 Sources: 1) 1970 General Popula- TRUMBULL 7,740 27,100 31,800 tion Characteristics:Ohio and 1970 CRAWFORD (2/3) 3,970 6,6oo 2,800 General PoDulation Characteyistics:l Pennsylvania Bureau of the Census TOTAL PRIMARY 23,900 76,o3o 86,510 U.S. Dent. of Camierce MARKET 2) 1980 Survey of Buying Power Sales CUYAHOGA (1/2) 31,900 84 400 & Marketine Management July 2b, 19 .1 103,000 MAHONING 11,100 35,900 29,6oo PORTAGE 3,770 10,600 82400 CRAWFORD (1/3) 1,900 3,300 1,4oo ERTF 13,600 32,500 21,800 MERCER 6,370 16,8oo 8,000 TOTAL-C)THER 682730 183,500 172,200 COUNTIES TOTAL-TOTAL 92,630 259,530 258,710 MARKET AREA to feel the effects. Personal observations in Trumbull County are that there is an increase in housing, retail businesses and light industry/warehousing operations such as are attracted to industrial parks. Similar types of industries are indicated to be growing in Ashtabula County, also. ':ableP@-5 contains information concerning retail sales in the market area. Percentage growth figures for the periods 1967 to 1972 and 1972 to 1979 as well as total sales figures for 1972 and 1979 are given. -@gain, a large portion of these increases represent inflation in the price of goods. Dramatic increases such as the 220% increase in Geauga County and the 110% increase in Lake County must represent real growth in sales and business accompanying the population growth there. One occurrence that will have a major economic impact on this area and especially the primary market area is the construction of a new steel mill in Conneaut, Ohio. The United States Steel Corporation has applied for and has been granted a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build this new mill. A number of studies have been done to analyze the impacts the mill will have on the area and to suggest plans to accommodate and shape the accompanying growth. One study done by the Ashtabula County Planning Commission is entitled Alternative Futures for Ashtabula County.1 Included in this report are population, business and employment projections for various alternate plans including the "no build" situation. The important fact to be gleaned from the report is that economic growth is forecast for the county even without the new mill. Of course, growth would be still greater if the mill is built. Another study prepared by the Office of State Planning and Development of the CWMon- wealth of Pennsylvania is entitled Northwest Area Profile, A Baseline for the Future. 2 This report deals with Erie and Crawford Counties. @gain, =wth is 1. Alternative Futures for Ashtabula County, A Study of U.S. Steel Inmact Scenarios, Pshtabula County Planning Commission, Jefferson, Ohio, Oct. , 1978 2. Northwest Area Profile, !,. Baseline for the Future, Office of State Planning and Development Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. TABLE A-5 RETAIL SALES % CHANGE TOTAL TOTAL % CHANGE COUNTY 1967-1972 (1) 1972 _($1,000)(1) 1979 ($1,000)(2) 1972-19LI ASHTABULA 41.0 197,232 315,560 60.D CUYAHOGA 28.3 3,787,391 61614,342 74 6 GEAUGA 55.7 76.,81o 247,728 222: LAKE 67.5 4603264 982,997 113. 6 MAHONING 40.1 6501602 1,130,101 73.7 PORTAGE 64.7 214,572 710,591 231 TRUMBULL 58.6 507,536 1,014,286 99 8 CRAWFORD 37.2 168,526 298,927 77:4 ERIE 52.6 600,836 1,029,817 71 4 MERCER 42.7 265,872 487,521 83:4 Sources: 1. County and City Data Book 1977, A Statistical Abstract Supplement,, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Ccmmrce 2. 1980 9@!=u of Buying Power., Sales & Marketing Management, July 2b, 1980 82 projected in ponulation, personal income, industry and employment. This is significant since the pODulation has been declining in these counties in recent years, so there is reason to believe this trend will soon be reversed. Growth in population and growth in business and industry are desirable in a potential market area. It has been demonstrated that both types of growth have been exnerienced in the marina market areas and are exnected to continue in the future. 83 COI,TEM= ENVIRONMENT As was mentioned earlier, one must consider similar facilities and their locations in proposing a project such as a marina. Factors that can come in- to play in addition to location are availability, quality of the facilities, i.e. how well a marina is maintained, and the kind of facilities offered in the marina such as water, electricity, gasoline and so on. In reference to the boating industry itself, sales of boats, motors, and accessories rose 5.7% to $3.63 billion in 19793. The boating industry is cyclic, being quickly affected by the general econcmic atmosphere. Since a boat or motor are convenience types of items, people will forego major purchases in tight money times. Rising fuel prices have dampened enthu- siasm for large outboard motors. Once people feel secure aW reassured that fuel will be available and fuel prices have leveled off, they will be less hesitant about powerboats in general. These are probably part of the reason for the 2% decline in boat registrations in Ohio fran 1977 to 1979. It is anticipated that the number of boaters will start to grow again in both Ohio and Pennsylvania with the increasing number of households. It should be noted that sailboat sales have been increasing in recent years. This trend can be exnected to continue with the increasing concern for saving energy and saving money on fuel costs. 'Ihis would tend to attract more people to Lake Erie since it is the major area for sailing activity in the market area. Me existing number of sliDs available and their geograDhic distribution are important considerations. Following is a listing of the marinas on Lake Erie within the total market area, see Table A-6. The name of each facility and the number of sliT)s in it are listed and totals are conmuted for the four counties included. Those totals are: 773 for Ashtabula County, 1,847 for Lake County, 1,633 in the eastern half of 3 Leisure Time Basic Analysis@ Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys August 14, 1980 (Section 2) R a TABLE A-6 COMPETI= MARINAS - 1979 ASHTABULA COUNTY NUMBER OF XAME -SLIPS City of Conneaut 150 Conneaut Boat Club 58 Snug Harbor Marina 20 Sutherland Marina, 25 Ashtabula Yacht Club, Inc. 110 Jack's Marine , 200 Riverside Yacht Club., Inc. 30 Redbrook Boat Club 150 Brockway Marine 30 Total 773 LAKE COUNTY NAME NUMBER OF -SLIPS Encounter Yacht Sailing Center 30 Winfield Marine 15 Dougla,ss & McCleod 20 Rutherfords lending 50 Grand River Yacht Club FairDort Yacht Club 135 Grand Harbor Hacht Sales 132 Western Reserve Yacht Club 50 Mentor's Lagoon Marina 650 Mentor Harbor Yacht Club 160 Chagrin.Harbor Beach Marina 23 Chagrin Lagoons Yacht Club 150 West Channel Yacht Club 70 Hi-Skipper Marina 80 Lake ':bore Marina 85 Chagrin River Yacht Club Bolten Marine Sales, Inc. 165 M-K 32 Total 1,847 Information not available. 85 TABLE A-6 (Continued) COMPETr= MARINAS - 1979 CUYAHOGA COUNTY (EASTERN HALF) NUMBER OF NAME SLIPS Wildwood Yacht Club, Inc. 60 Northeast Yacht Club 180 East 55th Street Marina 292 Gordon Shore Boat Club Forest City Yacht Club 135 Lakeside Yacht Club 200 Edgewater Park Marina 306 Edgewater Yacht Club 375 Cuyahoga Boat & Engine Co., Inc. 85 Total 1,633 ERIE COUNTY;_ PMSYLVANIA NAM NUMBER OF SLIPS Freeport Yacht Club Presque Isle Lagoon Boat Livery 55 Bayshore Marine 13 Lund Boat Works., Inc. - R.D. McAllister & Son, Ltd. 95 Brockway Marine Erie, Inc. 75 East & West Canal Basin 33 Gem City Marina 35 Sailyard 24 Presaue Isle Yacht Club 89 Erie Marine 46 Chestnut Street Marina 62 Polish Yacht Club Commodore Pen-j Yacht Club 78 Presque Isle State Park ]nA Furneliff Beach Association 6 Erie Yacht Club 360 Sommerheim Moorings Walnut Creek 75 Total 1,544 Information not available. Source: Boating-Facilities Inventory for Lakes Erie and Ontario and Connecting Waterwc-@vs,,U-S. Ar= Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207, December 18, 1979. 86 Cuyahoga County and 1, 544 in Erie County, Pennsylvania. It can be seen that Ashtabula County has the fewest existing spaces of the four. Its shoreline is comparable in length to that of Lake and Erie Counties so the boating density must be lower also. This is an attractive feature to users. Father than add more spaces where it is already quite crowded, it is reasonable to build in an area where there are fewer slips at present. Since the.accessi- rop ,@ility is comparable to the other marinas, the p osed marina will compete easily. Slip availability is a major concern in this area. .4 report, A Study of Lake Erie Marine Recreation in Ohio4,, was prepared for the Lake Erie Marine Trades Association in 1977. 'ihis report (hereafter referred to as the "LEMTA report") surveyed the marinas, collecting information on the mznber and size of slips, occupancy and other facilities offered. 1-ne of their findings was that, in general, over 95% of all the slips available were rented for the entire season. For the three Ohio counties within the market area, the occu- pancy rate for various size classifications was essentially 100% except for the 30'-40' class in Lake County, Which was 63% occupied. Mis report also mentioned many marina oper-ators stating that they had long waiting lists for dock spaces and were renting spaces normally reserved for repairs or other uses for the season. In conversations with local Ashtabula marina owners and boat dealers, Don Sutherland of Sutherland Marine and Grant Brockway of Brockway Marine, both gentlemen stated that there were one-year or longer waiting lists at all the local marinas confirming the above report's findings. Mr. Brockway runs a 25 slip marina in Ashtabula in conjunction with his boat dealership. He stated that a malor obstacle to purchasing a boat often is the lack of a place to dock it. Despite the fact that both gentlemen are 4 A Study of Lake Erie Marine Recreation in Ohio Natural Resources, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center & School of Natural Resources, Ohio State University for L3ke Erie Marine Trades Association, 1977 involved in dock rentals themselves, they stated that there definitely is a need for additional dockspace in the Ashtabula area. The other factor mentioned was the quality and types of facilities offered by marinas. Come of the existing facilities in the market area are slightly run down and don't offer one or the other convenience such as water for each berth or having a gasoline pump in the marina. One of the reasons for inclu- ding all the modern facilities associated with marinas is to make this marina as attractive and convenient as possible. @t the present time, a 360-slip marina is planned for Geneva State Park in Geneva-on-the-Lake, Ohio. Geneva-on-the-Lake is approximately 12 miles west of Ashtabula Harbor near the border between Ashtabula and Lake Counties. This marina is a joint effort by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the Buffalo District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project is presently progressing to the final design stage. This future facility will be taken into account in the demand analysis. DEMAND ANALYSTS With all of the previous discussion as background, a method will be for- rulated to determine how much of a demand there is for dock spaces and corre- spondingly, JLs it possible to attract enough boaters to fill the marina in Ashtabula. A number of studies have been done, P-11 of which forecast the need for rT additional slips in the Ashtabula area. Lhe number of slips at present do not meet these demand forecasts. One of these studies, Feasibility Survey 'Report Technical and Economic) of Prorosed Recreational Marina Ashtabula, Ohio5, done 5 Feasibility Survey Report (Technical and Economic) of Pronosed Marina Ashtabula, Ohio -Rosenstock-Holland-Associates for Area Redevelopment Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1965. 88 in 1965, predicted a.large demand for dock spaces - 2,444 needed by 1967 in Ashtabula County. (117here were 300 dock spaces at this time). The population of the area was growing raridlY at that time and fomed part of the basis for the large demand forecast. The report for the proposed marina at Gereva-on- the-Lake6 (hereafter referred to as the Geneva report) contained a demand analysis. lhis analysis concluded that only 490 additional slips would be needed in Ashtabula County in 1990. Although the volumes of demand differ considerably, they both forecast the need for additional spaces. P good place to start in trying to look at the present demand is to see what has happened in the past. The Rosenstock-Holland Feasibility Study stated that there were 300 permanent dock spaces available in Ashtabula County in 1965. As was listed previously (Table A-6 ), there are 770 spaces in 1979 with essentially 100% occupancy. '!his represents a 260% growth over 141years in available slips with no problems in vacancies. 71he 770 present spaces is far short of the 2,444 slip demand predicted for 1967. Similarly in Lake County, there were 1,235 berths in 1965. The 1979 total is 1,850 with no informtion from a couple marinas. 'Ihis represents at least 150% growth. @t can be seen that the two Lake Erie counties in the primary market area have experienced significant growth in marina facilities,and these facilities are being fully utilized. Due to the M'Neat variety of the types of recreation and boating available, there is considerable boater pressure along the Ohio shore of Lake Erie. According to the LEMTA report, there was a total 18,500 dock spaces avail- able on Lake Erie in Ohio in 1977. 70,200 boats listed Lake Erie as their oreferred waters in that year7. r-Inus, there were 3.70, boats per existing dock 6 Stage 2 Document for Reformulation Phase I General Design Memorandum Geneva- on-the-Lake, Ohio Small Boat Harbor U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo 71-strict., Buffalo, :I.Y. April, 1980 7 Registration statistics Division of Watercraft, "'hic, Department of Natural Resources sDace on Lake Erie. It is reasonable to assume that 40% of those preferring Lake Erie would want a dock space if available. 40% of 70,200 = 28,000 want a slip 28,000 boats = 1.52 boats/available slip 18,500 available slips This results in about 1-1/2 boats per existing space. In other words, there is a shortage of slips along the Ohio share as a whole. It is useful to know what percentage of the registered boats prefer Lake Erie in Ohio. This was calculated for a number of different years and re- mained consistently at a little more than 26%. Although data isn't available for the Pennsylvania counties, it is assumed that they are similar to the Ohio counties in the market area since their geographical setting is similar. Of course, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of the boaters pre- ferring Lake Erie are located in the northern portion of the state. There- fore, the percentage preferring the Lake in both the primary and total market areas would be greater than 26% and, in fact, the percentage would get larger the closer one got to the Lake. For the sake of simplicity, the primary market area will be referred to as Zone 1. The additional counties that make up the remainder of the total market area i.e. the eastern half of Cuyahoga County, Portage and Mahoning: Counties in Ohio and Erie, Mercer, and the eastern half of Crawford Counties in Pennsylvania, will be called Zone 2. Denund From Zone 1 in calculating the demand, figures for sailboats and those for powerboats shall be kept separate. The main reason for this is that Lake Erie is the major source for sailing whereas 'oowerboats may more easily use other inland lakes. Data for the number of sailboats and inboard and outboard powerboats 90 TABLE A-7 1979 RErrISTRATION TOTALS ACC0RDDqG M BOAT = TOTAL COUNTY OUTBOARD INBOARD POWERBOAT SAILBOAT Ashtabula 1,768 333 2,101 137 Geauga 792 238 1,030 169 Lake 2,531 1,020 3,551 482 Trumbull 41145 839 4,984 329 Crawford, Pa. (1) 2,082 147 22229 18 (2/3 total) Total in Zone .1 11,318 2,577 13,895 1,135 Cttyahoga (1/2) 5,041 2,663 7,704 1,251 Mahoning 3,268 825 4.1093 291 Portage 2,o8i 421 2,502 230 Crawford (1/3) (1) 1,041 74 1,115 a Erie (1) 5,461 1,153 6,614 261' Mercer (1) .3,492 - 340 3,832 62 Tbtal in Zone 2 @1@4 51476 25@860 Total in Total 31,702 8,053 39,755 3,239 Market Area Sources: Division of Watercraft, Ohio Denartment of Natural Resources 1. Boat Registration Division, Pennsylvania Fish Commission 91 TABLE A-8 BOAT REGISTRATTONS IN PRIMARY IMARKET AREA COUNTY 1973 1976 1979 Ashtabula 2,652 2,842 2,921 Geauga 1,907 2,070 2@096 Lake -5,142 5,863 5,691 Trumbull 5,951 7,oo6 7,037 Crawford, Pa. (2/3 total) 2,121(2 2,394(2) 2,333(l) Total 17,773 20,175 202078 BOAT REGISTRATIONS IN TOTAL MARKET AREA COUNTY 1973 1976 1979 Ashtabula 2,652 2,842 2,921 Cuyahoxa (1/2) 112494 12,759 11,638 Geauga 1,907 2,070 2,o96 Lake 5,142 5,863 5,691 Mahoning 4JI499 52363 5,402 Portage 3,815 4,108 4,205 Tninbull 5,951 7,oo6 7,037 Crawford 3,182 (2) 32591 (2) 3,499 (1) Erie 6,356 (2) 7,172 (2) 6,989 (1) Mercer -3,6o4 (2) 4,067 (2) 3,963 (1) Total 48,602 54,841 53,441 Sources: Division of Watercraft, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1. Boat Registration Division, Pennsylvania Fish Commission 2. Estimated from 1970, data Q 9 in Zones 1 and 2 is given in Table A-7. The first step is to designate the portion of the boats frcm Zone 1 that would be attracted to Lake Erie. The percentages to be used should be consi- derably higher the 26% for the entire state due to the proximity to the Lake. In the Geneva report it is assumed that 85% of the sailboats and 60% of the permanently docked and 54% of the trailered powerboats are attracted to Lake Erie. 85% is used here for sailboats since they are strongly attracted to the Lake. 54% is used in our case for powerboats since Zone 1 is larger when camared to the primary market area used in the Geneva report. Boats preferring Lake Erie Sailboats .85 x 1,130 = 960 Powerboats .54 x 13,900 = 7,510 8,,470 The next steP is to calculate the number of the above boats which are larger than 16 feet in length. This is used as a criteria for designating trailered and permanently docked boats. Looking at Ohio boat registration information, about 33% of the sailboats and 42% of the powerboats are larger than 16 feet. Since Zone 1 is fairly close to the Lake, the percentage of large craft would be higher. Accordingly, it is assumed that 43% of the above sailboats and 55% of the Dowerboats are larger than 16 feet. Boats preferring Lake Erie larger than 161 Sailboats .43 x 960 = .41o Powerboats .55 x 7,510 = 4,130 4,540 93 Finally it is necessary to designate haw many of these lax-per boats would want a permanent dock space. Considering the problem involved in trailering and launching larger boats, it is assumed that 90% of the sail- boats and 65% of the powerboats would want a dock sDace. Boats wanting a dock space on Lake Erie Sailboats .90 X 410 - 370 Powerboats .65 x 4,130 = @,680 3,050 There is demand for 3,050 permanent do& spaces generated by Zone 1. Demnd From Zone 2 The procedure followed for Zone 2 is similar to that for Zone 1. Fro- portioning of boats is slightly different to reflect the fact that some of the counties in Zone 2 are further from Lake Erie than those in Zone 1. It should be remembered that the eastern half of Cuyahoga County and Erie County, Pa., both bordering on Lake Erie, are included in this zone so this would keep the percentages preferring the Lake higher than statewide figures. Accordingly, the percentages used for preferring the Lake are 75% for sailboats and 40% for nowerboats. Boats preferring Lake Erie Sailboats .75 x 2,100 1,580 Powerboats .4o x 25,86o 10,340 ll,a@20 For the reasons stated above, the percentages of boats larger than 16 feet lie between those for Zone 1 and the statewide figures. Therefore the percentages are lowered to 37% for sailboats and 45% for powerboats. boats preferring Lake Erie larger than 16, Failboats .37 x 1,580 = 580 Powerboats .45 x 10,340 = 4,650 5,230 Although these boaters are further fnn the marina and Lake Erie in general, this would work in favor of having a permanent slit) rather than having to trailer a boat. Someone who has a longer drive would probably orefer not having to haul a large boat to the Lake each time he wanted to use it. For this reason, the percentages used for permanent dock spaces are the same as those for Zone 1. Boats wanting a dock space on Lake Erie Sailboats .90 x 580 = 520 Powerboats .65 x 4,650 = 3,020 3@540 rl ermanent dock sDaces on lake Erie frcm Zone 2. lbere is demand for 3,540 p Demand in Zone 1 In order to get a final demand total for the primary market area (Zone 1), the above totals are further modified. This demand consists of the boaters frcm within Zone 1 who want a slip in Zone 1 and those fran Zone 2 who want a slipin Zone 1. '!he two factors that are considered in making the modifi- cations are travel time and dock availability. The New York State Parks and Recreation Department developed a travel time versus percent participation curve for boating (Figure Dl in the Geneva report). The values obtained frrm the curve are increased for two reasons. "Ohe first is that travel time has been partially taken into account in the assumotions made for the Drevious demand calculations. The second reason is that this curve doesn't take into account the unique character of Lake Erie boating as was discussed earlier. The average travel time for Zone 1 is taken as 40 minutes which results in a 70% participation rate from the curve. 90% will be used here. The average travel time for Zone 2 is about 1-1/2 hours, giving a 23% participation rate. The factor used is modified to 28%.. The second criteria to be considered is dock availability. The existing facilities and their capacities have been listed in Table A-6. The total number of existing Slips in Ashtabula County is 770. If this project with its or-oposed 400 slips and the Geneva-on-the-Lake Small Boat Harbor with 360 slit)s are built, the total rnmiber of slips available would be 1,530. The total listed for Lake County is 1,850 with two yacht clubs not providing information. For this reason, an estimated total of 1,920 spaces is used for Lake County. Total available slips in Zone 1 1,530 + 1,920 = 3,450 For Zone 2 the figures are: 1,630 slins in the eastern half of Cuyahoga County and 1,540 slips in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Me total for Zone 2 is 3,170 spaces. Total slips available in the total market area 3,450 + 3,170 = 6,620 slips The portion of the spaces in Zone 1 as compared to the total market area is 52%. 3,450 in Zone 1 x 100 = 52% b,b20 in total market The demand being calculated is for Zone 1 so the availability factor is 1.00. The .52 factor calculated is used for Zone 2. Demand for slips in Zone 1 fran Zone 1 3,050(l.00)(.90) = 2,750 from. Zone 2 3,540(.52)(.28) = -520 3,270 This demand for the orimary market area must be proportioned to the two counties involved, Ashtabula and Lake Counties. Again availability is used as the criteria. 1,530 in Ashtabula County = .44 3,450 in Primary Market Demand for slips in Ashtabula County .44 x 3,270 = 1,440 slips With 770 existing doaks in 1979, an additional 670 are needed. This is less than the combined capacity of the two proposed marinas. In general, it can be expected that the number of boats will grow in the future. The law of supply and demand plays a role also. A major concern of a buyer of a large boat is having a place to dock it. If he hears that there are two-year waiting lists at all the marinas, he is much less likely to make a purchase than if he knew he could get a dock space in a marina. in this sense, a slight over- 3unDly of snaces would be exhausted in a few years. The 400 spaces in Lake Shore Park Marina make un 521 of the new snaces to be provided. Correspondingly proportioning demand, 348 slips will be filled. 97 If demand grew at 2% armually for 3 years, the total additional spaces needed would be about 760 or the capacity of the two pronosed marinas. Thus, both could be emected to reach caloacity in a minimal amount of time. A counle of factors that could influence boat owners in Ashtabula should be mentioned. @:he LEMTA report states that 44% of the marinas in Ashtabula County are private clubs. One must be interested in being a member of the club rather than simply renting a dock space. Lake Shore Park Marina will be a municipal marina run by the Township Park Commission. "'he other factor to be mentioned is the location of the existing marinas in the city of Ashtabula. The situation with the lift bridges has been des- cribed in the discussion of water access. 'ihese marinas represent fifty-one percent of the existing dock spaces in Ashtabula County. According to the =A report, forty-two percent of the dock spaces in Ashtabula County are for boats larger than 30'. The proposed marina would be very attractive to these owners and a considerable number of transfers fran the existing marinas could be expected. The following calculation is done to get an idea of the number of possible transfers. I'here am 395 boats docked on the Ashtabula River, assuming 100% occu- pancy. 42% of the boats are larger than 30' .42 x 395 = 166 boats If as few as one-third of these large craft would transfer, this would be 55 boats, a significant number. Other Ashtabula residents may berth their boats at other marinas in order to avoid the problem with the bridges and would be interested in transferring back to a marina closer to home. The result of this analysis is that presently, there is demand for 670 additional slir)s in Ashtabula County. 7hese results are slightly larger than those of the Geneva report which forecast 490 additional spaces needed in 1990. One of the main reasons for this is our selection of a larger primary market area. Other points of difference have been noted in the development of the demand calculations. With as little as 3% growthin boating, it should be possible for both Lake Shore Park Marina and Geneva-on-the-Lake Small Boat Harbor to reach capacity within less than 3 years. FINANCIAL FEASIBIIJTY '-"nce the demand for a marina has been demonstrated, it is necessary to 0 determine whether it is possible for the marina to pay for itself. In this case, it must be determined if the project can repay the loan obtained to build it and under what terms this can be done. The repayment ability is determined by examining the total costs and the revenues. The costs are conposed of the following: the project construction cost, architectural and engineering fees, contingencies, interest on the loan and annual operating expenses. 'The construction costs and architectural fees have been developed elsewhere in this report. Total project costs, that is, architectural fees, administrative cost, construction cost and contingen- cies, are shown in Table A-9 based uDon the recommended alternate, Plter- nate 3. 7-evenues come from the various services of the marina. '1rhese are: the rental of the slips, leasing the space for a marine store and a restaurant in the main marina building, also leasing the boat repair and service build- ing, fees for parking and fuel sales. Following is a discussion of the sources of income. The primary source of income is the seasonal rental of the slips. In the final design, there will be a variety of pier lengths in order to accommo- date the various size boats. The usual method of cormuting rental fees is based on "X" dollars per foot of boat length. In this report, a 25 foot boat has been used as the standard unit. The rental fee used is $625 per slip or $25 per foot. @Ihe going rate at the present time for a marina with similar modern conveniences is presently $20 per foot in Ashtabula. r-7he $25 per foot is estimated to be the rate in apProximtely two years from now so that our TABLE A-9 PROJECT CCST FCR ALTIRNATIE 3 Administrative Cost CEIP (d)(1) loan and guarantee $32,700 Architectural fees Estimate from 6/80 $389,000 +1 year delay @ 10% $ 38 900 -3o8 (c)(1) grant $-16,000 $411,900 $411,900 Construction cost Estimate fran 6/80 $6,233,000 +15% for 1.5 year delay $ 935,000 $7,1M,000 $7,168@000 $7,bl2,bOO Required Contingency factor (10%) $ 761s300 r1btal. Project Cost $8,373,900 Annual Payment for 5% Interest & $ 544,700 30 year term 101 proposed rate becomes competitive. It must be kept in mind that all the modern conveniences are provided at Lake Shore Park Marina. In addition, this fee includes winter storage at the marina and launching and haul-out plus one mid-season haul if needed. ?ran the demand analysis, 348 berths will be occupied during the first year of operation. Full capacity is 403 permanent (seasonal) slips with 5 berths set aside as transient docks. The charge for a transient dock space is $12 per day. -Providing day dock spaces could prove to be a valuable asset since there are few such berths available in Ashtabula and Lake Counties at present. TWo types of parking fees are charged for marina parking. The first type is a yearly permit intended for slip owners as preferred customers which costs $25 per year. 376 parking spaces can be used in this manner. The twenty remaining spaces are reserved for daily customers at a charge of $1 ner entry. Cn other than Deak days, more than 20 day customers can be admitted since the parking lot won't be full. The main drawing point for day customers is expected to be the marina restaurant. Another source of revenue is the leasing of the space in the building included in the project. A marine store and a restaurant are planned for the main marina building. This is a prime location for both of these businesses. Restaurants with a view of Lake Erie am very popular in Northeast Ohio. For a boat store there are over 400 potential customers within walking distance of the store. Why should they go elsewhere if they discover they need some- thing for the boat? The expected income from the rental of the space for these two businesses is $4,000 per month. It is possible that other types of rental space would be provided with the other alternates, resulting in additional reve- nues, The final source of income is the lease with an oil company to provide fuel in the marina. The exDected income from gas sales is set at 12t t)er gallon. This includes profit on the gas sales and the rental fee and is commensurvate with current rates. Armual operating costs must also be examined. Included among these are payroll, administrative and general costs, enem costs, and repairs and maintenance. Provision must also be made for insurance costs and sane type o@ reserve fund should be set aside in case of tinforseen expenses. The lar- gest of these costs is the payroll which is calculated on the basis of six year-round employees. The actual work force would vary depending on the time of year and would be made uD of some park personnel who would help out in the marina when it became necessar7. The other costs are taken as percentages of the rental income since much of the need for these expenditures arises from the level of use. Table A-10 shows revenues and overating costs for the first, fourth and fifteenth years of operation. By the fourth year full occupancy should be achieved as was mentioned in the demand study. The fifteenth year is the median year for a thirty-year loan so it represents the average annual in- cam available over the term of the loan. firrmal operating expenses are deducted from the annual income to obtain the amount available to repay the loan. A seven percent annual rise in the rental fees and employee payroll is used in projecting future revenues and costs. This is considerably below the inflation rate of recent years and represents at least a break-even situation for buying Dower rather than a loss for the consumer. In the fifteenth year the amount available to pay the loan, $546,000 meets the amnial payment of $545,000 for a 5%, 30-year loan of $8.4 million. Some type of anwmement would have to be made to allow the Park Ccomission to reDay the loan in IABIE A-10 ANNUAL REVENUES AND COSTS 1982, 1986, 1997 1982 1986 1997 Occupancy 86% 100% 100% Revenue 1) Slip rental Season 217,500 330,500 695,000 Timnsient 2,200 2,900 6,400 2) Building leases Boat store & restaurant 48,000 48,000 120,000 3) Parking Fees Season permit 8,700 11,300 26,300 General-day 3,600 5,4oo 10,800 $280,000 $398,100 $858,500 4) Fuel sales 8 400 9.700 15,000 W7, 800 $873,50U OPMAMNG MUMMES 1) Payroll & related expenses $62,400 s81joo $171,6oo 2) Administrative & general 8,4oo 11,900 25,300 3) Energy costs 14,000 19,900 42,900 4) Repairs & maintenance 5,600 8,000 17,200 5) Property insur-ance 30,000 35*000 60,000 6) Reserve for reDlacement 5 000 5,000 10,000 TM0,900 $327,500 Amount available for loan Dayment $163,000 $246,900 $546,000 104 graduated payments as the marina incane grows. Additional economic benefits will accrue due to the construction of the marina. In this financial analysis it was mentioned that the payroll costs were calculated an the basis of six year-round jobs. In addition to these jobs, more jobs will be created for the repair operation, marine store and restaurant. It is anticipated that people will be attracted to spend one or several days at the marina on weekends and for vacations. This influx of people will increase business for retail establishments in Ashtabula. These additional economic benefits cannot be pinpointed but definitely will occur. I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I ILLUSTRATIONS I I I I I I I I I PINNEY DOCKS COMPANY 00 -cl, 0 > --I '-l"q, @ - U) C im mo M M rn c 3? gn 00 4u 19pp) 22 T 9p 9z b z LU 01 cr 0 251 zz G)Q 1> r'm )> 0 z o I-A 0 M w o 40 @xz c m G1*2 m rn CD rmn Z w 3? <o 2 To c w x X - - E: W m r.x x -4 cla -44 m ;o CD T m rn m 32, on n, w zV, o CD cn M q z m m C-41 -1 R -nr r z 0 in -4 q z m F rzn m m %@ m ch> r G)m mA I '" g s 0 m 0 0 z z m z (fi z z rn z cl) CD G) 1 1 13@> z CD > 0 ilk m ng m 100 m m z rn cl) -0 4 o m 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0) CD L4 82 z .04 Tin L z rq PINNEY DOCK a TRANSPORT COMPANY om im 002 m cn > < 0 m rc",) z G) rn m 5. 0 00 24V 0 rn 30 SPA res I I I In @4 v Are? x X$PACH z > /-V IVA CH BL JB M AZT 0 z z 0@ 0 -01 AM F! F. > 9 r- rn 2; 40 rvl z r a o Cm @@:O:E ZZ G' > rn Mg, rr. 6 ;< 9 w z x rn W- < T P. rn C6 ;r<,, ic=) r,,, rmn > co rn z m rn ch rn -Z 0 4 r." w > 0 cl) rn a z 'n z rn F.z rn m r M -4 c') o r; > t CD r X rn z rn F z > Z, > > rn 0 z z G) CD 0 1 z co TRANSPORT m m 08 m 0:0 A z m ; z Zlb- ;9 P cl 4 A 0 -b 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 m 8 SA 2 1 . Q --p< I 1 4 m IDi lr-., . PINNEY DOCK& TRANSPORT COMPANY LL OD 0 rn I;o tun) - Its zz cz I ZIP lz 0 Ln ED ID W 9p A rn r" 27 0 Z6 Lu 40, rn (n 0 > i! 6 m (A 0 -n 0 (it c * 8 z ,n T Z W*Z rn 3 'In w ill rn m 0 -1 4 CD m R Fri im 0 rri c: 0 m 6 om .0 0> 0 cl) z ch m t -4 'n z m r 4 0 m m z z r m m m m m w z > > rn 0 0 0 z z z CA C z CWD M ro ro z C X-- to N > z po -cs 8 'o 0 -, @ 8 0 fa x 0 0 m PINNEY DOCK Ek COMPANY co c, I mc <-.4 om ril 5r) zo 9) OD ca\ Of 0\\ SL owmcma rcn) cm z z 0 z 4 z c > z 0 -2 A Z5 0 tx c* 0 z tag)> c m G) w m M 0 4 - i 4 co m ig < 2 w Z r Lc rg 9 A x - 3- Fn m Ar i2l z m M 14 z > 0 o z > 'n z cn m -n r > F,z w 0 m M -4 m 0 z T r m ---I w > Q fnA m r m > -4 -4 -IZ> m @o 0 m x 0 z z z 0 co 0 z CID > j I I c :g 98 m !2 a 40 'On ; A :0 --4 ra to z m c Z; $0 P z . - . In " g g 0 -4 ^ > 3? p CD :4 q m *q N N 8 0 a) m 0 > z > 575 -qt, w/ 6ul*haad 575 5=AAMO@ ,4rdw Megm Lawl 570 ZWD 465 afoo /DOW SIM ow M#X 22#00 Z4*X X-w SECTION D-D 6M Enframv jeo A -Aiiq Mooring Am P Maw p Imlap Lemol Vo 4 WD 670 665 5w are Abe*, 6LM9 r,VeR=k Vow Al#w 14-M elev Mow A&I'm SECTION E-E ISf zwo E AASW AOTE &EWlaVS S@oMN AW JV AMFr ASO V Iwo W"R LEVa Ar FAMER Ilwlvr :vw -wo (1yraMn"l. aQ-AT I WD - 6-6 9 VIM D 6W Jw AAL L WD r A65 Of 6hxod WOODRUFF, INC. CONSULTING . iENGiNKERS CLEVELAND. OWO S60 -460 - LAKE SHORE PARK mARINA SECTIONS FOR ALTERNATE 3 /0-1w &7100 i8#W VIM SECTION F-F *CA" I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I SOIL REPORT I I I I I I I I I I REPORT OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY ASHTABULA MARINA ASHTABULA OHIO SEPTEMBER 15, 1980 TRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS TRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 34025 CHARDON ROAD WILLOUGHBY HILLS. OHIO 44094 ONSULT@NG ENGNEERS September 15, 1980 EL @1,16, @8t,-1320 Woodruff, Inc. 23875 Commerce Park Road Beachwood, Ohio 44122 Attention: Albert Malinak Ashtabula Marina Lakeshore Park Ashtabula, Ohio Triggs #08143 Gentlemen We have completed our subsurface investigation and laboratory testing of soils, lake sediments, and rock at the proposed marina site. The results from the field investigation and laboratory tests are presented in this report. FIELD AND SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Three soil test borings, B-1, B-2, and B-3 were made 10 ft. into rock at the locations shown on the attached Boring and Testing Location Plan. Split-spoon samples (SS), were obtained from the soils above rock following ASTM specifi- cations D-1586 at the intervals shown on the attached lab- oratory boring logs. Ten feet of NX size shale cores were obtained at each boring location. Fifteen testing locations on Lake Erie, S-1 through S-15, are shown on the Boring and Testing Location Plan. Testing at these locations was done from a small boat. Specific field tests at each location are indicated on the location plan. Split-spoon samples (SS), were obtained by hand push- ing the SS sampler through sediment until refusal on shale occured. The SS sampler is capable of retaining samples 24 inches long. Eckman Dredge samples of lake bottom surface sediments were taken at locations marked with an (E), which includes all test locations having sediments and several locations where sediment does not cover the shale. A piece of flat shale was recovered by Eckman Dredge at S-10. At locations where the split-spoon sampler was not used to sound for the shale surface, a steel pipe probe, (P), was used. The probe was hammered with a sledge to assure that Woodruff, Inc. Page 2 September 15, 1980 contact with the shale had been made. The surface elevations at each boring location were measured using differential leveling techniques. The elevation assigned to the Bench Mark, (BM. elev. 583%0), the southwest corner on the concrete floor slab of the pavilion, was back calculated from the Lake Erie surface elevation for August 22 and 23, 1980. All other elevations were then referenced to the Bench Mark. The location of the Bench Mark is shown on the Boring and Testing Location Plan. The lake surface elevation used was obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers (Buffalo District). The closest Lake Erie surface gauge reading that the Corps had at the time of this report was for Cleveland. The ground and sediment surface elevations along with the top of shale elevations at each boring and testing location are tabulated in Table 1. At sample locations S-7, S-9, S-10, S-11, S-12, S-13, S-14, and S-15, the ground surface and top of shale elevations are the same. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS All soil, lake sediment, and shale samples were visually classified in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer. Samples were tested by the following schedule: TEST SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE TYPE Water Content B-1, B-2, B-3 All split-spoon samples, 7 total Uniaxial Compression of Shale Cores B-1, B-2, B-3 NX Cores, 5 total Grain Size Distribution Mechanical & Hydrometer S-11 S-51 S-8 Eckman Dredge, 3 to Organic Content S-2, S-5, S-8 Eckman Dredge, 3 tota-' 5 Heavv Metals S-1, S-5, S-8 Eckman Dredge, 3 toU Oil & Grease S-1, S-5, S-8 Eckman Dredge, 3 to Shear Strenath S-8 Eckman Dredge, I Woodruff, Inc. Page 3 September 15, 1980 Split-spoon samples were visually classified to be the same as their corresponding Eckman Dredge samples. The laboratory test results are shown on the following logs and tables. TEST RESULTS LOCATION Water Contents Laboratory Boring Logs B-1, B-2, B-3 Grain Size Distributions Table 2 Organic Contents Table 3 Heavy Metals Table 4 Oil & Grease Table 5 Uniaxial Compressive Strength Table 6 and Laboratory Boring NX shale cores Logs B-1, B-2 and B-3 The laboratory tests for heavy metals and oil & grease were performed by Environmental Resource Associates, Inc. Their cover letter is included before Tables 4 and 5. Please contact us with any questions you may have on this investigation. Very truly yours TRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. P.E. JFTkt TRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. AUGUST 22, 1980 Geo,technical Engineers AUGUST 23, 1980 Willoughby Hills, Ohio S-5 S-10 15 SS E P E P S-4 S-9 14 E E P P L A K E E R I E Water Surface Elevation August 22 & 23, 1980 572.6' IGLD S-3 S-8 13 E E P P P + S-2 s-7 12 SS +E E P S-1 S-6 S-11 +; P P P LEGEND: SS = Split-spoon Sample E = Eckman Dredge P = Sounding with steel probe 0C BASE jjqE_ '.FB- 1 S B_-_2_ 3 Elev.(574.5') Elev.(574.6') Elev.(578.6') Bait Shop BM ELEV.(583.01 ) I Lake Shore Park Pavilion BORING AND TESTING LOCATION PL.-'.N Scale: I" = 200r' for ore Ashtabula Marina, Lakesh Park r Ashtabula, Ohio -SOIL AND BEDROCK CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL BEDROCK SYMBOL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL T -CLASSIFICATION ropso/L ORGANIC SOIL SHALE ORGANIC CONrAMINAMN SAND, sandy SANDS7"ONE GRA VEI 00 CONGLOMERArE L. IMES TONE silty DOLOM17'5 CLAY COAL BORING LOG rERMINOLOGY 2"O.D. SPI-17-- SPOON SAMPLE. ST J"O.D. 7-HIN-WAI-L. SHELBY 7-USE SAMPLE. NX 2.125 Il DIA. CORE SAMPLE' FROM DOUBLE rUSE' CORE BARREL. SiCLIT-SPOON THE NUMBER OF BLOWS OF A 140 /b. HAMMER PENETRATION FALLING JOin. REOUIREO 7'0 ORIVE A SPI-17- SPOON SAMPLER rHROUGH EACH OF rHREE SIX INCH INCREMEN7S OF PFN67'RA7'1ON 77HROUGH SOIL OR ROCK. 77RIGGS a ASSOCIA7'ESP INC. GeorecHNICAL ENGINEERS WILLOUGHBY HILLS, OHIO I-A80RArORY LOG OF BORING No. B-1 OWNER Woodruff, Inc. P9041ECr Ashtabula Marina LOCArION Ashta-bula, Ohio DRIL'Use MATMOD solid Auger/NX Core 64 SURFACE &LEV 574.5' q iq SOIL *4 cc 4: It 4- 0&rSCJWPr/0# 'k '@q 'q! 'q! -4 44 GRAVEL, SAND, and,CLAY Possible Fill 40,00 Ss 3- 4- 5 17.4 Loose gray clayey SILT with little sand and traces of shale frag- 5 ments 2 SS 1- 1- 2 22.7 00, --7-- Medium to sound, dark 3 NX gray SHALE with thin Cored 5.01 mud seams at 8.01 and REC.= 96% 10 11.61 150 4 NX Cored 5.01 REC.= 96% 200 20 Baring stopped 17.51 No water encountered in soil above rock. BORING OA rE August 22, 1980 7XIeSS A A.Y.SOCIA7E.Yy /ML I-ABORArORY 1-06 OF BORING NO. B-2 OWNER Woodruff, Inc. pffloo/Lrer Ashtabula Marina LOCArION Ashtabula, Ohio DRILLINd? AfArrN00 Solid Auger/NX Core ;t rj- 4 . SURFACE ArUrV 574.6' 3i !@ %; SOIL rscwpr/o# 'q'. k' DL at 44 ;-t -4 -Z GRAVEL & CLAY with some silt and organic a material. Possible Fill 1 SS 2- 3- 3 18.7 0 Medium to soft, brown and gray silty CLAY with little sand and 5- trace gravel - 2 SS 2- 1- 1 18.9 Soft to intermediate, dark gray SHALE 3 NX Cored 5.01 10- REC.= 94% 150 Sound, dark gray SHALE 4 NX Cored 5.0' REC.= 96% 20- - Boring stopped at 17.3' No water encountered in sail above rock. I SORING OArE August 22, 1980 rRI&SS 0 ASSOCIA7-ESF INC LABORAMRY LOG OF BORING NO. B-3 0 WNER Woodruff, Inc. ooo.1trcr Ashtabula Marine LOCArION Ashtabula, Ohio @% Z DRILLIM49 MArrNOV Solid Auger/NX Core SURXACE ELEV 578.6' C14 S ;; I k A ;t C4 SOIL CA 44 garscAyprION Zt CA Ira Loose brown and gray silty fine SAND Possible Fill 1 SS 4- 4- 3 18.5 Brown SAND, SILT, and CLAY with rock frag- 2 SS ments 5-17-37 18.2 C= 0 Stiff gray silty CLAY 0 with traces to little 3 Ss sand and trace gravel 4- 5- 8 16.9 10 ==Z Intermediate to sound, dark gray SHXLE 160 4 NX Cored 5.0' REC.= 90% 7--_ Sound dark gray SHALE 5 NX Cored 5.0' REC.= 98% 20 210 Boring stopped at 21.51 No water encountered in soil above rock SORING DArE August 22, 1980 rR149495 0 ASSOCIA" TRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 34025 CHARDON ROAD WILLOUGHBY HILLS, OHIC,44094 NSLjL71NG ENGNEERS August 22 & 23, 1980 ',EL .21,@i @dt; ;320 TABLE 1: GROUND SURFACE & TOP OF SHALE ELEVATIONS Location Top of Ground Top of Shale Bm 583.0 --- B-1 574.5 567.5 B-2 574.6 567.6 B-3 578.6 567.6 S-1 565.6 564.4 S-2 564.9 S-3 564.3 563.4 S-4 563.5 562.3 S-5 562.7 560.6 s-6 565.4 565.2 S-7 563.2 563.2 S-8 562.6 562.2 S-9 562.9 562.9 S-10 561.1 561.1 S-11 563.8 563.8 S-12 562.1 562.1 S-13 562.1 562.1 S-14 562.4 562.4 S-15 360.9 560.9 Lake Erie water surface elevation August 22 & 23, 198-0 572.6 Ashtabula Marina Lakeshore Park Ashtabula, Ohic) TRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 34025 CHARDON ROAD WILLOUGHBY HILLS, CHIC 44094 CONSULING ENG.NEERS September 10, 1980 rEL 2161 io5 :@2U TABLE 2: GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Sample Percent Finer Than 2.Omm (#10) ..425mm (#40) .075mm (#200) .005mm (HydromA S-1, E 100.0 99.9 44.9 2.0 S-5, E 100.0 100.0 85.3 5.0 S-8, E 100.0 99.6 40.5 7.0 J August 29, 1980 TABLE 3: ORGANIC CONTENT Sample PercentOrganic S1-2, E 1.1 S-5, E 1.3 S-6, E 1.0 S-4 = Sample Location E = Eckman Dredge Ashtabula Marina Lakeshore Park Ashtabula, Ohio ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, INC. Bohannon Science Center 20700 North Park Blvd. * University Heights, Ohio 44118 [2161321-0933 .8 September 1980 Ms. Louise Shook Triggs and Assoc. 34025 Chardon Rd. Willoughby Hills, Ohio 44094 Ms. Shook, Attached are the results of our analysis of the three sediment samples from Ashtabula, Ohio. Heavy metals were extracted in accordance with US Army Corps of Engineers methods (Buffalo District). Oil and Grease analyses were done according to USEPA methods. We have enjoyed working with you on this project and hope to be of further service in the future. Si 1cerely, Dr. Andr w White Preside t August 9, 1980 IABLE 4 : HEAVY METALS SAMPLE ARSENIC BARIUM CADMIUM CHROMIUM LEAD MERCURY SELENIUM SILVER S- 1, E <.I ppm 1.5 ppm <.05 ppm <.01 ppm <-01 ppnl .143ppb ppir < ppm S-5, E 1.1 <.05 <.01 <.01 .241 ppb I S- E 1.3 <.05 <.01 .350 ppb <.01 TABLE 5 AIL AND GREASE (EXPRESSED FOR DRY WEIGHT SEDIMENTS) SAMPLE S-1, E SAMPLE S-5, E SAMPLE S-8,, E 232.09 mglkg 231.60 mglkg 203.53 niglkg S- SAMPLE LOCATION E ECKMAN DREDGE MASJWULIMJAR M LAKESHORE [-ARK TRIGGS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 34025 CHARDON ROAD WILLOUGHBY HILLS, OHIC 44094 CONSUL 7 ING ENGiNEEPS 'EL August 25, 1980 TABLE 6:" UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST RESULT FOR SHALE CORES, NX Boring Depth, Diameter, Length, Compressive Location feet inches inches L/D Strength, KSF B-1 10.8 2.048 4.0 2.0 300 B-1 16.5 2.050 4.0 2.0 400 B-2 10.6 2.050 4.9 2.4 300 B-3 12.6 2.050 4.0 2.0 320 B-3 19.5 2.051 5.5 2.7 420 Ashtabula Marina Lakeshore Park Ashtabula, Ohio ASHTABULA MARINA S-8, E TRIGGS J ASSOCIATES 9/10/80 WILLOUGHBY HILLS 1. OHIO C) C) CD F CD CD In r 1A jray silty SAND 0 = 350 .... c = 290 psf 107 pcf w 15. 1 % 500. 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORM4L STRESS Pi& AS11TABul-A MARINA DIRECT SHEAR TLST RESULTS BORING S-8 DEPTIi TES'J@ Normal Stress Ln SOIL ___Gr@@ay_ silty SAN[)---- 8 psf TEST #2 Normal Stress,2378 pst TEST 3 3325 psf (D CD Normal Stress C@ CI 44 U) C) Ena 4-4 U) CD N r%j U) C11 U) U) Ul M Ul C@ C3 @-I0 M 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horiz. Displacement (i n. Horiz Displacement (in.) Iforiz. Displacement (in. .011 0 tun) -4 Ln 0 121 0 0 .0 0.1 .0L 0.0 0.2 0.3 o.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 acemelit (in. Iforiz. Displacement (in. 110riz. Displacement (in. APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY SECTION 404 (B) EVALUATION BEACH EROSION AND SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT LAKESHORE PARK ASHTABULA, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BUFFALO OISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1776 NIAGARA STREET BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207 A U %G 4 6 190 PUBLIC NOTICE BEACH EROSION AND SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT LUMSHORE PARK, ASHTABM.A, OHIO I. This Public Notice has been prepared and distributed to identify 'what dredged or fill materials will be discharged into waters of the United States by implementation of the proposed project, and to provide an opportunity for any person affected by such discharge of materials, to request a public hearing. 2. Authorization - Section 103(a) of the 1962 River and Harbor Act, as amended, authorized the Corps of Engineers to assist in the construction of orks for the restoration and protection against erosion by waves and currents of the shores of the Great Lakes. w 3. Reports and Recommendations -. The Buffalo District will release a Draft Stage III Detailed Project Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement in November 1980, describing two preferred plans for Lakeshore Park. These are Alternative 1 (No Federal Action); and, Alternative 2 (Modified) (consisting of a three-offshore breakwater system protecting an 800-foot reach of backfill). A public meeting concerning the information supplied in the draft reports is tentatively scheduled for December 1980 at the Kent State University auditorium in Ashtabula, OH (precise information will be released prior to the meeting taking place) - 4* Based upon technical, environmental, and economic criteria, as well as significant public input, I have concluded that it is in the best public interest to recommend Alternative 2 (Modified) as the tentatively selected plan. 5. Alternative 2 (Modified) - The proposed project would provide protection to the shoreline from furthfr erosion and provide increased swimming opportunities at the park. Three breakwaters would be constructed at the 5-foot+ contour or at lake bottom elevation 561.6 (IGLD) which is appro@limately 500 feet offshore of the restored beach. Each breakwater would be 150 feet long with 25G-foot gaps between them (Plate 1). The central breakwater would be approximately parallel to the shoreline while the eastern and western breakwaters would be at a slight angle to the shore to provide further. protection for the beach during episodes of north- northwesterly or north-northeasterly wave attack. They would be of rubblemound construction and consist of one layer of stone randomly placed, with an average porosity of 37 percent. A constant crest elevation of +4.5 (LWD) would be used for all the breakwaters along with a crest width of 13.0 feet. 6. The breakwaters would protect an 800-foot long reach of beachfill, located at the foot of existing clay bluffs at the eastern end of the park. The beachfill would rise to elevation 578.6. The berm would be 100 feet wide, .11ronted by a 1 on 12 foreshore slope as shown in profile A-A on Plate 2. A t 'otal of 52,000 cubic yards of clean sand fill would be placed along the entire reach. The lose rate offshore is estimated to be 5,200 cubic yards requiring replenishment on a yearly basis. A permanent access road to the beach from the top of the existing bluff would be built to facilitate the initial placement of the beachfill and subsequent periods of annual nourishment. 7. Preliminary evaluation (as discussed in the Section 404 Evaluation Report) concludes that the proposed construction of breakwaters and.placement of beachfill would not cause unacceptable disruption to the beneficial water quality uses of the affected aquatic ecosystem* , 1 8. This proposed project involves the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Therefore, the evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest includes application of the guidelines promulgated by the Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR, part 230), under the authority of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. Any person who has an interest which might be affected by the proposed discharge may request a public hearing. The request must be submitted, in writing, to the District Engineer within 30 days of the date of this notice and must clearly set forth the interest which may be affected and the mannef in which the interest my be affected by this activity- 2 Incl JOHNSON as stated Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer NOTICE TO POSTMASTER: It is requested that the above notice be COUSPicuOusl7 displayed for 30 days from the date of issuance. C) 100 CIO! 60 RUBBLEMOUND MEAN LAKE BREAKWATER 4-5 I LEVELf2-2N L.W. D.-*, AKE BOTTOM-% PROP03ED BEACH FILL V, 13EACH PROFILE A-A NOT TO SCALE NOTE: ASHTABULA HARBOR. OHIO . MEAN LAKE LEVEL BETWEEN 1900 THRU 197!J IN MONTHS OF JUNE, L AKF5"ORIE PARK JULY, AUUUST AND SEPTEMBER WAS *2.2 6 BEACH RESTORATION STUDY. -u SOURCE: "MONTHLY BULLETIN OF LAKE LEVELS FOR THE r BEACH PROFILE GREAT LAKES A U. Aft MY 9NOINEIR 013TRICT. SUF I -CIO #poo ME A N@L Aj EVEL IL r @K E 130T PLATE A- /0 U-S CAST BREAKWATER A KE E R E /0 PROPOSED PROPOSED BREAKWATER BEACH FILL A 15 TriTtl I I I I I"Illill , C:::@ .2 b 0 lo, oo, 800 PERMANENT ACCESS ROAD i A a -L" A I I I a i a I I A ASHTABULA HARBOR. OHIO A LAXISHORIE PARK BEACH RESTORATION STUDY SELECTED PLAN LAKESHORE PARK ALTERNATIVE 2 (MODIFIED) US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT BUFFALO M NWILA= PRELIMINARY SECTION 404(b) EVALUATION BEACH EROSION AND SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT LAKESHORE PARK ASHT&BULA,OH10 Introduction - Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) states that each disposal site for dredged or fill material to be discharged into the navigable waters of the United States shall be specified through the applica- tion of guidelines developed by the Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Secretary of the Army. Thle present Section 404(b)(1) evaluation addresses the construction of offshore break- waters and the placement of sand beachfill at Lakeshore Park, Ashtabiila, ON. The purpose of the project is to eliminate shoreline erosion along 800 feet of clay bluffs and to restore a recreational beach. 1. Project Description. Section 103(a) of the 1962 River and Rarbor Act authorized the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to assist in the construction of works for the restoration and protection against erosion by waves and currents of the shores of,, the Great Lakes. The proposed plan involves the construction of three offshore, rubblemound -breakwaters, each 150 feet long with 250-foot gaps. They would be constructed approximately 500 feet offshore and would protect an 800;--foot long reach of beachfill (52,000 cubic yards) placed at the foot of an existing clay bluff - Approximately 10 per- cent Pf the beachfill would require renourishment on a yearly basis. a. Description of the Proposed Discharge of Fill Materials. (1) Source, Characteristics, and Quantity of Material - Under the selected plan, breakwaters would be constructed with approximately 9,200 tons of angular quarry stone obtained from a nearby commercial source. They would consist of one layer of stone randomly placed, with an average porosity, of 37 percent. Each armor unit would weigh approximately 3.5-7.5 tons. Approximately 52fOOO cubic yards of sand fill would be placed along an 8OG-foot reach of shoreline, and would consist of mediu=-grained, reasonably well-graded, sound, hard, durable, natural sand particles or crushed congl erate. It would be clean and free of organics, clay, deleterious, or other foreign or objectionable material. The sand would contain no more than 20 percent flat or elongated particles. The loss rate offshore is estimated to be approximately 5,200 cubic yards per year, requiring replenishment on a yearly basis. Sand would be obtained from a nearby commercial source. b. Descrip tion of the Proposed Discharge Site. (1) Location and Type of Disposal Site - Lakeshore Park occupies approximately 2,500 feet of Lake Erie frontage in the township of Ashtabula, OH (Plate 1). From the east park boundary, low clay bluffs fronted by a narrow gravel beach, extend approximately 800 feet along the shore. Ashtabula Harbor structures to the west and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company's intake structure to the east give the offshore area a confined nature. (2) Methods and Timing of Discharge - Construction of the segmented breakwaters would be accomplished with a marine plant consisting of cranes on barges, scows, and tug boats, whereas, placement of sand fill would require a land plant consisting of dump trucks, front-end loaders, and bulldozers. Construction of this plan would most likely take about 5 months to complete and extend through one construction season. The construction procedure that would probably be followed. is to use derrickboats to place the quarry stone which would be transported to the site on scows towed by tug boats. Placement of the stone would be accomplished, utilizing a crane equipped with rock grapples. As the breakwater segments are completed, sand that is truck- hauled to the site can be spread in the lee of the structures to provide the design beach dimensions. As stated earlier, annual beach nourishment would be carried out for the life of the project. (3) Projected Life of Discharge Sites - The construction of the offshore breakwaters and restoration of a recreational beach would be one time occurrences. Rowever, the annual replenishment of 5,200 cubic yards of beachfill would be continued for the 50-year life of the project. (4) Bathymetry of Discharge Sites - The breakwaters would be built on a bedrock foundation at a depth of about 5.5+ feet below Low Water Datum (LWD)* or approximately 500 feet from shore. BeaiThfill would be placed from the clay bluffs to a point 50 feet lakeward of the mean lake level waterline (+2.2 LWD). Existing substrates in both these areas are composed primarily of sand. 2. Physical Effects (40 CPR.230.4-1(&)). a. Effects on Wetlands (40 CYR Z30.4-1(a)(1)). The proposed discharges would have no effect on any wetlands. b. Impact an the Water Column (40 CYR Z30.4-1(a)(2)). (1) Light Transmission - Construction of offshore breakwaters and place- ment of beachfill could create short-term increases in turbidity resulting in a temporary reduction in light transmission. This effect would probably be negligible as the littoral zone is normally a fairly turbulent area. (2) Aesthetic Values - Construction of offshore breakwaters, rising approximately 4.5 feet above LWD, may obstruct further on already confined view of the lake. Beach nourishment would be a departure from the existing shoreline conditions, however, erosion scars along the clay bluffs would be eliminated and the beach would be more aesthetically pleasing. (3) Direct Effect a on Nekton and Plankton - Implementation of either plan component would not produce any destructive effects on aekton or plankton. *LWD for Lake Erie is 568.6 feet above mean sea level at Father Point, Quebec. 2 c ,Covering of Benthic Communities (40 CPR 230.4-1(a)(3)). (1) Actual Covering of Benthic Communities - Covering of benthos will occur with both plan components. Breakwaters would cover approximately 0.55 acre along a total length of 450 feet. Beachfill material would be placed both above and below the water level along 800 feet of shoreline. Quantities cannot be accurately specified for any placements other than the Initial placement, which would be 52,000 cubic yards of material expected to cover an estimated 0.43 acre of subaqueous surface. Any offshore transport and subsequent deposition of this material. can be expected to be no greater than existing rates. (2) Changes in Community Structure or Function - The underwater surfaces of the breakwaters would provide significant new habitat for a different assemblage of benthos species. The total area of breakwaters available for colonization is about 0.31 acre, although considerably more habitat would be available in the interstices of rubblemound structures. Active erosion areas such as Lakeshore Park generally have very sparse populations of benthic fauna. The habitat provided on the breakwaters -should actually increase the diversity and population size of macrobenthos compared to what is lost by covering the sandy substrate. d. Other Effects (40 CPR 230.4-1(a)). (1) Changes in Bottom Geometry and Substrate Composition - Changes would occur, as intended, with the restoration of a recreational beach. Substrate composition will be basically unaltered, except the replenishment material may differ slightly from the native beach sand. (2) Water Circulation - The construction of three offshore breakwaters may disrupt natural circulation patterns of the nearshore area. (3) Exchange of Constituents Between Sediments and Water - Because the. deposition is inert'. no change in biological communities 'due to exchange of constituents between sediments and overlying water is expected to occur. 3. Chemical-Biological Interactive Effects (40 CFR 230.4-1(b)). a. Exclusion Criteria. Breakwater construction material is chemically inert physically immobile under the conditions existing at the lakeshore. These characteristics clearly eliminate the possibility of occurrence of chemical-bio logical interaction, and any testing specified under 40 CFR 230.4-1(b)(2) and (3) - elutriate testing and bioassay testing, respectively - is not applicable in this instance. Fill material for beach nourishment which is composed predominantly of sand, gravel, or shell having particle sizes compatible with material on receiving shores is excluded from testing under 40 CPR 230.4-1(b)(2) and (3); this category embraces the beach nourishment component of the Lakeshore Park beach erosion control project. 3 4. Description of Site Comparison (40" CFR 230.4-1(b)). a .Exclusion Criteria. The breakwater component of the plan includes only a disposal site (no dredging site, since the material is obtained from upland sources), therefore, a comparison of sites is not applicable here. This is also the case for beach nourishment if the material is obtained from upland sources. It is herein decided that beach nourishment material obtained from offshore sources would not be the subject of an inventory of total concentration of critical chemical constituents. Because sand is generally chemically inert, such an inventory would not be of value in a site comparison. b. Similarly, no site comparison is applicable for a biological com- munity analysis. 5. Applicable Water Quality Standards (40 CFR 230.4-2). a. Because the fill material is inert, no direct effects upon water quality are anticipated. b. The nearshore waters of Lakeshore Park are utilized for recreational bathing. The State of Ohio specifies a maximum safe level of fecal coliform organism density, above which use of a bathing beach is not permitted. The water quality at the park is monitored regularly throughout the bathing season; the Ohio Department of Health, in a letter dated 4 June 1980, reported that Lakeshore -Park does not show any great pollution hazard, although there are occasional high counts of bacteria normally due to rainfall. c. Breakwater construction implemented to control shoreline erosion may cause a degradation in water quality by lessening circulation along the shore, resulting in a tendency towards stagnation, with a concomitant increase in the concentration of coliform bacteria originating either from the bathers or from outside sources.. As an item of local cooperation, the Ashtabula Township Park Commission has agreed to assure that water pollution that would affect the health of bathers will not be permitted. 6. Selection of Disposal Site for Fill Material (40 CYR 230-5). a. Need for the Proposed Activity. The proposed activity is intended to eliminate shoreline erosion along 800 feet of erodible bluffs and restore a recreational beach at Lakeshore Park. b. Alternate Sites Considered. Breakwaters and beach replenishment material are planned to be placed at locations which are considered to be the best sites to satisfy the need for beach erosion control. c. Objectives in Discharge Determination. Objectives determined in discharge determination (40 CYR 230.5(a)) including the following impacts on 4 chemical, physical, and biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems evaluated tn terms of their impact upon water uses at the discharge site (40 CFS 230.5(b)(1-10)), and incorporating considerations to minimize harmful effects (40 CFR 230.5(c)(1-7)): (1) Impact on Food Chain - Construction of breakwaters and placement of beachfill would have an insignificant impact upon the food chain. After construction, the breakwaters would provide a more diverse habitat, thereby increasing the variability of the local aquatic food chain. (2) Impact on Diversity of Plant and Animal Species - The breakwaters should act as artificial reefs, providing substrate for attachment c@f algae and invertebrate animal communities, and protective cover for fish. This should result in an increase in diversity of plant and animal species. (3) Impact on Movement into and out of Feeding, Spawning, Breeding, and Nursery Areas - Breakwaters would cover approximately 0.55 acre of possible yellow perch spawning areas. Approximately 0.31 acre of new, more diverse habitat would'be added on the submerged surfaces of the structures. (4) Impact on Wetland Areas Having Significant Functions of Water Quality Maintenance - There would be no impact on any wetlands. (5) Impact on Water Retention Areas - There would be no impact on areas which serve to retain natural high waters or flood waters. (6) Methods to Minimize Turbidity - Turbidity increases during construc- tion may occur which would be minimized, as necessary, by environmental pro- cection. aspects of construction requirements. (7) Methods to Minimize Degradation of Aesthetic, Recreational, and Economic Values - Degradation of aesthetic values is minimized in the break- water plan component by limiting, to whatever extent possible, the height and length of the breakwaters, and providing maximum possible spacing of the structures. The use of rubblemound breakwaters should provide a more natural appearance than would other types, e.g., steel sheet pile. Within the beach replenishment plan component, aesthetic value degradation would be minimized by utilizing the most natural- appearing suitable beachfill which is available and consistent with favorable plan economics. Minimization of degradation of recreational values is a major planning objective of the beach erosion control project. The protection of and subsequent recreational development at Lakeshore Park should enhance local land values. (8) Threatened and Endangered Species - There would be no impact on threatened or endangered species. d. Impact on Water Uses (40 CFR 230.5(b)(1-10)). (1) Municipal Water Supply Intakes - No impacts on municipal water supply intakes would occur. (2) Shellfish - No significant impact on shellfish would occur. 5 (3) Fisheries - Approximately 0.55 acre of possible yellow perch spawning area would be covered by breakwater construction. (4) Wildlife - No significant impact on wildlife would occur. (5) Recreation Activities - Existing recreation activities would be tew- porarily disrupted during project construction and annual beach nourishment. No significant, long-term increases in turbidity, nutrients, pathogenic organisms, or oil and greases are expected to occur. (6) Impact on Threatened and Endangered Species - The proposed discharges would have no effect on threatened or endangered species habitats as defined in the Endangered Species Act. (7) Impact on Benthic Life - Breakwater construction would cover approximately 0.55 acre and placement of beachfill would cover 0.43 acre of benthic habitat. The rubblemound breakwaters, however, would enhance the existing benthic community by adding@at least 0.31 acre of new, more diverse habitat. (8) Impact on Wetlands - The proposed activity would have no effect on wetlands. (9) Impact on Submersed Vegetation - The proposed activity would have no significant effect on submersed vegetation. (10) Size of Disposal Site - The size of the breakwaters and the beach are the minim- necessary to provide shoreline erosion protection and recreational swimming opportunities. (11) Coastal Zone Management - The proposed activity does not conflict .with the State of Ohio's proposed coastal zone management program. e. Considerations to Minimize Harmful Effects (40 CF R 230.5(c)). (1) Water Quality Criteria - During construction, the Contractor would be required to minimize turbidity and accidental spills of fuels, oils, greases, etc. Open flanks, voids in the stone, and gaps between the break- waters should lessen impacts upon water circulation. After construction, the Ohio Department of Health would continue to monitor water quality during the bathing season to insure that water quality at the park does not present a health hazard to the bathers. (2) Alternatives to Open Water Disposal - Alternatives which do not pro- vide a recreational beach' (e.g., sheet pile wall, abandonment) have been eli- minated for economic reasons. (3) Physical Characteristics of Alernative Disposal Sites - Not Applicable. (4) Ocean Dumping - Not Applicable. 6 (5) Covering Contaminated Material with Cleaner Material - Breakwater armor units and beachfill would be inert and clean and would require no covering. (6) Minimize Effect of Runo'ff frum Confined Areas on the Aquatic Environment - Not Applicable. (7) Coordination of Potential Monitoring Activities with EPA - Not Applicable. 7. Statement as to Contamination of Fill Materials if from a Land Source (40 ZFR 2.30.5(d) Fill material would be clean and inert (See Section 1-a-(l)). 8. Mixing Zone Determination. Since the fill material would be clean and inert, the determination of the mixing zone would not be applicable. 9. Conclusions and Determinations. a. I have reviewed the documents pertinent to the construction of offshore breakwaters and a recreational beach at Lakeshore Park, OH, and have concluded that: (1) An ecological evaluation has been performed following the evaluation guidance contained ia 40 CFR 230.4, in conjunction with the evaluation con- siderations in 40 CPR 230.5 (40 CPR 230.3(d)). (2) Appropriate measures have been identified and incorporated into the proposed plan to minimize adverse effects on the aquatic environment as a result of the placement of fill material (40 CFR 230.3(d)(1)). (3) Consideration has been given to the need for the proposed activity, the availability of alternative sites and methods of discharge that are less damaging to the environment, and such water quality standards as are appropriate and applicable by law (40 CPR 230.5). (4) No wetlands would be affected by construction of the project (40 CPR 230.5(b)(8)). 10. Findings. I find that the discharge of 52,000 cubic yards of beachfill mater'ial and subsequent annual nourishment, and the construction of three offshore breakwaters at Lakeshore Park, OH, have been specified through appli- cation of Se ction 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act guidelines. Co onel, Corps of Engineers Date District Engineer 7 NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 1411272 4