C65.JWJ •'&. \^/^7y November 1978 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For the Proposed NOAA Western Regional Center Development noHfl U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not approve, recommend or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned in this publication. No refer- ence shall be made to NOAA or to this publication furnished by NOAA in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NOAA approves, recommends or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this NOAA publication. * a 1 a c A 6 €3$. J 4 //^ ' *Cb x5/^ - £^j. November 1978 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement For the Proposed NOAA Western Regional Center Development jjfijjjj^, U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/finalsupplementaOOunit TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS i LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES v CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1 Description of Proposed Action 1-2 Purpose of the Project 1-3 Potential Alternative Sites 1-4 Screening of Alternative Sites 1-4 CHAPTER 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 2-1 SITES Section 1: Overall Puget Sound Region 2-1 Existing Environment 2-1 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-4 Section 2: Everett 2-8 Existing Environment 2-8 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-13 Section 3: South Mukilteo 2-18 Existing Environment 2-18 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-23 Section 4: Kenmore 2-29 Existing Environment 2-29 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-35 Section 5: Sand Point 2-41 Existing Environment 2-41 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-48 Section 6: North Hylebos 2-54 Existing Environment 2-54 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-60 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Section 7: South Hylebos 2-64 Existing Environment 2-64 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-67 Section 8: Manchester 2-71 Existing Environment 2-71 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-76 Section 9: Lake Union 2-82 Existing Environment 2-82 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-88 Section 10: Salmon Bay 2-93 Existing Environment 2-93 Impacts and Mitigative Measures 2-96 CHAPTER 3 - COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SITES 3-1 Section 1: Environmental Elements 3-1 Geology and Landforms 3-1 Soils and Erosion 3-1 Climate 3-2 Air Quality 3-2 Water Quality and Aquatic Biology 3-3 Terrestrial Biology 3-4 Natural Resources 3-4 Aesthetics 3-5 Archaeological and Historic Resources 3-5 Noise 3-5 Demography 3-6 Economic Forces 3-6 Land Use 3-6 Utilities and Energy 3-7 Public Services 3-7 Traffic and Circulation 3-7 Navigational Risk 3-8 Section 2: Analysis of Trade-Off s 3-8 Section 3: No-Action Alternative 3-9 CHAPTER 4 - SUMMARY 4-1 li TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page CHAPTER 5 - COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-1 Technical Questions 5-5 General 5-5 Site Selection 5-10 Air Quality 5-15 Water Quality and Aquatic Biology 5-18 Terrestrial Biology 5-23 Archaeological and Historical Resources 5-23 Noise 5-24 Economic Forces 5-27 Land Use 5-29 Utilities and Energy 5-34 Transportation and Circulation 5-34 Navigational Risk 5-36 Policy Questions 5-42 REFERENCES R-l APPENDIX A - NAVIGATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR A-l CANDIDATE SITES APPENDIX B - WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY B-l APPENDIX C - AIR QUALITY C-l APPENDIX D - NOISE D-l APPENDIX E - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY E-l APPENDIX F - TRAFFIC VOLUMES F-l APPENDIX G - CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED PROJECT G-l WITH THE WASHINGTON COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM APPENDIX H - VESSEL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES H-l THAT WOULD OCCUR AT THE PROPOSED FACILITY m LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1-1 Sites Considered for NOAA Regional Center 1-5 2-1 Location and Magnitude of Major Earthquakes in the Puget Sound Region Since 1870 2-2 2-2 Everett Site - Existing Conditions 2-9 2-3 Everett Site - Impacts 2-15 2-4 South Mukilteo Site - Existing Conditions 2-19 2-5 South Mukilteo Site - Impacts 2-25 2-6 Kenmore Site - Existing Conditions 2-31 2-7 Kenmore Site - Impacts 2-36 2-8 Sand Point Site - Existing Conditions 2-42 2-9 Sand Point Site - Impacts 2-49 2-10 North Hylebos Site - Existing Conditions 2-55 2-11 North Hylebos Site - Impacts 2-61 2-12 South Hylebos Site - Existing Conditions 2-65 2-13 South Hylebos Site - Impacts 2-69 2-14 Manchester Site - Existing Conditions 2-72 2-15 Manchester Site - Impacts 2-78 2-16 Lake Union North Site (PMC) - Existing Conditions 2-83 2-17 Lake Union North Site (PMC) - Impacts 2-84 2-18 Lake Union South Site (Drydock) - Existing Conditions 2-89 2-19 Lake Union South Site (Drydock) - Impacts 2-90 2-20 Salmon Bay Site - Existing Conditions 2-94 2-21 Salmon Bay Site - Impacts 2-98 B-l Water Quality Summary of the Major Water Bodies in the Seattle Area B-7 B-2 Fish Migration B-8 B-3 Median Total Coliform Counts for Various Stations in the Lake Washington Ship Canal B-15 F-la Traffic Volumes F-l F-lb Traffic Volumes F-2 F-lc Traffic Volumes F-3 IV LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 Characteristics of Potential Alternative Sites 1-6 1-2 Program Criteria 1-9 1-3 Summary of Screening Process - Consolidated Sites 1-11 1-4 Summary of Screening Process - Split Sites 1-13 1-5 Alternative Sites Selected for Environmental Analysis 1-16 2-1 Petroleum Product Spills at the Pacific Marine Center 2-86 3-1 Adverse Environmental Impact Rating - Consolidated Sites 3-11 3-2 Adverse Environmental Impact Rating - Spl it Sites 3-12 3-3 Comparison of Consolidated Sites 3-13 3-4 Comparison of Split Sites 3-14 4-1 Major Adverse Impacts 4-2 4-2 Mitigative Measures 4-3 6-1 State of Washington Water Quality Classifications Important Water Quality Standards for Freshwater and Marine Water B-l B-2 Mean of Water Quality Data for Six Stations in the East Waterway B-3 6-3 Mean of Sediment Analyses in the East Waterway, Everett B-4 B-4 Water Quality Summary for Site Off the Town of Mukilteo 6-5 B-5 Sediment Analyses at the South Mukilteo Site 6-6 6-6 Sediment Analyses at the Kenmore Site 6-9 6-7 Fish Species Found in Pontiac 6ay 6-10 B-8 Water Quality Summary for the Hylebos Waterway 6-11 6-9 Mean Concentrations of Sediment Parameters from Six Sites in the Hylebos Waterway 6-12 6-10 Sediment Analyses at the Manchester Site B-13 6-11 Sediment Analyses at the Lake Union Site 6-14 6-12 Sediment Analyses at the Salmon 6ay Site 6-16 LIST OF TABLES Table Page C-l Ambient Air Quality Standards C-4 C-2 Total Time Each Ship is in Transit To and From Each Site in Relation to Point Zero (Hours) C-5 C-3 Gallons of Fuel Consumed Per Year in Transit C-6 C-4 Emission Factors (lb/103 gal) C-7 C-5 Total Pollutant Emission (Tons/Year) Due to Ship Travel for Each Alternative Site C-8 C-6 Maximum One-Hour CO Concentrations at Each Project Alternative Site C-9 C-7 Maximum Eight-Hour CO Concentrations at Each Project Alternative Site C-12 D-l Results of Noise Survey for NOAA D-2 D-2 Average Noise Level (dBA) at Construction Sites with a 50 dBA Ambient Typical of Suburban Residential Areas D-3 D-3 Calculated Noise Levels for Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes at 100 Feet Using National D-4 E-l Dominant Plant Species Identified at Alternative Site Locations E-l E-2 Bird Species That May Be Found at Alternative Site Locations and Adjacent Waters E-2 E-3 Reptiles and Amphibians that may Occur at Alternative Sites E-10 E-4 Mammals Which may be Found at Alternative Site Locations E-ll VI URS Technical Staff involved in preparation of this draft EIS are listed below: Name Qualifications Responsibil ity Steve Fusco, AIP M.U.P., B.A. Project Manager, Land Use, Aesthetics, Economic Forces, Demography Sylvia Burges M.S., M.Ed., B.A. Assistant Project Manager Peter Sturtevant M.S., B.S. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology William Van Horn M.A., B.S. Navigational Risk Leon Crain B.S. Noise Ken Thomas, P.E. B.S.C.E. Transportation and Circulation Marilyn Monk B.A. Terrestrial Biology Mike Miller M. Ph., M.S., B.S. Air Quality vn 1 Introduction INTRODUCTION This document is a supplement to the "Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed NOAA Western Regional Center Development, Sand Point, Seattle, Washington" (FEIS), which was issued January 30, 1976. The proposed action considered in this supplement is the development of a Western Regional Center for NOAA at Sand Point. The decision to prepare a supple- ment to the FEIS followed a court decision finding the NOAA FEIS deficient. On December 29, 1977, Save Lake Washington (a non-profit corporation) and named individuals filed a lawsuit alleging that NOAA had violated several federal laws, including the Naf'onal Environmental Policy Act; eight substantive issues were raised in the suit. On Febru- ary 24, 1978, the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Washington granted a prelim- inary injunction against further action by NOAA to establish the pro- posed docking structures at the Sand Point facility. The order granting the injunction was based on a decision by the Court that a trial on the merits would find that the plaintiffs were correct in two of their claims: 1) that the FEIS did not adequately discuss navigational risks, and 2) that alternative sites, including split-site alternatives (which might avoid some or all of the adverse envi- ronmental impacts of the project at Sand Point) were not adequately evaluated. The purpose of this supplemental EIS is to evaluate navigational risk and to analyze several alternative sites in more detail. The alterna- tives considered include three "split-site" alternatives where 1-1 ships and their support activity requiring access to the water would be located at one site, and those activities not directly related to ship activity would be located at Sand Point. Six alternative sites for a consolidated facility are also analyzed. Concurrent with the development of this supplemental statement, NOAA has prepared two management documents that reconsider the previous decision to consolidate at Sand Point. One report analyzes and compares adminis- trative effectiveness of consolidated development and split or dispersed development (NOAA, 1978a). The second report discusses and rates the alter- native sites in terms of operational factors (NOAA, 1978b). These reports conclude that consolidation is prefer- red for achieving optimal effective- ness and program efficiency and that such consolidation should take place at Sand Point. Therefore, consolida- tion of NOAA activities at Sand Point continues to be the proposed action. The final NOAA management decision for development of a Western Regional Center will be a result of a balanced decision-making process that will include integrated consideration of the following factors: environmental impact, navigational risk, administra- tive effectiveness, site characteris- tics, ship activities, economics, accomplishment of agency mission, and public comment. Development of a Western Regional Center at Sand Point, the proposed action, has been discussed in detail in the FEIS (NOAA, 1976). Similiarly, the no-action alternative is consid- ered in that document. To facilitate comparison of the alternative sites with Sand Point, an analysis of existing environment and expected impacts of development at Sand Point is included in this supplement. This chapter first provides a brief description of the proposed regional center and delineates its purpose. Next, the generation and screening of alternative sites is discussed. In Chapter 2 the present environment at each site is described and each of the alternatives is evaluated with respect to impacts that would be likely from development of the faci- lity at that site, and measures that could be taken to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Navigational risk is one of the environmental components examined, and is discussed in more detail in Appendix A. In Chapter 3, environmental impacts at each site are compared and tradeoffs are dis- cussed. A brief discussion of the no-action alternative is included. Chapter 4 provides a brief summary of the EIS. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The nature of the facility that NOAA proposes to build is described in the FEIS; however, a brief summary of this information may be helpful to the reader. NOAA seeks to bring to- gether in one location the more than 14 activities now scattered through- out Seattle. Management studies con- ducted by NOAA indicate that consoli- dation would increase the efficiency of NOAA operations (NOAA, 1978a). Activities of the groups to be loca- ted at the proposed regional center include weather forecasting, marine survey work, fisheries management, research dealing with the marine environment and related disciplines. A more complete description of the mission and operations of NOAA compo- nents in the Seattle area is provided as Part 1 of the FEIS (NOAA, 1976). A description of present activities at Lake Union is included as Appendix H. The Western Regional Center would be the first such center in the 1-2 United States and would have juris- diction over NOAA activities in the western United States and the Pacific Ocean. It would provide about 550,000 square feet (sf) of building space, 300,000 sf of outdoor work space and mooring space for twelve fishery and oceanographic vessels. These facilities would accommodate approximately 1850 employees in 1982 increasing to 2300 (including 400 students and 825 ship-based person- nel) as the ultimate projected population. The facility would attract visitors; NOAA encourages general public interest in its activities and plans to provide visitor facilities as part of its Western Regional Center. The presence of the facility in a populated area offers the public an opportunity to better understand NOAA's missions, and periodic use of some NOAA facilities. The size of the site would determine whether high-rise or low scattered buildings are constructed. Land- scaping to increase the visual amenity of the site and to block off-site views of parking lots and the like would depend on the overall design. Plants that blend with existing native vegetation and are consistent with the surrounding area would be used. The piers must be located in 30- foot deep waters to avoid disturbance of the water bottom by ships up to a 19 foot draft. The planned mooring space could accommodate twelve ships including the ten Seattle-based ships presently in the NOAA fleet. All twelve vessels would rarely be in port simultaneously except between November and February; during other months, typically no more than two or three ships would be in port at one time. Transits by NOAA ships through the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranged from 69 to 82 per year between 1975 and 1977; ship traffic to and from a new facility is ex- pected to generate no more than 120 ship transits per year. Routine maintenance on vessels is carried out at pierside; major repair operations are carried out at commercial ship- yards (Appendix H). PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The purpose of the proposed pro- ject is to consolidate the major organizational components of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) now located in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA activities in and around Seattle are presently conducted at eight separate locations, seven of which are leased. Not only are NOAA organizational com- ponents separated from one another, but, in some cases, operational ele- ments of the same component are not housed with other elements of that component. Such physical separation restricts optimal program coordina- tion and control. In addition, most if not all facilities are inadequate in terms of their ability to accommo- date NOAA's current activities and planned program expansion. Construc- tion of a consolidated facility would bring operational elements and major components together and would solve the space problem (NOAA, 1978a). Expected benefits include: o Reduction of duplicative admin- strative services, personnel travel and vehicle use. o Modern, efficient space designed to meet NOAA's special needs and capable of accommodating known program expansion. o Improved working relationships within and between components in a favorable research environment. 1-3 o Reduction in lease and rent expenditures. o Prevention of further fragmenta- tion and the attendant costs. POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SITES Thirty-four alternative sites were identified; these sites included the alternatives discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed NOAA Regional Center (FEIS) and a number of properties identified by a commercial real estate broker (Coldwell Banker), by the General Services Administration, by local jurisdictions, and by individuals in the Puget Sound area. Potential alternative sites other than the FEIS alternatives were sought because many of those sites, identified over three years earlier, were no longer avail- able. The process through which these alternative sites were identi- fied was as fol lows: All alternative sites identified in the FEIS were included; these sites were Sand Point, Manchester, Lake Union, Duwamish, and Piers 90-91. The second step was to include all federally-owned properties that are currently being excessed or surplused in the Puget Sound region. This information (obtained from the Real Property Division of the General Services Administration, Region 10) identified Astoria (Tongue Point), Mukilteo (Split), and Issaquah. Since January, 1978, NOAA has re- ceived letters from various munici- palities and private parties pro- posing that NOAA locate its facili- ties within their jurisdiction. The third step of identifying alterna- tive sites was to include specific sites identified by these individuals. The fourth step was to perform a survey of sites currently available in the private sector that might meet NOAA requirements. This inventory survey was accomplished by Coldwell Banker Management Corporation under contract to NOAA. This approach identified the 34 sites shown in Figure 1-1. The size, zoning, present use, and waterfront footage for these sites are listed in Table 1-1, as are the land use and zoning of surrounding land parcels, availability of utilities, and acces- sibility. Some of these sites would be "split-sites"; that is, activities and support activities requiring access to water (ship-related activi- ties) would be separated from those activities not directly related to ship activity. SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE SITES To determine which of the poten- tial sites would be feasible alterna- tive sites, it was necessary to develop a list of physical and pro- grammatic requirements against which to compare each site. Such a list was compiled by NOAA after consider- ing the broad range of factors that are important in the overall develop- ment of a Regional Center. Selection of a location that could not satisfy each of these requirements would pre- vent development of an effective center (NOAA, 1978a, b). These criteria, referred to as "program criteria", are listed in Table 1-2. Two sets of criteria are included: criteria for a single consolidated site and criteria for a separate waterfront site (to be devel- oped in conjunction with development of shore facilities at Sand Point). The physical space requirements (building space, moorage space, out- door work area, and parking) were identified in the recently completed 1-4 4 -K 7" - 32 .30 31' 34 10 .11 12 23* .19 20' »22 '21 27 26 fe 24 B %25 28' Legend P Sites Selected for Environmental Analysis I Potential Alternative Sites (Numbers refer to Table 1-1) Note: Site No. 29 (Potential) located at Astoria, Oregon r Scale in Miles Figure 1-1 Sites Considered for NOAA Regional Center *"* X %, % \. *+, % X <*>, % r 4h % % %. % V X > < < "cD -- "O C CD 75 c < 13 TJ 2 C CT) s -C O! 1§ _j £ u 3 CD ■a CD c in ~co c CO c 03 c E ro 75 _C O") c o a 3 TJ QJ < c 6 CD 3 C CD s .c .E 1 CD _J Ol u c D "O z; c CO (D D_ ro "C £ CD O Q. CJ o CO QJ TJ I 1 C o 6 D LL o < o o 2 — o m c o CM ~E 0J o u (U c < (N « J » O o JG % "p C QJ C <-^£ o o .E> +- 1 *-* aj QJ — O c c > O CD Il| III 2.13 a; 9- ra ■d.Eu c g -C 3 co I- iff c o c CD > c u TJ C D TJ E .C E 3 E o o o c QJ ra "O _~ C i '£ D CO 1- ■— J*: H ra = E E ~ 3 5 g< £ CO 2 £ 3 CD CD QJ 0) £ £ O) co E c ,_ ra O ~ ° o en O < J£ 5 Q) c Q. _l CO a; cu aj — ai as — co D < a O Q. "a O r- Z O c Q_ £ oo as _ — CO c LU aj D o < O CO o o CD T3 CD O H rr o CD o QJ > Q- >■ aj QJ n 5 ^J CD _ca _CD CD CD CD > < < < C c CD _Q CD .Q < 3 D 2 "fD to w "D D D QJ TZ) TJ c C C o — — N csT cm" O 2 ^ 5 c o CD > i- aj < o LL "D CD CO D "to C3 C CD "a D CD o o ■o CD c oc "O "a c c CD CD CD CD "cD QJ ■a D a3 QJ X> QJ u_ c LL < CN < 2 ^ 2 c o CD CD CD (73 •D C C < _ CD CD "D -t- 1 CD ■D cd ra 2 — 3 a. _0J U CD O Q. JZ1 Q.-— CD CD > C O QJ O u LL \^ "^ c C to O v> O O £ 2 a! S E r O CD — CJ CJ CO m o o 00 n o CM QJ QJ c "5j -^ QJ -M _CD a> O CT1C/J C O C u) < x < O C +J N I- CD CD "D O "O o »- Q_ UJ o_ u_ — CD r^ CO o c J2 Oh- > 15 o o oog Era E S Locc E tt E-2 E fe < ~o .^ CD QJ LL CJ CD CO C Q_ g 55 CO CO CO +J ^ QJ QJ O) > qj aj CO CO Uij- ^ ^r r* o ■•-' CD CO CD CD QJ O r- O) CD ■~ ^~ CO o -I— > .52 8 T" ^ en =3 tr o3 ICC X c 0) +j ~ ^ «55 o3 ^ i s? DC S DC DC ± OC DC Q= 75 g 5 Ol O CO > 5 cl O CN c/o i_i E a. c c O 13 \ X -o 'a w (1) C i_ X X No Access; locat off of Puget Sou Drive, near Wate and Ocean Ave. *% % V % X ^ % Hh % X "D a: x: n cc ~ _J 3 cos oJ CO ro \ orth th & Priv X X rlington N East, Nor developed 3 c -5 00 o 3 '$ \ iu QJ CD £ <" O Q) ^ •f s I lis S! lo CTJ.l 3 n U- .- p s > E 13 _J CO _1 w T3 p f ffl 0) ri 2 o K D LL a (J (3 "^ £J ro .£? w *-» C cd c t: 03 co 2 0)0) u v cc CO 5 E c U o ,_, E £ M LL. .2 ||| CO o m E c (D OJ LL OJ OJ Q en 03 c C/3 o -t— ' CO "i_ ^-^ CD o *- 8 ^o. i_ CO TJ~ .C O .Q & |S CO 5 £ LL 2 O. O ^_ C o .2 E fe E E a, c c O — *<*. X ^. X -*^ <%, % \ ^ % V % % 9< V % x 'o. % %> •^ * n «».*><•, ^ ^ "a a) o "o ■3 > _ CD "O -i: O cd « %-* WUJO. E r to in I- L. =3 -n CD 4-J O CO o >_ ^ CD CD "D .- CD C DC 0) T-, CC (J < « 0) CD QC c c3 CD c j*i o O CO a > Q_ E fc CD E CD o O C/3 o c LL. 0J O) £ Oi 00 CO a c 0) ■a "O o 5 C CD C £J e § a LL O o o Q- (- co lu < : 0) EU «C c W o +-» £ i~ o CN 2 CO O -♦-' 22 'i_ CD O -i— « 8 ^g. i_ cfl i .c O .Q 52 CO 5 -5 U-~Z.fl. TABLE 1-2 Program Criteria* Criteria for Consolidated Site Building Space: Vessel Accessibility: Moorage Space: Compatible Land Use: Availability: Outdoor Work Area: Parking: Range of Acreage: Distance: Approximately 550,000 sq. ft. (gross). Site must be on waters navigable by all NOAA vessels with access to the Pacific Ocean. Necessary space to accommodate 12 research and hydro- graphic vessels. Development should be consistent with all legally applicable land use regulations and shoreline manage- ment plans. Developed or undeveloped site must be largely owned or available for acquisition by the government. 300,000 sq. ft. 1,050 spaces (automobile). 30 to 120 with the lower number indicating a plan utilizing high-rise construction and the higher number indicating a plan having low level multiple buildings in a "campus like" setting. Site should be located within a 60-minute driving distance from the University of Washington and the National Marine Fisheries Service Facilities in Monti ake, and primary NOAA user groups. Criteria for Waterfront Portion of Split Site Building Space: Vessel Accessibility Moorage Space: Compatible Land Use: Avail abil ity: Outdoor Work Area: Parking: Acreage: Distance: A minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. (gross). Site must be on waters navigable by all NOAA vessels with access to the Pacific Ocean. Necessary space to accommodate 12 research and hydro- graphic vessels. Development should be consistent with all legally appli- cable land use regulations and shoreline management plans. Developed or undeveloped site must be largely owned or available for acquisition by the government. Approximately 35,000 sq. ft. 175 spaces (automobile). Minimum of approximately 3 acres. Must be located within a 30-minute driving distance of Sand Point. *These criteria were identified as requirements by the project sponsor. 1-9 Concept Program of Facility Require- ments (Naramore Bain Brady and Johanson, 1978). These requirements represent known space needs projected to 1982. The availability criterion means that the site must be presently owned by the government or available for purchase, lease-purchase option, or lease. It specif ical ly excludes acquisition by condemnation. (NOAA, 1978a, b). The desired proximity to the Uni- versity of Washington is based on the long standing working relationship that exists between NOAA and the Uni- versity. Twenty one NOAA scientists currently hold affiliate positions with the University and routinely lecture various courses. NOAA scien- tists are also actively involved in various graduate study programs at the University of Washington. In re- turn, the University holds sixteen major contracts that provide NOAA with research, computer, and tech- nical services that could not be provided by other area institutions. There is almost daily interaction between NOAA personnel and the Uni- versity Department of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography, the Col- lege of Fisheries, the Sea Grant Programs, and the Applied Physics Laboratory. On the average, 75 NOAA scientists make more than 80 visits to the University each week. NOAA scientists also make considerable use of the University's comprehensive technical libraries. To facilitate continuation of these relationships, the site should be located within a 60-minute driving distance from the University of Washington and the National Marine Fisheries service facilities in Monti ake. (See also NOAA, 1978b). Borderline sites beyond this range will be considered only if they appear particularly well suited to NOAA needs. NOAA Seattle elements primarily interact with user groups also loca- ted in Seattle, including a number of federal, city, and county agencies, public media, and industry and labor- atory representatives in the fish- eries field. Direct NOAA services include briefing television weather- men and groups of local fisherper- sons, providing climatic data and a convenient sales office, and coordin- ating marketable fishery products. In return, NOAA receives valuable feedback on the quality and useful- ness of the services. For these rea- sons, and to minimize energy consump- tion, cost, and loss of productive time, the proposed center should be within 60 minutes driving time of Seattle (NOAA, 1978b). Many potential sites were elimin- ated during this screening process. Tables 1-3 and 1-4 summarize the screening process for consolidated and split site alternatives. Several sites were too small, including those in Renton, Edmonds, a site on City Waterway in Tacoma, the Coast Guard Salmon Bay site, and one of two sites on the Duwamish River. The second Duwamish River site, identified in the FEIS, is no longer available as it is now being used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Office. Other FEIS alternative sites, Piers 90-91 in Seattle and Fort Worden, are also unavailable; Piers 90-91 have become part of the Port of Seattle, while Fort Worden is now a state park. Similarly, the Naval Reserve Center site on Lake Union and the Coast Guard Salmon-Bay site are not available. Most of the remaining sites were located more than sixty minutes from the Univer- sity of Washington. Sites rejected as too distant include those near Longbranch, Port Angeles, East Port Angeles, West Port Angeles, Anacortes, Indian Island, Port Townsend, La Conner, Bellingham, and 1-10 TABLE 1-3 Summary of Screening Process - Consolidated Sites Program Criteria Site Vessel Access Moorage Space Compatible Land Use Availability Acreage Distance 1. Bel lingham Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 1. Anacortes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 3. La Conner No Yes Yes Yes Yes No 4. West Port Angeles Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 5. Port Angeles - (Air Port) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6. Port Angeles - (Ediz Hook) Yes Yes Yes Questionable* Yes No 7. Port Angeles - (Francis Street) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 8. Indian Island Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 9. Mukilteo Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 10. South Mukilteo Yes Yes Yes** Questionable* Yes Yes 11. Edmonds Yes Yes Yes Questionable* No Yes 12. Kenmore Yes Yes Yes Questionable* Yes Yes 13. Salmon Bay (Private) Yes Border- line Yes Questionable* (lease only) No Yes 14. Salmon Bay - (Coast Guard) Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 15. Sand Point Yes Yes Yes*** Yes Yes Yes 16. Lake Union North (PMC) Yes Border- line Yes Yes No Yes 17. Lake Union - (Naval Reserve Cente Yes r) Yes Yes No Yes Yes 1-11 TABLE 1-3 (CONTINUED) Program Criteria Site Vessel Access Moorage Space Compatible Land Use Availabil ity Acreage Distance 18. Piers 90-91 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 19. North Duwamish River Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 20. South Duwamish River No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 21. Renton Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 22. Issaquah No No No Yes Yes Yes 23. Manchester Yes Yes Yes No Yes Border- 1 ine 24. North Hylebos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 25. South Hylebos Yes Yes Yes Yes Border- line Yes 26. City Waterway Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 27. Longbranch Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 28. Hawks Prairie Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 29. Astoria, Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 30. Fort Worden Yes Yes Yes No Yes No 31. Port Townsend Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 32. East Port Angeles Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 33. Lake Union South (Private) Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 34. Port of Everett Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes * Conditions under which property would be available have not been fully determined. ** Would be compatible if proposed zoning changes are adopted. *** Zoning is residential; however, current use is public. 1-12 TABLE 1-4 Summary of Screening Process - Split Sites Site Vessel Moorage Compatible Access Space Land Use Availability Acreage Distance 1. Bel lingham Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 2. Anacortes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 3. La Conner Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 4. West Port Angeles Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 5. Port Angeles - (Air Port) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 6. Port Angeles - (Ediz Hook) Yes Yes Yes Que stionable Yes No 7. Port Angeles - (Francis Street) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 8. Indian Island Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 9. Mukil teo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 10. South Mukil teo Yes Yes Yes Questionable Yes No 11. Edmonds Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 12. Kenmore* Yes Yes Yes Questionable Yes Yes 13. Salmon Bay (Private) Yes Border- line Yes Questionable (lease only) Yes Yes 14. Salmon Bay - (Coast Guard) Yes Yes Yes No Border- line Yes 15. Sand Point Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 16. Lake Union North (PMC) Yes Border- line Yes Yes Border- line Yes 17. Lake Union - (Naval Reserve Center) Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 1-13 TABLE 1-4 (CONTINUED) Site Vessel Moorage Compatible Access Space Land Use Availability Acreage Distance 18. Piers 90-91 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 19. North Duwamish Ri ver Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 20. South Duwamish River No No Yes Yes Yes No 21. Renton Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 22. Issaquah No No Yes Yes No No 23. Manchester Yes Yes Yes Questionable Yes No 24. North Hylebos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 25. South Hylebos Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 26. City Waterway Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 27. Longbranch Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 28. Hawks Prairie Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 29. Astoria, Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 30. Fort Worden Yes Yes Yes No Yes No 31. Port Townsend Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 32. East Port Angeles Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 33. Lake Union South (Private) Yes Yes Yes Yes Border- line Yes 34 Port of Everett Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No * Although the Kenmore site qualifies as a split-site as well as a consolidated site, it does not offer alternative ship moorage off Lake Washington as do the other split sites; therefore, it will be considered only as a consolidated site. 1-14 Astoria, Oregon. The site on the Swinomish Slough near La Conner is also navigational ly unacceptable. One site, at Manchester, that was slightly further than sixty minutes from Seattle but appeared to meet other criteria was retained as a feasible alternative site. The sites selected for environ- mental analysis are listed in Table 1-5. They include seven consolidated sites and three split-site alterna- tives. Under these split-site alter- natives, all ship-related activity would be located at the location listed in Table 1-5 and all other activities would be located at Sand Point. The selected alternatives are shown in Figure 1-1. 1-15 TABLE 1-5 Alternative Sites Selected for Environmental Analysis Consolidated Sites Everett South Mukilteo Kenmore Sand Point North Hylebos South Hylebos Manchester Split Sites (location of waterfront facilities) Lake Union North (PMC) Lake Union South (Drydock) Salmon Bay 1-16 2 Environmental Analysis of Alternative Sites This Chapter is divided geograph- ically. Section 1 discusses environ- mental components that are constant to the Puget Sound region as a whole. The remaining sections are divided by specific sites. Within each site specific section are two subsections. The first deals with the existing environmental conditions, the second deals with the impacts expected if the proposed NOAA facility were loca- ted at that site and measures that could be taken to mitigate these impacts. SECTION 1: OVERALL PUGET SOUND REGION EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geology All of the sites are located in the Puget Trough physiographic prov- ince that occupies the broad trough between the Olympic Range and the Cascade Range. A thick layer of un- consolidated materials deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch now fills the Puget Sound lowlands. The surficial geology of the area was most strongly influenced by the Puget Lobe of the Vashon glaciation. Gla- cial till, a mixture of clay, sand and gravel, and layers of sand, gravel and clay occur throughout much of the Puget Trough. Earthquakes are a geologic risk common to the entire region. As indicated by Figure 2-1, which shows the location and magnitude of major earthquakes in the region since 1870, the Puget Sound area is seismically 2-1 ^pBellingham jj O Mount Vernon •5.0 ,5.0 #5.2 5.0 5.2, 5-- Staging Area *\. on Pilings \ \ Legend lllllllllllll Dredge Area #&v^ Breakwater Soundings in feet .S^' : ' & '>h.. 500 1000 1500 Scale in Feet Figure 2-5 South Mukilteo Site Impacts dispersion and resettling of locally suspended material. Since the dredging would deepen the bottom to 30 feet at MLLW, the scattered eelgrass beds and the extensive sea pen population observed at the site would probably be permanently el iminated. Some impacts on fish populations are probable. The breakwater, by providing a rocky habitat not presently found at the site, may attract a greater diversity of resident fish than was observed during the diver reconnaissance. On the other hand, the breakwater could impede the migration of anadromous fish, especial ly juveniles. To minimize interference with migra- ting fish, the breakwater should not extend all the way to the shore (see Figure 2-5). Such a design would also help assure adequate tidal circulation within the breakwater. Containment of the infrequent, small, dockside fuel and oil spills would be more of a problem than at the present PMC site on Lake Union because of tidal currents. A larger barrier, anchored in place, would be needed to effectively contain such spi lis. Since the upland portion of this site is steep, there is a substantial risk of erosion and resulting nearshore sedimentation. Preventive measures such as deten- tion and sedimentation ponds, and prompt stabilization of excavated slopes should be incorporated during construction. If adequate erosion prevention measures are taken, stormwater runoff would have negli- gible impact upon the nearshore marine waters. Terrestrial Biology Development of the proposed facility at the South Mukilteo site would remove much of the existing vegetative cover and replace it with buildings, paved parking areas, work spaces, and landscaping. Removal of vegetation would eliminate habitat and result in the destruction or displacement of some wildlife species found at the site. Although landscaping incorporated into the final design plan would mitigate the loss of vegetation to some extent, both the diversity and density of animal species would be reduced. Populations of human tolerant species such as sparrows, robins and starlings would increase. This effect would not be significant in a regional context. Although the site is of some biological value as a deciduous woodland habitat, it is not unique in this vicinity. Natural Resources Development of the regional center at the South Mukilteo site would not significantly affect availability of any natural resources. Aesthetics Development of the NOAA facility at this site would probably not greatly impact the appearance of the area if buildings were concentrated and most of the area was left in native foliage. The offshore struc- tures would be located below the bluff, out of view from the residen- tial areas above. Future plans for the site identify an industrial use with an adjoining dock structure. If designed with consideration given to aesthetics and blending with the natural environment, the facility would probably not significantly impact the existing aesthetic appearance of the site. 2-26 Archaeological and Historic Resources If archeological resources are present on this site, construction needed to develop the proposed facility might destroy these resour- ces. This potential impact could be mitigated by a pre-construction assessment by a professional arche- ologist and implementing any recom- mended mitigative measures. Noise Construction activities on this site would cause a significant temporary noise impact on nearby residential areas because existing ambient noise levels are low. Outdoor speech interferrence would occur in areas up to 1,000 feet from the site. Peak noise levels as high as 103 dBA may occasionally occur during pile driving or when earth movement is required next to the right-of-way. Such noise levels would be highly annoying to nearby residents. Vessel activities near the bluff may cause some disturbance to nearby residents because the existing noise levels are yery low. Residents further from the bluff would be shielded from vessel noise; there- fore, no impacts in these areas would occur. Noise levels in the area would not exceed federal or state noise regulations as a result of vessel activities. Noise emitted by other activities would also be clearly audible to neighboring residents although noise levels would be below applicable standards. The expected 450 percent increase in the average daily traffic volume on Chenault Beach Road (see "Trans- portation and Circulation" below) would increase the peak-hour noise level substantially. Nonetheless, these levels are within acceptable guidelines and regulations. Traffic increases on Washington State Route 525 would also increase the noise level slightly. Demography Location of the N0AA center at the South Mukilteo site would probably result in the eventual relocation of many of the 2,000 projected employees into South Snohomish County. Many current employees may find an additional 30 mile commute distance too far, and would relocate to South Snohomish County over time. Most new employees would probably locate in the vicinity when hired. Therefore, the currently projected population growth for the area would be realized somewhat sooner than expected. The present accelerated housing growth rate would continue longer than anticipated to accommodate N0AA personnel and their families. The overall net effect on the total number of new housing units built in the Seattle-Everett area would be minimal. The local unemployment level would probably not be greatly affected since many of NOAA's employees are specifical ly trained and educated for their positions. Any available positions would be filled according to usual civil service procedures. Economic Forces The proposed site is to be indus- trially zoned. If N0AA were to locate here, that industrial use would no longer exist. With limited industrially zoned properties avail- able, a decision to take industrial 2-27 property for this purpose should be evaluated carefully. The proposed site is privately owned and as such, real estate taxes are assessed and collected on it. If NOAA buys the site, real estate taxes on the property would no longer be paid, resulting in a loss of revenue to the local jurisdiction, The trade-offs among other increased revenues and costs associated with the facility should be considered. Other economic impacts are no different from those for development of the Everett site. Land Use Development of the NOAA facility at this site would not conflict with the shoreline designation or the land use designation if the latter is amended as proposed. The facility would be more compatible with the surrounding uses than industrial uses. Secondary impacts associated with locating employees and their families in the surrounding area would be minimal since there are already plans to accommodate many times the number of persons expected to be employed by the NOAA facility. Utilities and Energy Representatives of the Mukilteo Water District have indicated that flows could be provided by a new line extending westerly from the existing 16-inch pipe. A private easement would be required unless < new public road to the site is provided. Local sewer district officials did not indicate that there would be any problem providing sewer service to the site. Officials of the Public Utility District advise that overhead power distribution is available in the immediate site vicinity. The steep topography in areas of the site might impose some restrictions, resulting in higher costs, but the extent of this increase would be contingent on final design plans. No significant impacts are expected. Public Services The Snohomish County Sheriff's Department is currently understaffed. If funds presently requested to hire an additional 25 officers do not become available, officials of the Sheriff's Department project that the existing facilities and staff will be severely overtaxed. Addi- tional population growth caused by the influx of NOAA employees would add to this problem. If funding is provided, no problems are antici- pated in providing service. The Chief of Snohomish County Fire District 1 does not foresee problems in providing service to the site. Growth plans for the area are presently in a state of flux, making predictions of the future adequacy of fire service difficult. If growth in the south end continues as planned, a new fire station will be needed north of the present Lake Serene location. Also, several road improvements are being planned in the area which would improve response time at the site. To keep up with population growth in the area the Mukilteo School District is presently plan- ning expansion of some facilities in the vicinity of the site. School district officials estimate that with planned facilities expansion, growth caused by relocation of NOAA employees could be absorbed. 2-28 Transportation and Circulation NOAA traffic would increase the projected traffic volume on Chenault Beach Road by 450 percent. (See Figure F-lc.) If access were developed from the existing sub- division street network, the traffic impact would be adverse to residen- tial living. The additional traffic would create a condition of congested operation during the peak traffic hours. The existing grades and alignments do not lend themselves to smooth, high volume traffic flow. The easterly portion of Chenault Beach Road presents no apparent problems for the projected traffic. The anticipated traffic volumes are well within the accepted capacity values for a well aligned two-lane as this one. SR 525 is high volumes of traffic Projected traffic roadway such not carrying at this time volumes, including NOAA traffic, are not expected to cause operational problems. No significant impacts on any other roads would be expected. Direct site access could be developed from Chenault Beach Road in the vicinity of Condon Road. A properly designed road and traffic control would virtually eliminate all NOAA traffic from the residential areas . Navigational Risk The South Mukilteo site presents no special navigational risks. The route to the site would cross no ferry routes except those in the main traffic lanes in Puget Sound, which should pose no hazard. In heavy seas the breakwater required at this site could be a hazard for approaching NOAA vessels. Vessel grounding is unlikely after required dredging has been completed. SECTION 4: KENMORE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geology and Landforms The geology of the Kenmore site has been extensively modified by the filling of the marsh that was previously located in this area. Similarly, the landforms on the site have been determined by human activity; the site is presently level and at an elevation of 10 feet above the lake level. The site is bordered on the south by the Sammamish River, on the west by Lake Washington, and on the north and east by higher landforms. The only geologic hazard on this site is common to the entire Puget Sound region -- seismic damage. If the fill is not properly compacted, the site may be subject to liquefaction of the fill during severe earthquakes. Soils and Erosion As mentioned under "geology" above, this site is man-made land; soils on the site consist of dredged material; most of the site is covered with concrete or asphalt. Due to its flatness, the site is not prone to erosion and no evidence of erosion was seen. However, the shorelines are potentially suscep- tible to erosion. Climate The Kenmore site exhibits a 2-29 climate much like that described for the Puget Sound region. No significant differences are likely with respect to wind patterns, temperature or precipitation. Air Quality Air quality at the Kenmore site is probably within applicable standards. Although no site specific air quality monitoring data are available, locally collected data and a review of nearby pollutant sources can be used to characterize the Kenmore site. Isopleths of total suspended particulate (TSP) concentrations drawn from regional monitoring data indicate that TSP concentrations near the site are below applicable standards; however, the presence of a cement batching plant adjacent to the site make it probable that levels on the site are higher than indicated by the regional data. Carbon monoxide (CO) back- ground at the site (exclusive of nearby sources) was estimated as 1.5 ppm based on the residential community type, the light industry, and proximity to other CO sources. Regional sulfur dioxide data do not indicate that levels exceeding standards occur close to the site. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology The quality of the water bodies adjacent to the site is high. The Sammamish River has high coliform levels and high temperatures in the summer. Lake Washington has no significant water quality problems. Significant aquatic populations use the shallows near the Kenmore site. The site (see Figure 2-6) is bor- dered on the south by the Sammamish River, on the north by a short, dredged waterway, and on the west by Lake Washington. A 50-foot wide buffer strip of vegetation (green- belt) separates the site from the river and the lake. The Sanmamish River has an average flow of 260 cfs and a recorded peak flow of about 1300 cfs. At the north end the lake, deposition of silt by the river has formed a delta that extends about three-quarters of a mi le offshore. A 1976 study (URS, 1976) summa- rizes historical water quality patterns for the Sanmamish River near its mouth. The most significant points regarding the river are: 1) moderately high coliform values, often exceeding 1000 parts per 100 ml; 2) dissolved oxygen levels near saturation at all times of the year; 3) water temperature maximums near 25°C during the summer; and 4) moderate nutrient levels (nitrate: 0.8-4 mg/1, phosphate: 0.05-0.2 mg/1). Because the river is shallow and flows slowly, dense growths of aquatic plants occur during the summer. The river is classified as AA by the Washington Department of Ecology (See Table B-l). The water quality in Lake Washing- ton is described in the Sand Point site description. Discharge from the Sanmamish River usually spreads across the surface of the lake where, during the winter months, the dominant southern winds force the current around the north shore (METRO, 1977). These winds frequently induce resuspension of sediments in the shallow northern end of the lake, increasing turbidity. The results of two sediment ana- lyses taken offshore of the site are shown in Table B-6. Clearly, the 2-30 Legend Sediment Sample Site O Scale in Feet Figure 2-6 Kenmore Site - Existing Conditions two samples differ greatly in compo- sition. One had a high total solids composition and a low organic con- tent. The other had a rather high organic content and higher levels of oil, grease and copper. The high variability in sediment composition may be due to the local pattern of currents and depositional rates; more samples would be needed to determine the actual level of sedi- ment contamination. Nearshore sediment analyses for a marina one- quarter mile to the east of the Kenmore site also indicate rather high organic sulfide levels. (King County, 1977). This site borders a major adult and juvenile salmon migration route for coho, chinook and sockeye en- route to or from the Sammamish River, and Lake Sammamish tributaries. Chinook and coho salmon from the Issaquah Hatchery also use this migration route. (See Figure B-14 for timing of salmon migration.) There is sport fishing near the site and occasional commercial fishing by Indians. Commercial fishing can occur from July through October. Although relatively little work has been done to characterize the benthic community near the Kenmore site, the shallow depth in this area and the input of organic material and nutrients from the Sammamish River probably support a more abundant community than found in most of Lake Washington. Benthic communities form an important food base for fish. The shallows may also be an important habitat for adult and juvenile crawfish. Bottom surveys (METRO, 1977) indicate that during the summer the area supports substantial growth of aquatic plants, especially Potamogeton and Eurasian milfoil. An extensive marsh at the north end of the Sammamish River, opposite the site, is thought to be one of the best and most extensive marsh habitats for nesting ducks and other wildlife remaining on Lake Washington (Boomer, 1978). Terrestrial Biology Vegetation on the Kenmore site is limited to weeds and grasses; most of the site is presently paved with asphalt and concrete. Small trees (alder and poplars), cattails, black- berries, and Scotch broom occur along the edges of the site on the banks of the Sammamish River and Lake Washington. The site itself does not provide significant habitat for terrestrial wildlife. (See Appendix E for species lists.) The Inglewood Country Club, located across the Sammamish River from the Kenmore site, provides a more suitable habitat for both plants and animals. Additional wooded areas are located within five miles east and south of the Kenmore site. The shallow area adjacent to the site is a major food resource for waterfowl, including coot, canvasback, goldeneye, mallared, pintail, redhead, ruddy duck, scaup, shoveller, teal and goose. Natural Resources The Kenmore site, constructed by filling a marsh, has no mineral resources and is not suitable for agriculture. The adjacent shallow area may be an important source of food for fish, as discussed under "water quality and aquatic biology". Aesthetics The site presently is used as a storage and barge loading facility. 2-32 The site is surrounded by other industrial and commercial uses. A busy and noisy highway passes the site. dependent upon the Seattle-King County economy. Hence economic forces are the same as those affecting Sand Point. Archaeological and Historic Resources Land Use Although shoreline locales were favored by Indians in this area, and archaeological materials may have been present on the site, it has been so extensively distrubed by excavation and filling that no intact resources are likely to be present. No such resources are known to exist on the site. Noise Noise levels on the Kenmore site (Appendix D) are in the range typical of areas with light industrial land use. The dominant noise sources near the site are a lumber company, Juanita Drive, and Washington State Route 522. Noise levels seem to be constant along the northern end of the proposed site. Nighttime noise levels are dominated by automobile traffic on Juanita Drive and State Route 522. Demography The Seattle-King County region is growing rapidly. The new popula- tion is especially attracted to undeveloped portions of King County where they seek a suburban life- style. Several housing areas are developing northeast of Kenmore in Redmond, and north of Kenmore in South Snohomish County. Other demo- graphic, housing and employment condi tions do not differ significantly from those at Sand Point. Economic Forces The Kenmore area is largely The Kenmore site, presently owned by a private company, is used as a cargo storage and a tug and barge terminal site. Other industrial uses surrounding the site include a sand, gravel and concrete plant and a lumber storage yard. Along the waterfront, adjoining uses include a seaplane base and marinas. A residential community overlooks the Kenmore industrial /commerci al area and Lake Washington beyond. King County has jurisdiction over the site and the shoreline. The site is zoned for light manufac- turing. King County has designated the shore line adjacent to the site as "urban", a designation which permits such actions as industrial development, dredging, and construc- tion of bulkheads and piers. Prior to development of the King County Shoreline Master Plan, land use along shorelines was regulated only by land use zoning. Before King County developed a Shoreline Master Plan, a citizens advisory group developed a document called the "Lake Washington Regional Goals and Policies". That document is dis- cussed in the land use section of the Sand Point discussion. There is presently a proposal to develop a marina at this particular site (King County, 1978). Utilities and Energy Water service is provided by Water District #79. There is an existing 12-inch water main along 68th Avenue N.E. from N.E. 170th 2-33 Street to N.E. 175th Street with an estimated fire flow capacity of 4,000 gpm, and an 8-inch water main along N.E. 175th Street from 61st Avenue N.E. to 68th Avenue N.E. with an estimated fire flow capacity of 2,800 gpm. In addition, there is a private 8-inch line running south from N.E. 175th Street that provides fire flows for the warehouse located on the site. Flows in this line are estimated at 2,500 gpm. Sewer service at the Kenmore site is provided by the Northeast Lake Washington Sewer District and the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). There is an exis- ting 8-inch diameter side sewer line from the warehouse located on the site, running north to N.E. 175th Street and into a 78-inch diameter METRO interceptor. To the east of the site, a 27-inch interceptor runs north to a connection with the 78- inch interceptor. Sewage from these lines enters the Kenmore Pumping Station immediately north of the site. The pumping station is presently near capacity. METRO is currently seeking federal funds for improvements to increase the capacity of this pumping station. Power is supplied by Puget Sound Power and Light. Both single and three phase power are available at the site. Public Services Police protection is provided by the King County Police Department. Fire protection is provided by King County Fire District No. 16. Officials of the District indicate that there has been increasing pres- sure on the existing fire protection service in the area due to develop- ment. The District is currently oper- ating with minimal manpower, having 11 full-time, paid firefighters and 8 to 10 volunteers. One third of the firefighters are on duty at a time, and generally eight or fewer volun- teers respond to each fire. In general, available land-based equip- ment is adequate; the only water- based equipment is a 33 foot crash and rescue fire boat with 500 gpm pumping capacity. This is used for assisting small water craft. Funds are not available at present for expanding fire service in this area. Officials of Northshore School District #417 have indicated that enrollment is increasing rapidly, and substantial future enrollment growth is expected. Existing schools of the District are at capacity, one new elementary school is being constructed at present, and other facilities are planned for construction over a four year period to provide for some growth in enrol lment. Transportation and Circulation Site access is provided by 175th Avenue NE, a two-lane, two-way road that parallels SR 522 in the site area and serves primarily as a local access road for the abutting industry. The intersections of 175th Avenue NE with Juanita Drive and SR 522, near King County's Logboom Park, are sig- nalized. These intersections are approximately 340 feet apart and are separated by a railroad crossing. No traffic volume records are avail- able for 175th Avenue NE, but ad- joining land use and observed traffic volumes indicate that no operational problems presently exist. Traffic volume on Juanita Drive is about 2-34 21,000 vehicles per day and SR 522 serves about 33,000 vehicles per day in this area. Severe operational problems exist on SR 522 during peak traffic volume periods. The area is served by both express and local bus service, provided by METRO transit; buses to N.E. Bothel 1 Way and 68th N.E. run at least every hour, and are more frequent during peak hours. Navigational Risk The navigatio with the Kenmore greater than tho site. Tugs and operate near the is also adjacent and a large mari An environmental for a proposed m recognized the p competing uses a nal risks associated site are slightly se for the Sand Point barges presently Kenmore site, which to a seaplane base ne sales operation, impact statement arina in Kenmore resent conflict of long the shoreline. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES Geology and Landforms No significant impacts on the geology of the site are expected. A portion of the site would be exca- vated, as shown in Figure 2-7. Air Quality Operations would generate air pollutant emissions from both ship operations and automobile traffic. Ship operations would increase levels of sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulates (TSP). (See Appendix C.) No violation of sulfur dioxide standards is expected. Whether TSP standards are exceeded would depend upon actual levels generated by the cement plant and whether emissions from the ships interact with those from the plant. Berthing the ships at the Kenmore site would require passage through Lake Washington and the Ship Canal. Carbon monoxide (CO) analyses at three locations near the proposed site (Appendix C) indicate an anomal- ous situation in that the 1 hour standard would be exceeded immedi- ately above State Route 522 west of Juanita Drive Road, but the 8 hour standard would not be exceeded. At 10 meters from the roadside the 1 hour value becomes 29.5 ppm, which is below the standard. Potential mitigative measures to reduce CO levels would include carpools and other means to reduce traffic volume, such as staggering hours of workers. Soils No significant impact is expected on the soils at this site. During construction, short-term storage of soil, rubble, and wet dredged material might require containment berms and mounds of material on the site. Much of the existing pavement would either be removed or covered with soil as a part of site preparation and alteration. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology Impacts on water q aquatic plants and an mainly due to require substantial amount of be required -- about cubic yards of materi to be dredged from 28 bottom to provide shi Figure 2-7). Some of could be placed upon uality and imals would be d dredging. A dredging would one mil lion al would have acres of lake p access (see the dredgings the site if 2-35 Legend Dredge Area o Scaie in Feet Figure 2-7 Kenmore Site - Impacts found suitable as foundation material; however, most of the dredged material would have to be disposed of off-site. Because of the high organic oil and grease content in the sediment and a high proportion of silt, upland disposal would probably be required. Since appropriate disposal sites along the Lake Washington shoreline are virtually nonexistent, dredge barges would have to be hauled a consider- able distance. The deposition of silt carried into the lake by the Sammamish River, as well as resuspension and settling of wind induced turbidity would necessitate maintenance dredging to keep the channel and turning basin at the required 30-foot depth. Dredging would adversely affect aquatic biota both directly and in- directly through increased turbidity. During the dredging operation a considerable amount of fine, silty material will be put into suspension. Much of this material will resettle in the vicinity of the dredging; however, a substantial turbidity plume is likely to spread from the site since the very fine clays will remain in suspension for several days. This turbidity might adversely affect fish migration in the Sammam- ish River. Although tests conducted by Patten (1975) showed that highly turbid lake water did not kill Coho juveniles or prickly sculpin over a five day period, these species did show a tendency to avoid areas of high turbidity. Means to mitigate these dredging impacts are discussed in the secton on "regional environ- ment". The dredging would eliminate 28 acres of shallow lake bottom habitat (10 feet in depth, or less). Patten, et al , (1976) found the greatest numbers of benthic invertebrates at shallow depths. Because it is shallow and receives a large input of organic matter from the Sammamish River, the north end of Lake Washing- ton is probably a relatively pro- ductive area that supports consider- able resident fishlife. The dredging would permanently deepen about five percent of the shallow area at the end of the lake to 30 feet. The dredged area would recolonize, but it is likely that the population would be about three to ten times lower. In addition, maintenance dredging would periodically disrupt the habitat. The 30 foot depths should effectively eliminate the growth of aquatic macrophytes, including Eurasian milfoil, in the dredged areas. Several species of resident fish spawn or grow to adult form in the shallow areas of Pontiac Bay at Sand Point (NOAA, 1976); if this is also true for the shallows at the north end of Lake Washington the dredging project would result in a reduction of such habitat. Since the lakeside portion of the site is already filled to the outer harbor line, slips would have to be excavated into the site to berth some of the ships. 900 feet of the vegetative buffer strip presently growing on the lakeward side of the site would be replaced with 1,500 feet of bulkhead and rip-rap. The use of pilings rather than bulkhead fill in the slip design would avoid long, narrow pockets of water, which generally create circulation and fish entrap- ment problems. Given the relatively small flow of the Sammamish River and the fact that the ships will be berthed in 2-37 channels outside the open lake, water currents will be rather small. An oil boom system like that presently used at the Lake Union Center should be sufficient to contain any small dockside spills. Prompt cleanup of such spills would be necessary to avoid damage to the marina to the north or to the marsh to the south. Provided that care is taken during dredging and construction there will be little physical impact upon these marsh. Retention of the 50-foot buffer of natural vegetation along the southern edge of the site that fronts the river would minimize long-term impacts to both the marsh and anadromous fish runs. Neverthe- less, the removal of over 20 acres of shallows near the marsh would reduce the feeding area for marsh residents, especi al ly ducks. During operation of the facility no signi- ficant water guality impacts that would threaten the marsh are expected. Stormwater runoff from the 37 acre site may increase the pollutant load to the northern part of the lake; however, the additional loading would be only a very small fraction of the loads presently entering the lake from surrounding industrial, commercial, urban and farm areas. Terrestrial Biology Development of the proposed facility at Kenmore would reduce the food supply ( Potamogeton ) available to a variety of waterfowl, possible significantly reducing the carrying capacity of the area. In addition, 900 feet of vegetative buffer along the lake would be removed. Landscap- ing associated with the facility would enhance the site itself as wildlife habitat for some species tolerant of human activities. This impact would not be of regional significance. Natural Resources No significant impacts on mineral resources would occur. Impacts related to fisheries have been discussed in the section on aquatic biology. Aesthetics A landscaped NOAA office complex with adjoining ship moorage would change the appearance of the site from the present industrial and barge transit use. The docking structures and moored ships would be visible to some area residents from 3 distance. Archaeological and Historic Resources No impacts are expected. Noise The residental area south of the Kenmore site will experience some construction noise impacts because the only existing noise sources nearby are the seaplane and motor boat activity on Lake Washington. Construction noise levels in this area would be comparable to those discussed for the South Mukilteo si te. The area north of the site will be shielded from construction noise by Washington State Route 522, existing terrain, and the distance attenuation of noise. Land use east and west is compatible with expected construction noise levels. 2-38 Operational noise levels would be within limits established by state and federal criteria. Noise levels caused by vessel movement will cause increased noise levels in the residential area on the southern bank of the Sammamish River. Noise levels of up to 65 dBA at 750 feet would occur infrequently when Class I NOAA vessels dock (16 to 20 times per year). Noise impacts to the north will be shielded by a road embankment and Washington State Route 522. Noise levels would increase slightly in the residential area south of the site. No increase in noise levels on major site access roads would be caused by vehicle traffic (Table D-3). Demography Location of the NOAA Center in Kenmore would have little impact on population growth, housing, or unemployment levels in the Seattle- King County area since NOAA opera- tions are presently located in Seattle. Locally, however, such impacts are likely; over time, some NOAA employees would probably relocate closer to the facility, stimulating the residential devel- opment now occurring north and northeast of Kemmore. Economic Forces The proposed site is industrially zoned. If NOAA were to locate here, that industrial use would no longer exist. With limited industrially zoned properties available, a decision to take industrial property for this purpose should be evaluated careful ly. The proposed site is presently being used by industry. If NOAA locates here, it would displace workers and the industry itself. Because the proposed site is pri- vately owned, real estate taxes are assessed and collected on it. If NOAA buys the site, real estate taxes on the property would no longer be paid, resulting in a loss of revenue to the local jurisdiction. The trade-offs among other increased revenues and costs associated with the facility should be considered. It is expected most NOAA employees would continue to live where they are; however, some NOAA employees would probably locate closer to Kenmore over time. Revenues to King County would be augmented by the increase in real estate values, as houses are built, and by increased sales and business and occupation tax revenues, as services and commodities are supplied. These cost benefits will have to be compared to the increased costs for supplying roads and utilities to the facility itself and to new housing areas as a result of the proposed project. Retaining NOAA in the Seattle area would assure continued federal employment and a continued diver- sified employment base. Most NOAA employees and their families would continue to live in their present homes, thereby avoiding the associ- ated monetary and environmental costs of relocation. Land Use The NOAA facility would be compa- tible with the King County Shoreline Master Plan, zoning, and surrounding land use. The NOAA facility would not be consistent with a citizen group's "Lake Washington Goals and 2-39 Policies". There would be no secondary impacts associated with relocating employees and their families in the surrounding area since most of them are already working and living in the Seattle area. Utilities and Energy The general manager of Water District #79 has indicated that the existing system is adequate to supply NOAA's estimated total combined fire and domestic flow requirements from a connection on 68th Avenue N.E. This can be accomplished without increasing pipe diameter, or providing additional water sources or storage capacity (Greimes, 1978). Representatives of Northeast Lake Washington Sewer District and METRO have indicated that the existing system could handle NOAA's expected flows. The facility could be served from the north through a private easement into METRO'S Kenmore Interceptor. This connection would be down pipe from the Kenmore Pumping Station and, thus, would not increase flows into the pumping facility. A private pump would be needed to move sewage into the interceptor. Representatives of Puget Power have stated that they would not anticipate any problems in supplying energy to meet NOAA's demands. Public Services Officials of the King County Police Department do not anticipate any problems in handling increased calls for service caused by reloca- tion of NOAA employees to the area. Increases in manpower and equipment might be needed, and would be supplied as demands indicate a need. Officials of King County Fire District No. 16 indicate that there has been increasing pressure from development on the existing fire District is currently operating with minimal manpower. Funds are not available at the present time for expanding fire service in this area. In addition, private water mains would have to be installed during construction to provide fire flows for all buildings more than 200 feet from existing roadways. Since the facilities of Northshore School District #417 are barely keep- ing up with the rapidly increasing enrollments, relocation of NOAA employees and their families within the District would add to the burden on the present facilities. Officials of the Northshore School District estimate that if all students expected as a result of NOAA relo- cation report for school in a given year, the impact on school facilities would be serious. Transportation and Circulation NOAA traffic would increase the existing daily traffic volumes in this area less than 10 per cent (See Figure F-1C). NOAA traffic would generally be opposite the existing rush hour traffic flow, helping to equalize the vehicle flow. No adverse traffic operational impact would be expected. Use of the Kenmore site would increase bridge openings along the Lake Washington Ship Canal, disrup- ting traffic across this corridor. By avoiding transits during the peak hours, traffic disruption would be minimized. 2-40 Navigational Risk Navigational risks for the Kenmore site are somewhat higher than those at Sand Point because of the recreational and commercial usage of waters near the site. Other risks are discussed under Sand Point. SECTION 5: SAND POINT EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geology and Landforms This site has been substantially modified by filling. The geologic units under the fill are probably recent alluvial materials and glacial drift material (sand and gravel) (Liesch, et al , 1963). The site (see Figure 2-8) is sur- rounded by water to the north and east, and by higher landforms to the south and west. View Ridge rises abruptly to the west of the site, reaching a maximum elevation of 360 feet. The ridge descends abruptly to the north into the Thornton Creek watershed and falls off gradually into Hawthorne Hills to the south. The 220-foot hill location of the Windermere neighbor- hood is separated from Hawthorne Hills by a deep depression. The site itself is relatively flat, ranging from shorelines of 2 to 5 feet above water level to maximum elevations of 25 to 26 feet at both the southwest corner of the site and the control tower. No geologic hazard, other than the regional seismic hazard discussed under "regional geology", has been identified. Previous use of the site as a naval air station suggests that differential settlement due to seis- mically induced liquefaction is unlikely to be a problem on this site. Soils and Erosion Soils at the Sand Point site are mostly sandy and silty loams. They are generally conducive to rapid water transfer but are not suitable for supporting heavy loads. Approxi- mately 70 percent of the site is presently covered with concrete or asphalt, underlain by gravel and crushed rock. Surface and subsurface soil conditions have been determined to be satisfactory for NOAA center requirements (NOAA, 1976). No present erosion problem is evident on the unpaved portions of the site. Climate The Sand Point site, located slightly inland from Puget Sound, is protected from stronger breezes experienced on the Puget Sound shore. In general, however, the climate of the Sand Point site is not significantly different from the general regional climate. Air Quality The site, which dential and col leg no major pol lutant has no air quality from nearby statio nearby sources ind trations of total lates, sulfur diox monoxide are below dards. Because of on Sand Point Way, level of carbon mo Point site was est lies within a resi- e community having sources, presently problems. Data ns and a review of icate that concen- suspended particu- ide, and carbon applicable stan- the traffic volumes the background noxide at the Sand imated at 2 ppm. 2-41 Legend Soundings in feet O 500 1000 1500 Scale in Feet Figure 2-8 Sand Point Site - Existing Conditions Water Quality and Aquatic Biology The Sand Point site encompasses a portion of Pontiac Bay located on the north side of the point. This small embayment of Lake Washington slopes off rather gradually, creating a shal- low area offshore (Figure 2-8). The nearshore area is composed largely of gravel and coarse materials. Further out the bottom is characterized by a silt layer overlaying consolidated gravel and sand. The original shore- line has been partially filled and extended underwater in three areas; the largest extension is a 50 by 275 foot ramp. Bulkheads and a seaplane ramp have further altered the shore- line. Lake Washington as a whole has been extensively studied. Historically, a nutrient poor lake with little plant and algal growth or well-oxygenated, clear water (Sheffer and Robinson, 1939), the lake was enriched by the discharge of sewage effluent. Fre- quent and intense algal blooms resulted. Diversion of sewage efflu- ent to Puget Sound, begun in 1957, brought a rapid recovery (see Figure B-l). Levels of nutrients used by algae and algal concentrations are now moderate. The water adjacent to the Sand Point site is used by many species of fish. An intensive study of fish in the Sand Point area (NOAA, 1976) identified 19 species (listed in Table B-7). The study concluded that the shallow areas attracted certain species of resident fish and that Pontiac Bay is used for the spawning and rearing of juveniles. Fish were least abundant in the area during the winter months and much more abundant in the spring. Species that spawn or rear in the area include peamouth, squawfish, large- mouth bass, bullhead, yellow perch, prickly sculpin and stickleback. Beach spawning by sockeye salmon may also occur in water adjacent to the site. A survey of benthic invertebrates (Patten, et al , 1976), found that insect larvae and aquatic worms were dominant in terms of numbers. These species were much more abundant at a depth of 10 feet than at deeper depths. Amphipods were found in large numbers at the shallower depths whereas substantial numbers of fingernail clams were found down to 50 foot depths. Crayfish remained in deep water during the winter, but, like many resident fish, migrated to the shallows during the late spring; they were abundant in rocky areas. Aquatic plants, which occurred at depths up to 12 feet, tended to reach maximum growth in August with deterioration setting in by the end of September. A 1977 study (METRO, 1977) of aquatic macrophytes in Lake Washington found moderate amounts of Potomogeton and Nymphaea in Pontiac Bay. Terrestrial Biology The Sand Point site provides a more suitable wildlife habitat than most of the alternative sites located in urban areas, even though much of the site is paved. Vegeta- tion is dominated by tall grasses, sedges, vetch, clovers, plantain, horsetails, and similar "weedy" species. Lupine, Scotch broom and small deciduous trees of various species are also common. This habitat is used by a variety of birds that favor a grassy, open environment adjacent to freshwater (NOAA, 1976). Birds are most abun- dant on the Southern portion of the site where the vegetative cover is more extensive. Mammals likely to use the site include raccoons, mice, rabbits and skunks. Observations 2-43 at the site indicate that mammal densities are relatively low for an area of this size. (See Appendix E for species lists.) In a regional context, the portion of the Sand Point owned by NOAA may be compared with the adjacent City Park and Naval Support Activity, and with the surrounding residential areas. The City Park includes more unpaved area and shoreline; thus it is potentially more valuable as habitat. The area surrounding Sand Point is principally single family residences; associated vegetation provides suitable habitat for human tolerant species such as robins, house sparrows, crows, starlings, squirrels, and mice. Natural Resources The Sand Point site is largely man-made land; hence no natural resources are present. Aesthetics The site's use is presently in transition from a deteriorating former Navy airstrip and control tower to whatever ultimate use will be made of the site. The fate of the site is unknown at this time; suggested uses for the site have included NOAA's facility, an in-city airstrip, or annexation it to the adjacent regional park. From the site's lowbank waterfront shoreline of Lake Washington, Mount Rainier can be seen. Many exclusive residen- tial communities now view the site, the adjacent park, Navy facilities, and the lake beyond from surrounding hillside developments. Boaters and residents across the Lake see the large hangers, control tower, and Naval Support Activity buildings. Unrelieved by surrounding trees, these buildings present a strong visual contrast to the residential developments on the hills west of Sand Point. Archaeological and Historic Resources The site has been so extensively disturbed by past development that the existence of any material of archaeological importance is improb- able. No known resources are present, Noise The area surrounding the Sand Point site is predominantly residen- tial; the dominant noise source in the area is vehicular traffic on the major arterial s and motor boat activ- ity on Lake Washington. Noise levels near the site are within the normal range for residential areas, except on Sand Point Way. Average daytime noise levels along Sand Point Way were slightly higher than generally found in residential areas (NOAA, 1976). Demography The Seattle-King County region is growing rapidly. The new population is especially attracted to undevel- oped portions of King County where they seek a suburban life-style. For this reason, until very recently the population of downtown Seattle has actually been declining since 1960, while the region has been growing. King County recently reportedly had over 1,164,000 people in 1977 (a 25 percent increase over the 1960 popu- lation). Like Everett and Snohomish County, the area was affected by the Boeing Company's early 1970 economic downturn and consequent layoffs. 2-44 Boeing Company is once again thriving and actively hiring in the region, and the regional economy has become more diverse. The projected 1990 population of the King County region is reported to be 1,465,200. Reflec- ting the prosperity of the region, housing availability is low although new housing construction is at record levels. The unemployment rate (April, 1978) in the Seattle area is 5.5 per- cent, which is below the nation-wide average of 6.0 percent. Economic Forces The Seattle area is economically dependent upon commercial airplane manufacturing, transportation equip- ment, fabricated metal production, machinery, forest products, and food production. The area has a healthy mix of manufacturing and government employment. The Seattle economy does, however, lack diversity and is heavily dependent upon a single com- pany, (Boeing) which employs over 48,000 people. This weakness in the economy became exceedingly apparent in the early 1970's when Boeing cut employment drastically, causing a serious recession in the area. The next largest employer in the region is the University of Washington with 12,745 employees, followed by the federal government with 8,000 employees. Land Use The federally owned Sand Point site is under the authority of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The hangars and control tower are being used as temporary office space for 180 NOAA employees. The site, and an adjacent 212 acre parcel of land that was given to the City of Seattle for a regional park, was previously used as a naval air station. The Navy has retained some bordering property for a Naval Supprt Activity, commissary, and other military facilities. The City of Seattle has jurisdic- tion over the shoreline and land use of the surrounding area, most of which has been designated for resi- dential use (RS-7200). Most of the area is fully developed with single family residences, condominiums, and apartment houses. Property values in the area are high because of the proximity to and views of Lake Wash- ington and the Cascade Range. The City of Seattle has designated the shoreline adjacent to the site as "Conservancy Management" which per- mits such uses as "open wet moorage", research and educational facilities, some dredging, and bulkheads. Under this shoreline designation, pilings, dredging and landfilling in excess of 1,000 cubic yards are allowed as special uses; however, no major ser- vicing or repair of vessels is per- mitted in these locations. Backfill is allowed in the CM classification if it is incidental to and required for bulkhead or riprapping. A spe- cial use must satisfy the following requirements: o The use will not have a signifi- cant adverse effect upon the environment or other adjacent or nearby uses, or such adverse effects can be mitigated or the benefits of permitting such use outweigh such adverse effects. o The use will not interfere with public use of public shorelines. o Design and appearance of the development will be compatible with the design and appearance of surrounding uses, and; 2-45 o The use will not be contrary to the general intent of the Shore- line Master Program of the City of Seattle. Prior to development and adoption of the Seattle Shoreline Master Pro- gram, zoning controlled shoreline development. Soon after the Shore- lines Management Act became law, Governor Evans appointed an advisory group of citizens representing all jurisdictions surrounding the Lake to develop recommendations for regu- lating use of the Lake. This group, which was strictly advisory, devel- oped a set of recommendations, The Lake Washington Regional Shoreline Goals and Policies. Following two public hearings on these recommenda- tions, they were formally adopted by the Citizens' Advisory Group. The primary goal identified by the citi- zens advisory group was that "the natural amenities and resources of Lake Washington are to be conserved in a predominantly recreational/ residential environment with adequate access available to the public." A few of the policies they identi- fied to protect the lake are listed below: o physical structures within the lake should not harm water circu- lation or aquatic life; o landfilling and dredging should be discouraged; o the surface area of the lake should not be reduced by any project; o construction of new or expanded piers should generally be discour- aged; o bulkheads should be sloping rip- rap rock; o the length, width, and height of overwater structures should be limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions; o moorage, storage, servicing and operation facilities for ocean going or commercial ships and barges should not be expanded on the shoreline of Lake Washington; o shoreline development should be designated to minimize the obstruction of scenic views while providing for viewing of shoreline areas from viewpoints and other facilities available to the public; o marinas and other commercial boating, shipping, or barging facilities should be limited to commercial or industrial areas. Day moorage may be permitted in recreational areas, except in unique or fragile areas. In 1973 the Lake Washington Re- gional Citizens Advisory Committee (a group of 30) passed by a vote of 11 to 7 a resolution that included the following statement: "The NOAA proposal for campus-like research facilities on surplus properties of the Sand Point Naval Air Station would be compatible with regional goals and policies, but urges NOAA to consider alternative, more appro- priate sites for the moorage of its ocean-going vessels." Subsequently, the City of Seattle developed its Shoreline Master Program, which identified a NOAA facility at Sand Point. This program was approved by the Wash- ington State Department of Ecology after evidence of citizen participa- tion in the development of the plan was provided. 2-46 Utilities and Energy Water service is provided at the Sand Point site by the Seattle Water Department. Sand Point Way N.E. contains a water main that varies in size from 12 inches to 16 inches. North of N.E. 175th Street the water main is 12 inches in diameter from about 1,000 feet; north of that point the watermain is 16 inches in diameter. Water pressure is about 116 psi (static). Sewer service is provided by the City of Seattle. There is an existing sanitary interceptor on Sand Point Way N.E. Storm drainage could be discharged directly into Lake Washington or into the existing 48-inch City storm drain on Sand Point Way N.E. Power is provided by Seattle City Light. Public Services Police protection in the City of Seattle is provided by the Seattle Police Department. The Seattle Fire Department provides fire protection services in the City of Seattle. Schools are operated by the Seattle School district. Enrollments in the district have been declining over the past few years; hence, available facilities exceed needs. Transportation and Circulation The Sand Point site is well served by surface arterial s. Primary access is expected to be Sand Point Way, which is a four lane arterial through the site area. Two of the entrances to the Naval Support Activity (NSA) base from Sand Point Way are signal- ized. NE 65th Street is an east-west street that provides access to 1-5. Sand Point Way south of the site pro- vides access to the University of Washington and SR 520. The north gate to the NSA occasionally has traffic operation problems caused by traffic leaving during the late afternoon. A manual override for the traffic signal has been installed in the guard house to provide longer time for traffic to exit the base. Frequent bus service to the site is available. Navigational Risk Recreational activities near the site will include swimming and water skiing at the nearby Magnuson and Mathews Beach Parks. The navigational risks associated with the Sand Point site and its access route, discussed in detail in Appendix A, are summar- ized here. Access to this site requires passage through the Lake Washington Ship Canal (LWSC) and the north end of Lake Washington. Transit into Lake Washington from Puget Sound requires passage through the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks and five bascule (lift) bridges. Commercial activity is greatest from Lake Union to the Sound. Recreational activity is s/ery heavy in Lake Washington and somewhat lower in Lake Union; activity varies seasonally, with peak levels on summer weekends. The character of Lake Washington until the 1950's was primarily industrial, with substantial indus- trial and commercial development along the lake shore, especially on the east side. Prior to completion of the Mercer Island Floating Bridge, commercial ship traffic also included passenger and freight ferries. Completion of the locks and LWSC in 1914 opened the lake to increased commercial use. The heaviest industrial use of the lake occurred in the 1940' s, when the Lake Washington Ship Yard at Houghton (near Kirkland) was building and repairing many ships. During World War II, the Shipyard construc- ted four net tenders, twenty-five Sea-Plane tenders, and one Destroyer 2-47 tender for the navy, and did consid- erable repair work to Navy ships, Army transports, and commercial ships. The largest ships to transit the Lake Washington Ship Canal were four T2 tankers with a beam of 74 feet and an overall length of 525 feet. After the war, like many other shipyards across the nation, the Shipyard closed because of adverse economic conditions. A trend toward greater recreation- al than commercial use of the Lake began after the war years. This change was enhanced by the cleanup of the waters by METRO and by population growth in the Seattle area. A short-term resurgence of commercial use occurred during construction of the Aleyeska Pipeline. Presently, tugs with barges or log rafts are the largest commercial ves- sels regularly using the Lake and the LWSC. Commercial transits of the Lake are not restricted but the trend of discouraging construction of large ship piers and expanding industrial activities is evident in several shoreline management plans and pro- grams. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES Geology and Landforms Impacts on the geology and land- forms of this site would be minimal. Soi Is During construction a short-term shortage of soil, rubble and wet dredged material might require con- tainment berms and mounds of material on the site. Most of the present pavement would either be removed or covered with soil as a part of site preparation and alteration. This material and the dredged material would be used on the site for con- struction of hills, berms, and related landscaping forms. Use of appropriate erosion control methods during construction would mitigate increased erosion hazards due to construction. Air Quality Operational air quality impacts would be slight. Sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulate levels would be increased by ship operations (see Appendix C); however, no exceed- ance of standards would result when these emissions are added to esti- mated background concentrations. Traffic volume would increase, rais- ing carbon monoxide levels near roads (see Appendix C). Nonetheless, even under worst case conditions the expected concentration would be well within levels established by applic- able standards. Berthing the ships at the Sand Point site would require passage through the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Pollutant levels gener- ated along this route would be less than those generated in port while preparing for departure. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology The most significant impacts on water quality and aquatic biology would result from dredging. Con- struction of the proposed facility at Sand Point would require dredging 360,000 cubic yards of material from 13 acres in Pontiac Bay (see Figure 2-9). Dredging impacts would be similar to those discussed for the Kenmore site. Unless preventative measures were taken during dredging, silt would be suspended and a turbid plume would spread from the site. The extent and direction of the spread would depend upon a complex interaction of lake currents, wind and lake bathymetry. If confined to the winter months, the dredging would 2-48 Legend II Dredge Area Soundings in feet : * 500 1000 1500; Scaie in Feet Figure 2-9 Sand Point Site - Impacts have the least effect upon migrating fish and benthic invertebrates; the winter biomass of the latter was 10 percent to 30 percent of the summer biomass (Patten, et al , 1976). Dredge spoil disposal would be ashore on Sand Point; the fill would be used to landscape the flat, rela- tively featureless terrain of the old airport. Thus, no additional aquatic habitat would be disturbed. The dredging would result in a permanent loss of a substantial portion of the shallow area of Pontiac Bay. Patten (1976) indicates that reestablishment of the benthic invertebrate community would take about two years; however, the biomass of the reestablished popula- tion would be considerably less since denser populations were noted in shallower water. Protection of the remaining littoral areas of Lake Washington is necessary to maintain the Lake's fish habitat. The ben- thic invertebrate produced in these waters are an important food source for juvenile sockeye salmon and other fish. Deepening a portion of the shallow area of Pontiac Bay would reduce the size of an area known to be used for spawning and rearing of several resi- dent species of fish and remove an area that may be used for sockeye beach spawning (NOAA, 1976). The pilings under the piers would be widely spaced and should not hinder fish migration; in addition, they may provide habitat for a larger population of spiny ray fishes. An increase in the number of these fish might, however, lead to increased predation on sockeye salmon. Since the major water quality/ aquatic biology impacts would be due to dredging, the "staging pier" miti- gative measure discussed below under "Navigational Risk" would do little to reduce water quality/ aquatic biology impacts at Sand Point. Similarly, unless dredging require- ments were reduced by the "small vessels only" measure, the impacts would be the same. For either measure, of course, total impacts would be greater since some location in addition to Sand Point would be affected. The water quality impacts of long- term facility operations are expected to be minor. The pollutant load of stormwater runoff from the site (if it is properly stabilized and land- scaped) would be insignificant in comparison to the total pollutant load due to runoff from surrounding urban areas; the incremental impact upon lake water quality would not be measurable. Oil containment booms similar to those now in use at the Lake Union Center would ensure that the infrequent, small dockside fuel spills can be cleaned up, and aquatic biota in areas adjacent to the site would not be harmed. Concern has been expressed that passage of NOAA ships into Lake Wash- ington might contribute to the further spread of Eurasian milfoil, a serious problem in Lake Washington. This rooted aquatic weed grows over large areas of shallow water in mas- ses so thick that the recreational uses (and possibly the suitability for fish habitat) are greatly re- duced. The greatest depth at which this plant has been observed in Lake Washington is 16 feet (Perkins, 1978). NOAA ships will be confined to chan- nels almost twice as deep; hence the probability of ships encountering healthy masses of Eurasian milfoil, breaking them up and distributing the plant throughout the lake is remote. Although a NOAA ship could pick up small amounts of the milfoil in Union Bay and release them while 2-50 docked at Pontiac Bay (where the plant could take root and spread), any of the hundreds of boats, recreational and commercial, that regularly pass through Lake Union to Lake Washington could also spread the plant. Furthermore, spreading of the milfoil by shallow-draft power boats not confined to deep channels would be much more probable, Terrestrial Biology Development of the proposed facil- ity at Sand Point would temporarily disrupt much of the existing terres- trial habitat, displacing or elimina- ting animal species. Since a large part of the 114 acre site would be landscaped with grasses and native tree and shrub species, diversity of vegetation and habitat would increase Although use of the site by species sensitive to human activities would be reduced, the increased vegeta- tional diversity would provide habitat for a larger number of species than presently use the site, as well as for higher densities of some species. The newly vegetated areas would be colonized by wildlife typical of the surrounding area. Elimination of the present vegetation would reduct the amount of unmain- tained grassland habitat available in the area. flight strip. In contrast, the pro- posed waterfront development which includes piers, would be seen at the edge of the lake itself. Views of Sand Point itself from the water and from residential areas on the east side Lake Washington would be more compatible with the residential character of the area. The ships and moorage facilities would also be clearly visible. Whether the average mooring of two ships (in- creasing to twelve for two months in the winter) would be considered attractive depends on the viewer. The "staging pier" mitigative mea- sure discussed in the "Navigational Risk" section would reduce the required shoreine alteration, since only one pier would be needed. Archaeological and Historic Resources No impacts are expected since no such resources are known to be pre- sent at Sand Point. Noise Construction of the proposed facility would cause a noticeable temporary increase in noise levels in residential areas near the facility. Intermittant noise levels as high as 75 dBA may occur during pile driving activities. Natural Resources Natural resources on the site would not be significantly affected by development of the NOAA Center. Aesthetics The anticipated low-rise, campus- like, landscaped upland NOAA facility would replace the now deteriorating Operational noise levels would be within limits established by state and federal criteria. Noise emis- sions from Class I vessels would cause increased noise levels in residential areas west of the site; however, these levels would occur infrequently (16 to 20 times a year). Increased traffic levels would not significantly affect noise levels in residential areas. 2-51 Land Use The NOAA facility would be compat- ible with the Seattle Shoreline Master Plan. The site is zoned for residential use by the City of Seattle even though the City has no zoning jurisdiction over federal properties. The NOAA facility is not consistent with a residential zone but neither are Magnuson Park, the Naval Support Activity or the former Naval Air Station at Sand Point. The facility would not be consistent with a Citizen Group's "Lake Washington Goals and Policies", however, these goals and policies were taken into account before Seattle adopted their Seattle Master Program. The Program was reviewed and approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Construction of the proposed facility at Sand Point would be consistent with the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program (Appendix G). There would be no secondary land use impacts associated with the reloca- tion of employees and their families in the surrounding area since they are already working and living in the immediate area. Use of Lake Washington itself is also a planning concern, although not land use issue per se. Introduc- tion of NOAA vessels into Lake Washington would not constitute a precedent, since commercial traffic currently uses the lake and larger ships have used the lake and the ship canal since 1914, particularly during the 1940's. Similarly, development of shore facilities for use by NOAA vessels would not provide a precedent for industriali- zation of the lake since few such uses would qualify as water-dependant research or educational uses. None- theless, regular use of Lake Washing- ton by NOAA ships would be counter to the developing recreational char- acter of the lake, which serves as an important resource for the growing population of the communities sur- rounding the lake. Demography If the NOAA facility were to locate at Sand Point, population growth, housing, and unemployment levels should not be affected since NOAA is now operating within the Seattle region. Economic Forces The proposed site is publicly owned; therefore, no real estate tax revenue would be lost if NOAA were to locate on the site. Retaining NOAA in the Seattle area would ensure continued federal employment and a continued diversi- fied employment base. Most NOAA employees and their families would continue to live in their present homes, thereby avoiding the assoc- iated costs and environmental impacts of relocation. Utilities and Energy The Water Service Director of the Seattle Water Department has deter- mined that the existing system is adequate to provide NOAA's estimated domestic water and fire flows (Price, 1978). The Seattle Enginee has determined that th sanitary interceptor i handling the additiona flow estimated for the center, provided that is made at or north of United States Navy con interceptor, which is 725 feet south of N.E. ring Department e existing s capable of 1 sanitary proposed NOAA the connection the existing nection to the approximately 85th Street. 2-52 Seattle City Light officials advise that NOAA's estimated demand could be met with presently available resources. Public Services Area population growth would be little affected by the projected growth of the NOAA center. Increased population would be dispersed over a wide area and would not significantly affect the Seattle Police Department. The Navy Fire Department at Sand Point would be the fire department most likely to respond to a fire at the proposed NOAA facility or the ship berthing area. The Seattle Fire Department has indicated that current response in the vicinity of the site is adequate in terms of access and response time, but may not be suffi- cient in terms of firefighters and equipment responding. If the NOAA center is built at this site the department may have to consider increasing the response, either by having more companies respond to calls in the area or by increasing the number of firefighters at nearby stations. If growth of apartments and condominiums in the area con- tinues, more firefighters will need to be added at stations in the area. No fire boats are presently located east of the Chittenden locks. Repres Schools h amount of would not the local rently ex especiall Further e expected entatives of ave indicated growth antic have any adv schools. Th cess space in y those in th nrollment dec over the next Seattle Public that the ipated by NOAA erse effect on ere is cur- the schools, e north end. lines are five years. Transportation and Circulation Impacts on average daily traffic levels are shown in Figure F-1C. Sand Point Way would probably be used by most of the NOAA traffic. It provides the best route to the University and is a reasonable choice for non-peak hour travel to downtown. Impact on Sand Point Way will be negligible with respect to traffic operation. The peak hour NOAA traffic will generally be opposite the existing traffic, thereby equalizing the flow to some degree. The congestion currently existing on the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge and the Montlake Bridge will not be perceptively increased by NOAA traffic. The distance from the site to these bridges will allow for dispersion onto less congested surface routes of the NOAA traffic not requiring use of the bridges to reach their destination. NOAA ship transits (fewer than 120 per year) would require increased bridge openings along Lake Washington Ship Canal, disrupting traffic across this corridor. The traffic volumes on the arterials in the vicinity of the site would be well within the vehicle capacity limits for the roadways. The existing occasional opera- tional problem at the north gate could be alleviated by providing additional lanes leaving the base and by modification of the timing of the traffic signal during the prob- lem period. The disruption due to bridge openings would be minimized by avoiding transits during peak hours. 2-53 Navigational Risk Development of the NOAA facility at Sand Point would increase naviga- tional risks to NOAA ships and to other vessels, as discussed in Appendix A. The configuration of the canal is such that ships must request opening of the University Bridge while making a 113 degree turn under the Interstate 5 fixed bridge; if the bridge were not open when the 113 degree turn was com- pleted the vessel would have to attempt a rapid stop. Maneuvering room at the east end of Portage Cut is limited by the presense of a shoal and manuevuring room in the cut itself is limited by its stepped bank configuration. The lack of maneuvering room could pose potential problems for conflicts with non- regulated vessels. A major concern is the very heavy recreation use of Portage Cut and Union Bay during the summer. In contrast, no impact on activities at the Laurelhurst Beach Club is expected. Wake damage at about four knots, the maximum speed informally adopted by NOAA vessels in the Lake Washington Ship Canal is minimal; wakes of smaller pleasure craft, moving at the posted speed limit of seven knots, are larger. A variety of measures could be implemented to mitigate these hazards; these measures and their consequences are discussed in Appendix A. Two mitigative measures that are variations on the split- site alternative will be described here since they are also associated with impacts on other environmental elements. The "staging pier" alternative proposes inclusion of a single berth staging pier at Sand Point where a ship could dock temporarily to load or unload; under this alternative most waterfront activities would be located else- where. The "small vessels only" measure would provide docking facilities for all smaller vessels (175 feet in length or less); larger vessels would be provided with docking facilities at a separate location. In contrast to the other mitigative measures, these mitigate the navigational risks by reducing the number of transits into Lake Washington. A larger reduction would be associated with the "stag- ing pier" alternative. SECTION 6: NORTH HYLEBOS EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geology and Landforms Almost all of this site is periodically underwater (see Figure 2-10); most of the upland portion has been extensively altered by human activity (Walters and Kimmel, 1968). The elevation of the upland margin is about 20 feet. Much of the site is intertidal. North of Marine View Drive, which borders the site to the north, a high bluff of glacially transported material rises several hundred feet. The Hylebos Waterway forms the southern site boundary; areas adjacent to the site are not visually separated by any abrupt topographic changes. Seismic hazards will be related to the nature of the fill used and adequate compaction (see the earlier general discussion under "regional geology"). 2-54 — , _ — ^^- 1 ^ y i „' / SI y i y / / i • i / ! / / / i • / / i • i / * ' ■ - i y >• ~-* V Legend Note: Army Corps Sediment Sample Sites (4, 5, 6) and STORET Water Quality sampling site (CMB017) located to the east off of the map. Figure 2-12 South Hylebos Site Existing Conditions Climate The climate of this site does not differ significantly from that of the North Hylebos site, previously discussed. spoils, hence no mineral resources are present. The site is not significant for wildlife or fishe- ries. Aesthetics Air Quality Air quality at the Hylebos site is essentially the same as described for the North Hylebos site. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology The shoreline of the South Hylebos site is rip rapped and slopes steeply into the Waterway. The water quality of this site differs little from that near the North Hylebos site, located less than a half mile north. The section of the Hylebos Waterway adjacent to this site does not appear to be an important habitat for any marine life; however, some anadromous fish runs pass the site as described in the North Hylebos section. Terrestrial Biology The vegetation of the Hylebos site is typical of vacant fill land in the Port of Tacoma; grasses, mullen, blackberry and similar weedy species occur on portions of the site and a few small trees are present. A variety of song and shore birds use the site and its resources (See Appendix E for species list). The site is not regionally significant as a habitat for terrestrial species. Natural Resources This site is man-made land, built by filling with debris and dredge The proposed site is presently a deserted industrial site. Several abandoned deteriorating buildings are present. The site is surrounded by heavy industry and shipping activity; the port area has been committed to industrial use for years. A few homes far above the Port of Tacoma on a steep bluff overlook the site and the adjoining industrial area. Archaeological and Historic Resources Although shoreline locales were favored by Indians in this area, and archaeological materials may have been present on the site, it has been so extensively disturbed by excava- tion and filling that no intact resources are likely to be present. No such resources are known to exist on the site. Noise The regional noise setting for the South Hylebos site is the same as that described for the North Hylebos site. Noise levels on the site (Table D-l) differ little from those near the North Hylebos site. Demography The South Hylebos site is so close to the North Hylebos site that the discussion given under that site is completely applicable. 2-66 Economic Forces Publ ic Services Like demography, the economic forces affecting the South Hylebos site do not differ from those affec- ting the North Hylebos site. Land Use Presently unused, the privately owned South Hylebos site was used, until recently, for industrial pur- poses. The site is very close to the proposed North Hylebos site on Hylebos Waterway. Adjacent proper- ties are used for heavy industrial purposes. The City of Tacoma jurisdiction of the s shoreline. The site heavy industry, which uses. Tacoma has des shoreline S-10, Port Segment, an urban cla that allows all water water-related industr terminal shipping fac fill, dredging, bulkh and docks. Utilities and Energy has zoning ite and the is zoned M-2, permits most ignated the Industrial ssif ication -dependent and ial uses, ilities, land- eads, piers, The City of Tacoma Water Division provides water service to the site. Service would be provided by a 20- inch water main which runs along Taylor Way. Sewer Service would be supplied by the City of Tacoma's Sewer Utility Division and Engineering/Construction Division. There is an existing 12- inch sanitary sewer line along Taylor Way. There is no existing storm sewer drainage on the site or on Taylor Way. Electrical service is provided by the City of Tacoma. High voltage transmission lines run along Taylor Way. Existing conditions with respect to public services are identical to those described for the North Hylebos site. Transportation and Circulation The site is bisected by a railway line and by Taylor Way, which is a two-lane facility at the site which changes to a four-lane roadway as it nears 1-5. Taylor Way connects directly to 1-5 at the Port of Tacoma Interchange. Present traffic signals are adequate. Access to downtown is via E. 11th Street to the west of the site. The roads in the Port area carry relatively low traffic volumes, with the exception of E. 11th Street, which is serving moderate volumes. Some operational problems presently exist at the Port of Tacoma Interchange. Transit service to Lincoln Avenue and Taylor Way is available once an hour from 7 to 5. Navigational Risk Navigational risk associated with this site is somewhate greater than for the North Hylebos site. Access is somewhat restricted by the E. 11th Street Bridge, which has a history of mishaps. The channel depth varies between 26.0 and 28.3 feet; channel width decreases to 160 feet at the narrowest point, which restricts maneuvering space some- what. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES Geology and Landforms No significant impacts on geology would result from development of the NOAA center on this site. 2-67 Soils No long-term impacts are expected on soils at this site. Construction impacts such as temporary on-site storage of soil and rubble would be short-term and would not have signi- ficant adverse effects on soils. Air Qual ity Regional and local impacts from operation of the proposed center at the South Hylebos site do not differ from those identified for the North Hylebos site. Similarly, construc- tion and shipping impacts are identical. Results of the carbon monoxide analyses for the South Hylebos site differ slightly from those of the North Hylebos site since the traffic would take slightly different routes to reach and exit the proposed site; however, no violation of standards would be expected, even under worst case conditions. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology Relatively few water-related impacts are expected to result from development of this site. Excavation of up to ten acres of the site adja- cent to the Hylebos Waterway would be required to provide berthing for the ships (See Figure 2-13); exca- vated material could be disposed of on-site. Excavation should start at the landward side and proceed to the Waterway to minimize release of suspended material into the Waterway. Any dredging required to connect the excavated slip to the Waterway should be timed for the winter months, if possible, for reasons presented under the North Hylebos water quality impacts discussion. Impacts on water quality would be mitigated by excavation of one large slip rather than several narrow slips; this measure would minimize problems of water stagnation and entrapment of migrating fish. Piers or cement pilings could be built out into the slip to supply needed berth- ing. The physical character of the shoreline, bulkhead, and rip-rap, would remain the same; however, its length would be increased from 1,100 feet to 3,000 feet. The water quality impacts of small dockside fuel spills and stormwater runoff during facility operation would be the same as discussed under the North Hylebos site. Since the site does not provide important habitat for any aquatic life, impacts to the aquatic biology would be minimal . Terrestrial Biology The vegetation on the site would be disrupted during construction of the proposed facility, and wildlife using the site would be displaced or eliminated. Long-term impacts would be positive; introduction of more vegetation would result in higher biological productivity for some human tolerant species. Neither effect would be regionally signifi- cant. Natural Resources No natural resources would be affected by development of the South Hylebos site. Aesthetics If built here, the N0AA facility would replace the deteriorating, unused industrial buildings on the 2-68 Legend |||||||||| Dredge Area Figure 2-13 South Hylebos Site Impacts site with a landscaped campus-like commercial office building complex appearance. Archeological and Historic Resources No resources are present in this filled area; therefore, no impacts would occur. Noise Noise impacts for the South Hylebos site do not differ from those discussed for the Everett site, since land use is similar for both sites. Demography Impacts on population, housing and unemployment would be the same as for the North Hylebos site. Economic Forces Utilities and Energy The superintendent of the Water Division indicates that the existing system is adequate to supply NOAA's estimated total combined fire and domestic flow requirements. No impacts are anticipated. The Chief of the Sewer Utility Division indicates that the existing system is adequate to handle NOAA's projected wastewater flows. Pumps may be necessary, depending on the exact location of facilities. No impacts are anticipated. Storm sewer drainage could be devel- oped during site preparation. Lines could be extended to serve Taylor Way and that part of the site west of Taylor Way. Discharge would be to the Hylebos Waterway. According to a representative of the City of Tacoma Public Utilities Department, adequate power supply is available at this site. No impacts are anticipated. Economic impacts for the South Hylebos site differ from those for the North Hylebos site only in that the proposed site is privately owned. Therefore, a change to federal ownership would result in a loss of real estate tax revenues to local jurisdictions. NOAA would become the largest employer in Tacoma. Land Use Land use impacts are the same as discussed for the North Hylebos site. Public Services Impacts on public services are identical to those discussed for the North Hylebos site. Transportation and Circulation The traffic generated by develop- ment of the NOAA facility at this site would increase the existing traffic volumes on Taylor Way by about 50 percent (See Figure F-lb). NOAA traffic using E. 11th is expected to only be a small percen- 2-70 tage of the existing traffic volumes The major route would probably be Taylor Way. There is adequate existing capacity to serve the projected traffic volumes on the roadways in the site vicinity. The road network in the vicinity of the interchange is in need of re- design to operate more efficiently. Since the interchange is some distance from the proposed site and the employees will be leaving at staggered times, the impact of NOAA on the interchange operation is expected to be insignificant. Navigational Risk The estimated accident rate at the South Hylebos site would be somewhat higher than at North Hylebos as a result of an increased risk of ramming, and because of maneuvering constraints. SECTION 8: MANCHESTER EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geology and Landforms The Manchester site is located on Clam Bay, which lies between Middle Point and Orchard Point (See Figure 2-14). The land slopes gently down to the beach; terrain in the vicinity is rolling to nearly level. The geo- logical unit covering the site (Gar- ling, et al , 1965) is glacial till deposited by the Vashon glaciation. The only geological hazard present at this site is the earthquake hazard common to all the sites and discussed in detail under the "regional geology" section. The site does lie about 1.5 miles south of a known fault, the Seattle-Bremerton fault. Earthquake damage on this site would be limited to effects of strong ground motion, and depending on the nature of the off-shore sediments, differential settling of the berthing facilities due to liquefaction. Soils and Erosion The soils on the site are princi- pally loams and sandy loam (undiffer- entiated alluvial soils, alderwood loam, and a small area of Edmonds loamy sand). Erosion hazards on these soils are slight. Surface permeability is sufficient to keep the surface layer well drained; however, the underlying till is a barrier to further water movement. Climate The climate of the Manchester site differs from that described in the general discussion only in that temperatures would be slightly more moderate than at inland locations. Air Quality This site lies in an area devoid of major sources of air pollution; therefore, no air quality problems exist near the Manchester site. The fuel depot adjacent to the site would be a source of non-methane hydrocarbon; however, these would not affect local air quality. Data from the Bremerton station indicate that total suspended particulate levels are quite low. Carbon 2-71 L_ ' ■ ' ■■;■■■ ■ ■■- '■ . ; Legend © Sediment Sampling Site Soundings in feet 4 - Scale in Feet Figure 2-14 Manchester Site - Existing Conditions monoxide levels should also be very low, given the absence of local traffic sources; 1 ppm has been used as an estimate. Sulfur dioxide levels on the site should be lower than those at the nearest monitoring station where levels were well below standards. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology The Manchester site is located in a shallow bay with excellent water quality, good circulation, and clean sediments. A healthy benthic commun- ity is present. Aquaculture projects are located in the bay, which is also an important habitat for naturally occurring fish. Clam Bay, the location of the Man- chester site, is a shallow embayment on the east side of Rich Passage. At low tide up to 300 yards of inter- tidal area are exposed; the bottom does not drop off rapidly until Rich Passage is reached (Figure 2-14). An Environmental Protection Agency owned pier extends 700 feet out into the north end of the bay. Anchored in the outer portion of Clam Bay (see Figure 2-14) is a large salmon rearing facility, which raises several million coho and chinook salmon each year. The salmon, hatched and initially grown in fresh- water ponds on Bainbridge Island, are transferred to the saltwater rearing pens at Clam Bay. By using a con- trolled environment and intensive feeding, the operation can produce a marketable fish within a year of hatching. The location of the site, adjacent to Rich Passage (maximum tidal cur- rents of about 2 knots) and near the open waters of Puget Sound, probably ensure high water quality. Tempera- tures near the shore of the Bay during the summer are probably some- what higher than in the open waters. The only discharges to the Bay are return waters from the Marine Fisheries Lab and food debris from the salmon rearing operation. Sediment analyses were performed on two samples taken offshore from the site. The results, shown in Table B-10, indicate an uncontami- nated sediment. In mid-May a series of transects along the bottom offshore of the site were observed by divers. The bottom is composed of silty sand nearshore and becomes sandy further offshore. No rocky areas were seen. A yery dense bed of eelgrass that supports numerous rock crab was observed in the south-central portion of the bay in 20 to 30 feet of water. A moon snail, a few sea pens, some sole, and one true cod were also noted. Some worms were noted in the sediments but the epibenthic fauna are generally sparse. Information provided by Mahnken (1978) indicates that poly- chaetes are the most numerous benthic macroinvertebrates present; less numbers of lamel libranchs, ostracods, arthropods, and gastropods are also present. Some subtidal clam holes were seen and moderate concentrations of hardshell clams are reported in the area (Westly, 1978). Coho salmon are reported to spawn in Beaver Creek (Washington State Department of Fisheries, 1975). Major coho and chum runs from the East Kitsap penin- sula pass through this area as adults and the area is important for rearing and passage of juveniles. Chinook salmon are also present. The adja- cent state park is believed to have significant shellfish stocks avail- able for public use. The Washington Marine Atlas (1972) lists Clam Bay as a popular recrea- tional anchorage and indicates that 2-73 the area offshore of Manchester is commercially fished for herring. Rich Passage is also a popular salmon fishing area. Terrestrial Biology The federally owned lands at the Manchester site consist mainly of unmaintained grasses, weedy species typical of disturbed areas, and some small trees, notably willows. The adjacent state park land provides a biologically more diverse habitat -- a transitional maple-alder community with a well-developed understory. Birds seen in the open grassy/shrubby habitat of the site include robins, bushtits, killdeer, and hummingbirds, other birds that favor this habitat type probably also use the site. Mammals likely to be found in the site include skunks, rabbits, rac- coons, oppossum, moles and shrews. See Appendix E for species lists. The adjacent eelgrass beds are important waterfowl areas, particu- larly for black brant. Natural Resources Natural resources of the Manchester site are limited to the land and soil. The soils on the site are poor sources of both sand and gravel. The land is not presently being used for agriculture. Although some of the soils on the site could be used for growing crops or pasture, the avail- able area would be too small for effi- cient farming. Aesthetics Most of this site, surplused by the Navy a few years ago, is undevel- oped and covered with natural vegeta- tion and trees. From the lowbank waterfront one looks onto Puget Sound, and Bainbridge and Blake Islands. With the exception of some deteri- orating concrete structures on the site, the site and the waterfront are natural. The surrounding area includes a Navy fuel depot, a devel- oping Environmental Protection Agency research station, a future state park (presently undeveloped woodland), and rural farm lands. Archaeological and Historic Resources The site is located in historic district that is listed on the National Historic Register. An archaeologic site is located in the area and it is possible that archae- ologic materials are present on the site. Noise The noise levels found at the site are typical of those found in rural areas and are well within the State of Washington regulations. (See Table D-l.) Except for private motor boats, ferries, and other com- mercial ship activities from Manches- ter and Port Orchard, significant noise sources seem to be absent near the site. Present daytime noise levels near the site are dominated by bird calls and animal noises, while peak-noise levels are caused by distant motor boats or traffic on Beach Drive. Demography The Manchester site is located in Kitsap County, which has been under- going dramatic population increases since the announcement that the Tri- dent Submarine Base was to be located there. It is estimated that the base 2-74 will bring an additional 30,000- 40,000 people. Kitsap County had an estimated 126,300 people in 1977, but is expected to have at least 175,000 by 1985 (a 40 percent increase in eight years). Because of induced growth pres- sures, Kitsap County will continue to experience a substantial shortage of housing. To avoid "sprawl" develop- ments, Kitsap County has adopted "urban concentrations" land use poli- cies that identify areas for develop- ment with utility connections and areas for non-development. Much of the area surrounding the Manchester site is identified for little or no development (minimum of 2 acres per housing unit, a density not effi- ciently served by public utilities). The Kitsap County region has an unemployment rate (April, 1978) of 5.7 percent, a level which is below the national rate of 6.0 percent. Economic Forces The economy of Kitsap County is heavily dependent on federal employ- ment. Federal employees now exceed 15,900; when the Trident facility is operational, an additional 8,000 federal jobs will be generated. The lack of private industry contributes to a poor employment base with minimal diversity. Over 28 percent of the land in Kitsap County is federally owned. Revenues from business, occupation and real estate taxes are reduced by the federal presence, since federal facilities are exempt from such taxes. Land Use The Manchester site is federally owned property, presently used by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Ser- vice as a research station. This site, an adjacent 17.5 acre parcel that the Environmental Protection Agency is using as a research station, and a 100-acre park site that was given to Washington State, were pre- viously under Navy jurisdiction. The Navy has retained the bordering property for their fuel storage oper- ations. Private lands surrounding the government properties are gener- ally undeveloped and rural in charac- ter. Farms and homes with acreage predominate. Kitsap County has jurisdiction over the surrounding land use and shoreline. The site itself is desig- nated as "public use", which means that it is under federal and state jurisdiction and outside the zoning authority of Kitsap County. The sur- rounding private lands are designated as "rural", which permits a housing density no greater than one unit per 2-1/2 acres. Nevertheless, Kitsap County has designated the shoreline adjacent to the site as "Conservancy". This designation allows measures such as bulkheads, breakwaters, dredging, and jetties as conditional uses. Utilities and Energy Water service is provided by the Manchester Water District. Presently, there is no service to the site or to the adjacent state park or EPA property. Sewer service is provided by the Kitsap County Department of Public Works. Sewer lines are presently being installed to the EPA labs adjacent to the site. No sewage handling facilities are currently on the site itself. 2-75 Electrical power is supplied by Puget Sound Power and Light. Both single and three phase power are available at the site. P ublic Services Police protection is provided by the Kitsap County Sheriff's Depart- ment, which is presently so under- staffed that they cannot provide adequate service. Continued growth in the County is seriously impacting the Department and no relief is in sight. Fire protection is provided by Fire District No. 7, which has adequate levels of man-power and equipment. Schools in the South Kitsap Public School District are presently seri- ously over capacity, and are being filled faster than new ones can be constructed. Two new schools are due to open within the next year and will be crowded as soon as they open. Transportation and Circulation Access to the site from SR 160 is provided by Colchester Road and Beach Drive, which are two-lane roads with a fair alignment. The road passes through farms and residential areas for most of the distance. Traffic volumes are yery low on all routes in the site area. SR 160 is also a two- lane road with low traffic volumes. Most of the traffic on Colchester Road is going to or coming from the west via SR 160. Navigational Risks The site, which is at the begin- ning of Rich Passage, has open access to Puget Sound and does not present any special problem in its approach. Tidal range is 8.0 feet. Ebbtide currents past the site through Rich Passage are among the heaviest in the Puget Sound area. Rich Passage is regularly used by the Seattle-Bremerton Ferry and by naval vessels from the Bremerton Naval Shipyard. Recreational boating activity in the vicinity is low. For more information, see Appendix A. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES Geology and Landforms Impacts on geology and landforms of this site would be limited to necessary excavation for buildings and roads. Soils Development of this site would require use of most of the area. Some soil improvement for landscaping would occur. Little erosion would be expected during clearing and excavation; erosion at this time could be mitigated by use of appro- priate erosion control measures. Air Quality Effects on regional and local air quality would be minor but noticeable since existing sources are so sparse. Operational air quality impacts would be slight. Sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulate levels would be increased by ship operations (See Appendix C); however, no exceedance of standards would result when these emissions are added to estimated back- ground concentrations. Traffic volume 2-76 would increase, raising the carbon monoxide levels near roads (see Appendix C). Nonetheless, even under worst case conditions, the expected concentration would be well within levels established by applicable standards. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology Development of the proposed faci- lity at Manchester would have minor impacts on water quality; effects on aquatic plants and animals would be more significant. This site is poorly placed with respect to the deeper, navigable water of Rich Pas- sage; therefore, development of berthing facilities would probably require a combination of a long pier with considerable dredging (see Figure 2-15). The two acre staging area would be set back from the shore at the head of the pier. Thus, the shoreline would remain unchanged. Construction in the intertidal area and the shallows immediately beyond would be limited to the driving of cement pilings for the pier; only minor impacts (destruction of sessile organisms and local increases in turbidity) would be likely. Further from the shore, however, extensive dredging might be required. Depending upon the length of the dock, the area dredged could adversely affect the area, which supports a relatively diverse population of marine life. The extent of the impact would depend on the area affected; however, dredging would reduce the population of hardshell clams in Clam Bay, eliminate a por- tion of the dense eelgrass bed located in the south-central portion of the Bay, and probably reduce crab populations in the affected area. Benthic invertebrate populations in the disturbed areas would probably recover within several years, but population density might be lower because of the increase in water depth. The tidal currents in the Bay, although relatively weak, could carry the turbidity stirred up by the dredging operation for a consid- erable distance. To avoid adverse impacts on the nearby Domsea Salmon Rearing Farm, a silt screen should be erected around the area of dredging to minimize movement of sediment into the Farm's rearing pens. Because the sediment is relatively low in organics, oil and grease, and released only low levels of the heavy metals tested, open water disposal of the dredge spoils might be possible. Long-term operation of the faci- lity would not significantly affect water quality within the bay. Small dockside fuel spills could be con- tained for cleanup by use of a floating boom. Because of the moder- ate current, a more substantial boom than that currently in use on Union Bay would probably be needed. Storm- water runoff from the facility might affect nearshore waters; increased coliform levels are particularly likely. Such effects, however, would be short-term in nature as tidal cir- culation from Rich Passage constantly exchanges water with the Bay. The pier would provide a substrate for attached marine animals and algae, however, although the food and shelter offered by the pier would attract fish, this would probably not offset the loss of eelgrass bed habitat. Further- more, the Domsea salmon pens may be incompatible with the navigational requirements of the ships approaching and leaving the pier. Hence, reloca- tion of the Domsea operation might be necessary. Such a move, in addition to placing an economic hardship on Domsea, might necessitate costly 2-77 Legend III Dredge Area Soundings in feet O Scale in Feet Figure 2-15 Manchester Site - Impacts revisions in established fish manage- ment procedures. Finally, although significant long- term changes in the water quality of Clam Bay are not expected, levels of toxicants associated with ship opera- tions might increase slightly. For example, low level releases of hydro- carbons and of organo-tin compounds from anti-foul ing paints on hulls are likely. Although the concentra- tions expected are so low that no adverse environmental effects would occur, the laboratories on the site (National Marine Fisheries Service and EPA) might have to move their seawater intakes into deeper water to avoid possible interference with their testing procedures. Terrestrial Biology Development of the proposed facility at Manchester would require dredging that would reduce the size of eelgrass beds near the site. Such a reduction would reduce waterfowl populations, especially black brant. On-site impacts would be much less significant although the development would remove existing vegetative cover and replace it with buildings, parking lots and landscaping plantings. Disruption of the existing habitat would result in the destruction or displacement of wildlife found at the site. Although landscaping incorporated into the final design plan would mitigate the loss of vegetation to some extent, the amount of landscaping provided on a site of this size would be so small that it would have little value to wildlife. Loss of the existing vegetation and associated wildlife would not be significant on a regional scale. Natural Resources Mineral resources on the site would not be significantly affected by development of the proposed facility at this site. Effects on the fish and shellfish, especially on the Domsea Salmon Farm, may be more significant; these impacts are discussed under "water quality and aquatic biology." Aesthetics One of NOAA's agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service, is developing a research station on the site. Due to the restrictions the small site places on the facility, if the proposed consolidated NOAA facility were built here, it would transform the minimally developed site containing large natural areas, to one which would support concentra- ted development, thus leaving few natural areas. A dock structure would change the appearance of the shoreline. Surrounding public properties buffer the site from view by land, but the facility would be visible from the water. Archaeological and Historic Resources Because development of this site would be a federal action involving a historic preservation district, a federally prescribed set of proce- dures (106 hearing) would be required before the facility could be built. These procedures would determine whether any cultural resources would be affected and what measures should be taken. Noise The only nearby area that may be adversely impacted by construction 2-79 noise is north of the site where scattered residential dwellings occur. Distance attenuation of noise and the intervening terrain should ensure that only minor noise impacts would occur in this area during most of the construction period. Pile driving activities, however, could cause a higher level and added impact. Depending on the dock configuration, vessels might cause a minor noise impact to isolated residents north of the site. Noise levels would be within established limits. The increased traffic volumes (peak hour increases ranging from 608 percent on Beach Drive and 64 to 200 percent on Washington State Route) indicate a considerable deterioration in the noise environment (see Appendix D). Although noise levels would be greater, state and federal regula- tions would not be exceeded. Demography If the NOAA facility were to locate at the Manchester site the projected growth rate would be far surpassed. The presence of an additional 2,000 employees and their families would not only intensify an existing housing shortage, the relatively remote location of the site would place development pres- sures on an area that Kitsap County Planners would prefer to retain as semi-rural in character. Since commuting would be impractical , it is likely that most of the NOAA em- ployees would relocate to Kitsap County as soon as possible. This immediate necessity for most employees to live closer to the facility would heighten the problems associated with the existing housing shortages. The demographic impacts could be mitigated by the provision of federal impact funds to subsidize Kitsap County; application for such funds could be made. The local unemployment level would probably not be directly affected; the need for provision of additional services and facilities would prob- ably generate additional employment opportunities. Economic Forces The proposed site is federally owned; therefore, no additional real estate tax revenue would be lost if NOAA were to locate on the site. As NOAA employees would locate in the Pierce County and Tacoma areas, increased revenues would result from increased real estate values and increased sales and business and occupation taxes, as services and commodities are supplied. These benefits would have to be compared to the increased costs (for supplying facilities such as roads and util- ities to the facility and to new housing areas) to determine the net benefit. NOAA employment in Kitsap County would increase the dependence of the local economy on federal employment. Land Use Location of the NOAA facility at Manchester would not conflict directly with zoning. As a conditional use, the proposed development would be consistent with the "conservancy" shoreline designation. Kitsap County has no jurisdiction over the land use of the publicly owned site, therefore, any federal facility could be built there. The surrounding rural and semi-rural areas would be 2-80 affected by required support facil- ities such as additional housing, facilities, and services to accommo- date the new population associated with the facility. This secondary impact could be mitigated by the concentration of future development rather than allowing it to sprawl. Utilities and Energy Officials of the Manchester Water District have stated that NOAA's esti- mated domestic water demand could be provided by drilling additional wells, but fire flows could not be provided. The superintendent of the Depart- ment of Public Works has indicated that development of the NOAA center at this site would require approxi- mately 7,000 feet of force main and a new pumping station. Also, there is doubt that the existing treatment plant is capable of handling addi- tional flows of the size predicted. Representatives of Puget Power have stated that they would not anticipate any problems in supplying power to meet NOAA's demands at this site. Public Services Officials of the Kitsap County Sheriff's Department have indicated that the estimated influx of NOAA employees to the area would aggravate the difficulty that the Department is presently experiencing in providing adequate service to the growing popu- lation. The Chief of Fire District No. 7 has indicated that adequate protection could be provided by the existing levels tn manpower and equipment at the 2 stations presently in the vicinity of the site. No impacts are anticipated. Because schools in the South Kitsap Public School District are seriously over capacity at present, and are being filled faster than new ones can be constructed, adding the number of students estimated in the South Kitsap area would create an extremely serious situation. Transportation and Circulation Development of the NOAA facility at this site would greatly affect the existing traffic volumes, as shown in Figure F-lb. The NOAA traffic north of Manchester would be about twice the existing volume. Current traffic volumes on Colchester Road is about equal to the expected NOAA traffic, thus, when NOAA's expected traffic volumes are added to current volumes it would be expected that traffic would double on Colchester Road and triple on Beach Drive. The resulting volumes, however, are well within the capacity capabilities of the existing roadways, and the additional traffic is not expected to adversely affect the State Highway operation. In con- trast, the impact on the ferry system would be significant. Although NOAA-related peak hour traffic would generally be opposite the existing peak hour commuter flow, the limited vehicle capacity of the ferries and the boat scheduling would probably generate overloads on certain runs. The Southworth/ Fauntleroy run is the most logical for NOAA employees living in the Seattle area or traveling to the University from the site. The Washington State Ferry System indicates that the two ferry runs made during each of the two peak hours could handle only about 50 additional vehicles. The addi- tional peak hour passenger capacity is about 700 people. A dedicated effort to create either car-pools or a van-pool would 2-81 be necessary to relieve the antici- pated ferry problem. A suitable site in the Fauntleroy area may be necessary for a Park -and -Ride type parking lot. As employees relocate to the Kitsap Peninsula the impact will lessen, but need for students and scientists to get to and from the University will not cease. Navigational Risk Navigational risk would be low, although a marked channel and additional navigational aids would be required. Such mitigative measures would minimize any problems with recreational boating or ferries SECTION 9: LAKE UNION The two Lake Union split-site alternatives, the present Pacific Marine Center (PMC) site and the adjacent private "drydock" site, will be discussed together since they share a common environment (see Figures 2-16 and 2-17). Differences between the two sites will be noted as appropriate. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geology and Landforms These relatively level sites lie on the eastern shore of Lake Union at an elevation of about 25 feet. To the east, the elevation rises sharply for about 325 feet, then slopes more slowly to a maximum elevation of approximately 450 feet at Volunteer Park. Eleva- tions north of the site rise more gently to the east, then drop down again to Portage Bay. A clay deposited during the Vashon glaciation is the geological deposit exposed at these sites (Liesch, et al , 1963). Geologic hazards on this site are limited to the regional seismicity discussed under "regional geology". Soils and Erosion Most of each site is paved; soils on the sites have been extensively modified by filling and excavation. Little erosion hazard is present because the terrain is level and little soil is exposed. Climate Climate at Lake Union is not significantly different from that described for the sites along Lake Washington (Kenmore and Sand Point). Winds measured at the Food Circus Station, which is close to the site, show a pronounced south-southwest component; however, at the sites, winds are complicated by the presence of the lake and channeling through the Lake Washington Ship Canal. While the predominant wind direction is south-southwest, there is also a northerly flow from winds coming off the lake, especially during storms. Air Quality The Lake Union site lie within an area of dense, light industry along the shoreline; therefore, air quality at these sites is worse than that of the region as a whole. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels are probably relatively high; 2.5 ppm has been assumed as a background CO level based on the site's proximity to major 2-82 I® \ 2® \ \ W " ' " Legend m Sediment Sampling Site Scale in Feet Figure 2-16 Lake Union North Site (PMC) Existing Conditions Legend Dredge Area Fill Area O Scale in Feet Figure 2-17 Lake Union North Site (PMC) - Impacts sources such as Interstate 5. Total suspended particulate levels (measured at the closest monitoring station) are within applicable standards; however, the maximum 24-hour value in 1976 was little lower than the state and local 24-hour standard. No sulfur dioxide standard was exceeded at that station during 1976 and 1977; levels at the site were probably also within standards. Ships that are berthed at Lake Union must travel through the Lake Washington Ship Canal which has slightly poorer air quality than the Lake Union site. However, the major effect of the ships emissions will occur at the berth when the machinery is operating prior to departure. NOAA has been cited five times from 1969 to present for violation of smoke emission standards by the Class I vessels; on the most recent occasion, a civil penalty was assessed (Busby, 1978). Water Quality and Aquatic Biology The NOAA ships are presently berthed in Lake Union, where the water is quite deep. Circulation in Lake Union varies with several factors. Mery low oxygen concentrations occur in the deeper waters in late summer; intrusion of brackish water also occurs in summer. Anadromous fish runs pass the site and benthic invertebrates are present adjacent to the site. Sediments are rel atively clean. Both Lake Union sites are used extensively for ship berthing (see Figure 2-16) and are deeper than 30 feet, except close to the shoreline. The shoreline along the PMC is bulk- headed. The shore along the drydock facility is somewhat less altered, with grass and trees growing to the water's edge. Circulation is influenced by inflow from Lake Washington, by wind, and the number of lockages. Dye studies by Driggers (1964) indicated that water movement at the 40 foot depth was southerly, down the long axis of the lake. Another study (Loyton, 1975) indicated that water may flow back to Lake Washington during periods of \/ery low river runoff. Water quality varies seasonally in Lake Union. The lake becomes strat- ified in the spring when a stable upper layer of warmer water is formed. The oxygen content of the bottom waters decreases to very low levels during the summer; by August 1974 the con- centrations had dipped below 2 mg/1 a level poorly tolerated by most fish (Tomlinson, et al , 1977). Higher oxygen levels are restored when sur- face waters cool in the fall, allowing the lake to mix completely. Penetra- tion of brackish water from the area around the Government Locks (which separate the saline water of Puget Sound from freshwater) four miles to the west was noted along the bottom from August to November. Oockside oil spills at the Pacific Marine Center have been infrequent (see Table 2-1), have been contained within the oil boom, and have all been cleaned up within six hours (Schmidt, 1977). Except for one inci- dent, all spills have been quite small. Other activities at the PMC are described in Appendix H. Benthic macrofauna were found ad- jacent to the sites. Worms (oligo- chaetes), mollusks (pelecypods and snails) and insect larvae (chironomids) were abundant in the shallow area near the Seattle City Light power plant (Shepard, 1974). Abundant crayfish have also been noted in that area. 2-85 TABLE 2-1 Petroleum Product Spills at the Pacific Marine Center Year Number Estimated Gallons 1973 5 10 1974 1975 3 300 1976 2 50 1977 Aquatic macrophytes are not present at either site because the water is too deep. Few aquatic plants are found in Lake Union (METRO, 1977). Resident fish are found in Lake Union; anadromous fish only pass through during migration. Resident fish found in the lake include yellow perch, peamouth and northern squaw- fish, prickly sculpins, and most resi- dent fish found in Lake Washington. Salmon species known to enter Lake Washington must pass through Lake Union; these include Chinook, chum and sockeye salmon, steelhead and cutthroat. The results of chemical analyses performed on sediments taken at the site as shown in Table B-ll. The sediments appear to be relatively uncontaminated with the exception of high copper levels. Terrestrial Biology The Lake Union site where the Paci- fic Marine Center is presently located has virtually no vegetation or notable terrestrial wildlife. The terrestrial portion of the private Lake Union site, located adjacent to the PMC site, is not completely paved and thus includes some vegetation which is of little value as habitat. (See Appendix E for species list.) Adjacent areas include East Lynn Park, residential areas, and marine-oriented industrial uses; the park and residential areas have more vegetation and are more suitable as habitat. Natural Resources No mineral resources are present on these sites. The land is not a potential agricultural area. Aesthetics One of these sites (PMC) has been used for several years to moor the NOAA fleet. The adjacent private site has been a ship repair (drydock) facility for many years. Some of the buildings are aged and appear to be unused and deteriorating. The surrounding area is used by industry, commercial interests such as restau- rants and business offices, and a community of house boats. Archaeological and Historic Resources Although shoreline locales were favored by Indians in this area, and archaeological materials may have been present on the site, it has been so extensively disturbed by 2-86 excavation and filling that no intact resources are likely to be present. No such resources are known to exist on the site. Noise Noise sites ar mercial trial ar suitable ceptable (See Tab of noise Fairview levels near the Lake Union e typical of these along corn- street arteries and in indus- eas; daytime noise levels are for industrial use but unac- for most residential areas, le D-l.) The dominant source was automobile traffic on Avenue East. Demography The demographic, housing informa- tion, and employment data identified for Sand Point applies to these sites as well since they are both within the City of Seattle. Economic Forces The economic forces that affect the Lake Union site are common to all sites in the Seattle-King County area, These factors are discussed in con- nection with the Sand Point site. Land Use The two Lake Union sites separated by a City of Seattle waterway. NOAA presently moors their ships at one of the two sites, the other site is used as a ship repair facility. North of the present NOAA ship dock facility is a community of house boats. These sites are surrounded by industry, commercial offices, restaurants, and residential areas. This mix of land uses around Lake Union is exactly what the City of Seattle seeks to maintain. The City of Seattle jurisdiction of the sit shoreline. Both sites "M", manufacturing, whi ship moorage and ship r to both sites. Seattle the shoreline as US/LU, Lake Union", a designat mits industry, shipping piers, docks, ship repa pilings, bulkheads, and has zoning es and the are zoned ch allows the epair common has designated "Urban-Stable/ ion that per- f acil ities, ir, dredging, the like. Utilities and Energy Water service is provided at the Lake Union site by the Seattle Water Department. Fairview Avenue East contains an 8-inch water main from E. Galer Street north to a dead end at about 70 feet south of E. Howe Street. From E. Newton Street it continues north as a 12-inch water main. Water pressure is approxi- mately 126 psi (static). Sewer service is provided by the City of Seattle, and by a privately owned and maintained sewage lift sta- tion which connects to the City's facilities on Fairview Avenue E. All storm drains in the vicinity of the site are privately owned and main- tained. Power is provided by Seattle City Light. Public Services All public services are the same as for Sand Point. Transportation and Circulation Direct access to the site is provided by Fairview Avenue, which is generally wide enough for two vehicles, although travel lanes are not marked. The prevailing parking 2-87 practice is perpendicular to the road; development along the street is industrial and waterfront related. A portion of the NOAA activity is now located at this site and is reflected in the existing traffic. Access to the south and downtown from the site is reasonably easy via Fairview Avenue North. Traffic desiring to go north or east, such as to the University, must seek Eastlake Avenue by means of several streets connecting Fairview Avenue to Eastlake Avenue. Traffic volumes on Fairview Avenue are very low. The volumes on Eastlake are higher, but are yery reasonable for the roadway character. Frequent transit service is available in the area. Navigational Risk The existing situation with regard to the navigational risks associated with either Lake Union site include passage through the Lake Washington Ship Canal as far as Lake Union; the risks, described briefly under the Sand Point site description, include passage through three bascule bridges. Recreational boating in the area is heavy. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES Geology and Landforms No significant geological impacts are expected at either site. More excavation and site preparation would be required for development of the private site. The minor changes to landforms that would result are shown in Figures 2-18 and 2-19. Soi Is No long-term permanent impact is expected on the soils at either site. Construction impacts, including addi- tional filling and dredging, and tem- porary on-site soil and rubble storage, would be short-term and would not have significant adverse effects on soils. Air Quality The local air quality impacts of the Lake Union split site alternative would be minor. Splitting the sites would distribute traffic-related emissions between the two sites according to trip ratios. The net effect would be less vehicle emissions at each site than at a consolidated site alone. Nonethe- less, greater overall emissions may result due to necessary additional traffic between sites. Operational air quality impacts would be slight. Sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulate levels would be increased by ship operations (see Appendix C); however, no stan- dards would be exceeded when these emissions are added to estimated back- ground concentrations. Increases in traffic volume would be small; even under worst case conditions the expected carbon monoxide concentra- tions would be well within levels established by applicable standards. The traffic expected at Sand Point under a split site alternative would be slightly less than if the site were consolidated. As in the consol- idated case, neither the 1- nor 8-hour carbon monoxide standards are exceeded. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology Impacts due to development of either site would be relatively minor (See Figures 2-17 and 2-19). The waters of both the PMC and the Drydock sites are deep enough that little 2-88 Legend Note: Sediment Sampling Sites same as Figure 2-16. Scale in Feet Figure 2-18 Lake Union South Site (Drydock) Existing Conditions s. V. V. % Support and Staging Area on pilings. X V \ \ \ Legend Fill Area Scale in Feet Figure 2-19 Lake Union South Site (Drydock) Impacts dredging would be needed. The Drydock site appears to need no dredging, whereas upgrading the PMC site would require dredging of less than one acre. One-half acre at either site would be filled and rip-rapped. The sediment analysis for the PMC slip showed clean bottom material with relatively high concentrations of copper. Dredge disposal could occur on-site behind berms. Although the amount of needed dredging is small, it would be desirable to conduct all dredging behind a silt curtain to avoid off-site turbidity; this measure would maintain the pleasing aesthetic quality of the lake, since it is in the center of the city and widely viewed. Given the low levels of dissolved oxygen in Lake Union during the late summer, dredging could be confined to the winter months when the lake is well mixed. Such timing would also minimize the impact upon fish migration through the area. Construction at either site would result in the loss of one-half acre of lake surface. The rip-rap and bulkhead character of the shoreline of the PMC site would remain un- changed. The relatively natural features of the Drydock shoreline would be replaced with fill and rip-rap. No rooted aquatic plants now grow at either site; therefore, construction impacts would be mini- mal. The loss of a half an acre of lake bottom at either site would probably have negligible impact upon Lake Union as a whole, given the low productivity of the area. Since the ship operations are already centered on Lake Union, con- tinuing use of this site for these operations would not have additional impacts upon the water quality of the lake. Terrestrial Biology Development of either of these sites as the waterfront portion of a split-site alternative would have no significant impacts on terrestrial biota. Natural Resources No discernible impacts on natural resources would result from the pro- posed development at either Lake Union site. Aesthetics Development of NOAA facilities and mooring of ships at the Lake Union location would be aesthetically simi- lar and largely in conformance with the surrounding area. Archaeological and Historic Resources No impacts are expected. Noise Construction noise at the Lake Union sites should not adversely impact local areas because the industrial and commercial land uses adjacent to these sites are not noise sensitive. Residential housing is shielded by buildings or located at sufficient distances to be protected from construction noise. Pile driving noise is expected to cause only minor impacts. Noise impacts from vessels, normal facility operation, and vehicle traffic will be insignificant because of the existing industrial activities in these areas, the 2-91 absence of nearby noise sensitive receptors, and the low levels and frequency of operations of NOAA activities at these sites. The noise levels at these sites will be within state and federal noise criteria (see Appendix D). Demography Since NOAA is now operating within the Seattle region, if the NOAA faci- lity were to locate at one of the Lake Union sites and Sand Point, population growth, housing, and unemployment levels should not be affected. Economic Forces Both sites are priv The northern site is 1 and i s the location wh are presently berthed, to buy either site, re would no longer be pai the local jurisdiction offs among other incre and costs associated w should be considered ately owned, eased by NOAA ere NOAA ships If NOAA were al estate taxes d, a loss to . The trade- ased revenues ith the facility The southern site is industrially zoned. If NOAA were to locate there, that industrial use would no longer exist. With limited industrial zoned property available, a decision to take industrial property for this pur- pose should be evaluated carefully. Furthermore, the proposed site is presently being used by industry. If NOAA locates here, it will displace workers and the industry itself. Retaining NOAA in the Seattle area will assure continued federal employ- ment and a continued diversified em- ployment base. Most NOAA employees and their families will continue to live in their present homes, thus avoiding relocation and its associated costs and environmental impacts. Land Use The NOAA facility would be compat- ible with the Seattle Shoreline Master Plan, zoning and other uses within the vicinity of these sites. There would be no secondary impacts associated with relocating employees and their families in the surrounding area since they are already working and living in the Seattle area. Utilities and Energy To provide alternate flow and increase quantities from the existing 8-inch watermain to the proposed sites, the 12-inch watermain from E. Newton Street should be extended south to a connection with the 8-inch watermain. The Water Services Director of the Seattle Water Department has determined that with this improvement the system would be adequate to handle the estimated flow demands of the NOAA center. The Seattle Engineering Department has determined that the existing pub- lic and private sanitary facilities at the site should be adequate for hand- ling NOAA's projected sanitary sewer flows. Power requirements are identical to those cited for the Sand Point facility. Public Services Impacts on public services would not differ from those described for the Sand Point site, except for fire protection. The Seattle Fire Department has indicated that current response in the vicinity of the site would be adequate in terms of the number of firefighters 2-92 and equipment responding, and in terms of response time. Access problems may develop in the future if traffic diversions and barriers are installed in the area as has been recently dis- cussed. Transportation and Circulation Since NOAA's Pacific Marine Center is already located at this site, no additional traffic impact is antici- pated if this location is chosen for the waterfront portion of NOAA opera- tions (See Figure F-1C). Navigational Risk There would be no increase in navigational hazards at either site since the NOAA vessels are already based and operating in Lake Union. SECTION 10: SALMON BAY EXISTING ENVIRONMENT Geology and Landforms The Salmon Bay site is relatively flat, and reaches a maximum elevation of approximately 25 feet. The site is bounded on the south by water and on the north, east and west by land of approximately the same elevation, sloping gradually to the north (see Figure 2-20). The geology of this site has been substantially modified by human activity. Underlying geo- logical deposits probably include glacial till, and layers of sand and clay (Liesch, et al , 1963). Seismic damage, discussed under "regional geology", is the only geologic hazard at this site. Liquefaction of the fill might be a problem; however, detailed engineering studies would be needed to evaluate the actual poten- tial hazard. Soils and Erosion Most of the site is paved; soils on the site have been extensively modified by filling and excavation. Little erosion hazard is present because the terrain is level and little exposed soil is present. Climate Climate at Salmon Bay does not differ significantly from that of the sites near the water and along the ship canal. Some channeling of winds through the canal may occur, giving winds at the site a more westerly component than at most locations in the Puget Sound area. Temperatures may be slightly moderated by the proximity to Puget Sound. Air Quality The air quality discussion for the Lake Union sites also applies to the Salmon Bay site except that total suspended particulate levels at the closest station are slightly lower. Water Quality and Aquatic Biology ay site is located in gton Ship Canal , which in the Lake Class by State Department of issolved oxygen and evels have been obser- ay (see Figure B-3) . fish runs in the Lake nage pass through The Salmon B the Lake Wash- in has been placed the Wash- ingtor i Eco' logy. Low d high col" form 1 ved in Salmon B All anadromous Washingtc >n drai 2-93 : -'\». ■v^HP "'■■■: r \-&;,^ f *>* \ 2®- Channel (30 feet) Legend $ Sediment Sample Site Scale in Feet Figure 2-20 Salmon Bay Site Existing Conditions Salmon Bay. Sediments in the area are heavily contaminated. Monitoring data collected by METRO show a reduction in the dissolved oxygen of the bottom waters during the late summer. During the period of summer lowflow some brackish water flows through Salmon Bay toward Lake Union. As a result of urban runoff and combined sewer overflows coliform levels tend to increase along the Ship Canal between Lake Washington and the Locks. The highest median counts are found in Salmon Bay. (See Table B-12.) The aquatic life of concern at this site includes only anadromous fish passing the site. The shoreline around Salmon Bay is heavily indus- trialized and very little shallow area is present. It is unlikely that the Bay is a desirable habitat for resident fish or aquatic plant life. All anadromous fish entering or leaving the Lake Washington drainage pass through Salmon Bay. Figure B-2 shows the periods of the year when migrating fish are passing through the area. Analysis of samples sediment taken just offshore from the docks at the site (Table B-12) showed high levels of organic material, oils and grease, and copper. The poor chemical quality of the sediments is a result of the industrial activity at the site. Terrestrial Biology The Salmon Bay site is a heavily industrialized site in an area characterized by similar uses. The site has little vegetation and has negligible significance as wildlife habitat. See Appendix E for species lists. Natural Resources No mineral or other natural resources are present on this site. Aesthetics This site, used by heavy industry and located in an area dedicated to comparable industrial and commercial uses, is viewed only by distant residential areas across the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Extensive ship traffic on the canal can be viewed from the site. Archaeological and Historic Resources Although shoreline locales were favored by Indians in this area, and archaeological materials may have been present on the site, it has been so extensively disturbed by excavation and filling that no intact resources are likely to be present. No such resources are known to exist on the site. Noise Noise levels near Salmon Bay (See Appendix D) are dominated by road and industrial noise. Daytime noise levels are typical of those found along commercial street arteries and in industrial areas. The daytime noise levels are suitable for industrial use but marginally or unacceptable for most residential areas. The Salmon Bay site is located on the Lake Washington Ship Canal; the regional noise environment is the same as described for the Lake Union sites. 2-95 Demography The demographic discussion under "Sand Point" also applies to the Sal mon Bay site, since it is also in Seattle. Economic Forces The economic forces affecting the Seattle-King County area are discussed under the "Sand Point" site description. could be discharged directly into Salmon Bay or connections could be made to the existing 21-inch City storm drain on Shilshole Avenue N.W. Power Light. is provided by Seattle City Public Services The availability of public services is the same as described for the Sand Point site. Land Use The Salmon Bay site, a privately owned site, is now used for indus- trial purposes (sand/gravel/lumber operations). The surrounding area is also extensively used for indus- trial purposes. There are no residential areas near the site. The City of Seattle has zoning jurisdiction of the site and the shoreline. The site is zoned "I-G" and "I-H", which represents general and heavy industry. Seattle has designated the shoreline as "UD", Urban Development, a designation that allows all shipping and water- dependent industrial facilities, pilings, bulkheads, dredging, filling and breakwaters. Utilities and Energy Water service is provided by the Seattle Water Department. The exis- ting watermain in Shilshole Avenue N.W. is 16 inches in diameter. Water pressure is about 128 psi static. Sewer service is provided by the City of Seattle, and METRO. There are three existing side sewer connec- tions to a 66-inch METRO sanitary on Shilshole Avenue N.W. Storm runoff Transportation and Circulation Direct site access is provided by Shilshole Avenue. The site is sepa- rated from Shilshoe by railroad tracks, The predominant route to disperse traffic from the Shilshole area appears to be NW Market Street. Major intersections in the area are signa- lized, and existing street geometry is adequate for existing traffic. Traffic volume on Shilshole is moder- ate for the roadway character. NW Market Street is carrying low to moderate volumes for a four-lane roadway. Transit service is avail- able in the area. Navigational Risks The conditions affecting naviga- tional risk at the Salmon Bay site differ little from those affecting the Lake Union sites, except that transit through only one bridge would be required. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES Geology and Landforms Development at this site would not significantly affect the geology or landforms of the site or region. 2-96 Soils Water Quality and Aquatic Biology No long-term permanent impact is expected on the soils at this site. Construction impacts, including addi- tional filling and dredging, and temporary on-site soil and rubble storage, would be short-term and would not have significant adverse effects on the soils. Air Quality Air quality impacts at the Salmon Bay site differ little from those discussed for the Lake Union sites, except with respect to carbon monoxide levels. Traffic volume would increase, raising carbon monoxide levels near roads (see Appendix C). Carbon monox- ide (CO) analyses (assuming worst case conditions) indicate that both the 1- and 8-hour CO standards would be exceeded immediately above 15th Avenue NW. (Both standards are met at 10 meters from the road.) The proposed project's contribution to this stan- dard exceedance is essentially zero, however, since only 78 cars per day are expected to use this route. The other two routes show CO concentra- tions within the standards. The CO concentrations expected at Sand Point under a split site alternative are discussed under the Lake Union split site alternative. All of the traffic analyses used the previously described methodology. Mitigative measures to alleviate the CO standard violations are related to traffic controls and alternative transportation methods. Operation of the proposed project would not signi- ficantly affect air quality along 15th Avenue NW because of the small amount of traffic volume expected to use this route. Development of the Salmon Bay site would require a small amount of dred- ging adjacent to the shore (see Figure 2-21). In addition, approxi- mately three acres of dredging and excavation would be required at the western end of the site to attain the necessary berthing space. Because the sediment at the site is highly organic in composition and somewhat contaminated with lead and copper, upland disposal would probably be necessary. The site lies adjacent to the path of the salmon migration route through the Ship Canal to the entire Lake Washington drainage. It is important that the dredging be timed so as to cause minimum interference with this migration. The biologic and construct io the site has be many years. No appear to grow the limited ext quality impacts siderable local The chemical ly sediments would depressed level during the dred both be short t al impacts of dredging n would be minimal as en industrialized for rooted aquatic plants at the site. Due to ent of dredging, water would be smal 1 . Con- turbidity would occur, reduced nature of the result in a local ly of dissolved oxygen ging, but these would erm effects Operation of the ship facility is unlikely to cause significantly dif- ferent water quality impacts than those caused by the present use of the site. The dominant use of Salmon Bay is for ship berthing, loading, and servicing. The proposed NOAA faci- lity would follow this usage. Oil containment berms would surround the facility to prevent off-site spreading should a dockside fuel spill occur. 2-97 w HiiKnmniTf Channel (30 feet) Legend Dredge Area mmm : Scale in Feet Figure 2-21 Salmon Bay Site Impacts Terrestrial Biology No negative impacts on the terres- trial biology of the Salmon Bay site would be caused by development of the proposed waterfront facilities. Any landscaping included in the plans would constitute a slight beneficial impact on terrestrial biology. Natural Resources Development of the proposed water- front facility at this site would have no discernible impacts on natural resources. Aesthetics If built here, the NOAA facility would replace industrial buildings on the site. The NOAA ship activity would be similar and largely in con- formance with the surrounding area. Archaeological and Historic Resources No impacts are expected. Noise Noise impacts for the Salmon Bay site do not differ from those for the Lake Union sites. Demography If the NOAA waterfront facility were to locate at Salmon Bay, popula- tion growth, housing, and unemployment levels should not be affected since NOAA is now operating within the Seattle region. Economic Forces The economic impacts of locating the waterfront facility at Salmon Bay the waterfront facility at Salmon Bay are essentially the same as those of locating it at the Lake Union drydock site, except that a different indus- trial site would be affected. Land Use No adverse impacts would result from development of the NOAA facility on this site. The proposed develop- ment would comply with the Seattle Shoreline Master Plan Program and Seattle zoning regulations. Utilities and Energy The Water Services Director of the Seattle Water Department has deter- mined that the existing system is adequate to provide NOAA's estimated domestic water and fire flow demands. The existing METRO trunk is more than adequate to handle projected NOAA flows. Additional 8-inch side sewers could be connected to the trunk if necessary. The distance from the property line to the trunk is approxi- mately 85 feet. The Seattle Engineer- ing Department has determined that the existing sanitary facilities are adequate for conveying sanitary sewage from the site. Seattle City Light representatives indicate that NOAA's estimated demand could be met with presently available resources. Public Services Impacts on all public services except fire protection would be identical to those described for the Sand Point site. The Seattle Fire Department has indicated that the current response in terms of fire- fighters and equipment responding, and in terms of response time, would 2-99 be adequate to provide service to the proposed facility. Transportation and Circulation Development of the waterfront faci- lity at Salmon Bay would not create traffic problems in the area. The trip generation for the NOAA site will probably be less than the manufac- turing operation it replaces. Some minor congestion can be expected along Shilshole Avenue when the industries along the street change shifts. When traffic departs the immediate site area it will generally be traveling in the direction opposite to the exis- ting peak hour flow. No bridge open- ings would be required. No additional adverse impact is expected on traffic operations. Expected traffic volume is shown in Figure F-1C. Navigational Risk The navigational risks would actual- ly decrease if the Salmon Bay site were selected for development of the water- front portion of the facility. Since NOAA vessels would no longer have to pass under the Ballard Bridge, the risk of ramming would drop. 2-100 3 Comparison of Alternative Sites The purpose of this chapter is to bring together information that will allow the reader to understand environmental trade-offs or differ- ences between the alternative compared. Then, a summary table is presented, and those sites that would be associated with the most and least severe environmental impacts are identified. SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS GEOLOGY AND LANDFORMS Excavation and filling during con- struction of the facilities would modify geology and landforms slightly on all sites. Many of the consoli- dated sites are presently fill; im- pacts to these sites are considered minor. The South Mukilteo site, characterized by steep slopes and poor stability, would probably re- quire the greatest change to an up- land site. The North Hylebos and sites. First, impacts on each element of the environment are Everett sites would require extensive filling; excavation would be required at the Kenmore and South Hylebos sites. Relatively little change would result from development of the remaining sites, including the split site alternative waterfront sites. SOILS AND EROSION Impacts on soils would be rela- tively minor regardless of which site is chosen for a consolidated facil- ity. The greatest potential for 3-1 on-site erosion is present at the South Mukilteo site because of its steep slopes; however, appropriate methods of handling storm runoff, especially during construction, would avoid substantial erosion. Large amounts of soil would have to be added to the North Hylebos and Everett sites. Natural soils would be disrupted at Manchester, but the slope is so low that erosion hazards would be minimal. Impacts on soils would be minor for any of the waterfront sites; the impact would be least for the Pacific Marine Center (PMC) site at Lake Union where NOAA ships are presently moored. CLIMATE Climate would not be affected by development of any of the sites, consolidated or split. AIR QUALITY A major concern in the evaluation of air quality impacts is whether standards would be violated. Con- struction impacts would be similar for all sites; there would be in- creased levels of gaseous pollutants and dust, but these emissions would not cause any standards to be excee- ded. Ship operations result in the emission of gaseous pollutants and particulates both along the travel route, and in port when the vessels are preparing to depart. The emis- sions generated in-port are more likely to adversely affect air quality. Maximum sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulate concen- trations attributable to the ships' operations would be somewhat greater at the South Mukilteo site than at the other sites because of the high bluff located there. Sulfur dioxide emissions would aggravate existing problems in both Tacoma and Everett; however, the relative orientations of the monitoring stations, other sources, and the sites are such that more frequent exceedance of standards is likely only for the two Tacoma sites. Sulfur dioxide problems could be mitigated by use of low sulfur fuel, the requirement that the SURVEYOR leave port only during periods of off-shore winds, or making engine modifications to reduce emissions. It is possible that total sus- pended particulate standards would be exceeded near the Kenmore site if the ships' plumes were to interact with air currents carrying high levels of particulates from the cement plant. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels would increase as traffic volumes increase; the only consolidated site near which exceedance of CO standards is likely is the Kenmore site. Carbon monoxide levels would be decreased by reducing traffic volume, by means such as en- couraging the use of transit or car- pools. Emission of air pollutants would be particularly noticeable in loca- tions where standards are least likely to be exceeded. At the Man- chester site degradation of air quality would be particularly notice- able because existing sources of pol- lutants other than hydrocarbons are so sparse. The South Mukilteo site is also located in residential areas with few major pollutant sources. The overall quantity of pollutants emitted would be slightly higher if a split site alternative were imple- mented than if a consolidated site was chosen, since additional travel between the two locations would be required; however, the concentrations at each portion of the site would be lower. The greater the distance that ships have to travel to reach port, 3-2 the larger the quantity of pollutants that they will emit. In order of increasing distance, the sites are as follows: Everett, South Mukilteo, Port of Tacoma, Hylebos, Manchester, Sand Point, and Kenmore. Air quality impacts from operation would be similar at any of the split site locations. Although NOAA opera- tions would contribute little to traffic increases, these traffic increases would be greater for the Salmon Bay site, and violations of carbon monoxide standards in the area are likely. Ship travel distance would be somewhat greater for either of the Lake Union sites than for Salmon Bay. WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY The sites vary considerably with respect to the amount of dredging, fill or other alteration to the shoreline and offshore area, impacts on the benthic community, impacts on fish populations, ease of containment of oil spills in port, and other water quality impacts. Substantial amounts of dredging or other modifications would be required to develop berthing facilities at several of the consolidated sites. Twenty-eight acres of shallow lake bottom would have to be dredged at Kenmore, generating a million cubic yards of spoils for which upland disposal sites would probably be re- quired. Maintenance dredging would also be necessary and slips would have to be excavated into the exist- ing shoreline. At Manchester, up to 25 acres of dredging would be re- quired; development of the South Mukilteo site would require up to 20 acres (600,000 cubic yards) of dredg- ing. Open water disposal would prob- ably be possible for spoils from either site. In addition, a 0.6 mile rock breakwater and filling of two acres of intertidal area would be needed at the South Mukilteo site. At the Sand Point site about 13 acres of dredging (an estimated 360,000 cubic yards) would be needed. Devel- opment of the North Hylebos site would require filling 69 acres of tidelands, dredging of up to 10 acres of highly organic sediments, and replacing 6,000 feet of shallow shoreline with 4,000 feet of rock rip-rap shoreline that drops off steeply. Ten acres of fill would have to be excavated to construct slips at the South Hylebos site. Changes at other consolidated sites would be minimal . Changes at the split sites would be comparatively minor. Development of either of the Lake Union split sites would require filling a half- acre of the lake; less than an acre of dredging would be needed to up- grade the PMC site. Three acres of dredging and some excavation would be required at Salmon Bay. Impacts on benthic communities parallel the extent of dredging or filling. Dredging not only destroys organisms, but by increasing the depth, decreases the productivity of the habitat. Hence, development of the Manchester, North Hylebos or South Mukilteo sites would eliminate 25 to 60 acres of productive marine shallows, decrease the size and diversity of the benthic population, and, at Manchester and South Muk- ilteo, eliminate some productive eel- grass beds. The impact due to devel- opment of the North Hylebos site would be particularly severe since the 60 acres of intertidal area to be eliminated is one of few remaining areas of this type of habitat in Commencement Bay. In contrast, the loss of 80 acres in Everett would be much less significant since the area involved is not high quality habitat. 3-3 Impacts on fish and shellfish would also vary from one site to another. Impacts could be quite severe for the Manchester site: hardshell clams would be destroyed by dredging, crab habitat would be lost, and construction or NOAA vessel operations might interfere with the aquaculture operation. The North Hylebos site is thought to be an important shelter and feeding area for juvenile salmon in Commence- ment Bay. Development at Sand Point or Kenmore would eliminate shallows used for spawning and rearing by resident fish and by salmonids near Kenmore. Sockeye salmon are believed to spawn in a beach area that would be altered by development at Sand Point. Impacts upon the aquatic communities resulting from the development of the waterfront facilities at any of the split site alternatives are the same. Containment of small oil spills in the mooring area would be more diffi- cult at some consolidated sites. Although a system similar to that employed at the Pacific Marine Center on Lake Union would be adequate for most sites, stronger currents at the South Mukilteo and Manchester sites would require a larger securely an- chored barrier. At all split sites, an oil boom similar to that used at the PMC would be adequate. Other water quality impacts would also vary from one consolidated site to another. Circulation would be reduced in the vicinity of the Everett site, resulting in lower dis- solved oxygen levels and higher levels of industrially discharged pollutants such as color, turbidity, and toxicants. Narrow slips at the Kenmore site could create similar circulation problems. At South Mukilteo, the high erosion potential could result in increased turbidity from storm runoff. At the Manchester site, the low levels of toxicants emitted by the sites could interfere with ongoing research thus requiring relocation of the laboratory's salt water intake, or the nearby aquacul- ture operation. Elevated levels of coliforms and other pollutants are likely to result from storm water runoff near the Manchester site. All split sites are similar in that no significant impacts would be expected. TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Impacts on terrestrial biology vary with the type of habitat presently available at each consoli- dated site. Impacts would be negligible at Everett. Impacts would be slightly greater for the South Hylebos site, which is somewhat less disturbed. Sand Point provides a habitat apparently used by a wide variety of birds, hence impacts would be slightly greater than for the previous sites. Impacts would be more noticeable from development of the South Mukilteo or North Hylebos sites. The South Mukilteo and North Hylebos sites are relatively large natural areas. The latter, used by waterfowl, is one of few remaining intertidal areas in Commencement Bay. Shallow areas adjacent to the Kenmore and Manchester sites are important waterfowl areas. Impacts on the split sites would differ little, for all split sites the impacts would be negligible. NATURAL RESOURCES Impacts on natural resources differ little for the consolidated sites. Sand Point and South Mukilteo sites can be considered somewhat more valuable because of their 3-4 importance to terrestrial wildlife; the North Hylebos and Manchester sites have value as fishery resources For the split-sites no discernible impacts would occur. AESTHETICS Aesthetic impacts have been eval- uated from the perspective of what impact the NOAA facility would have on the surrounding region. The con- solidated facility would enhance the appearance of all regions except for those near Sand Point, Manchester, Kenmore, and South Mukilteo where the docking facilities might be consid- ered unattractive by some people. The only aspect of the facility that might be thought to adversely affect aesthetics near the South Mukilteo, Kenmore, and Sand Point sites are the moorage structures and the ships. Although many persons would consider the view of a passing NOAA ship attractive and interesting, the dock structures associated with their home base might be considered unappealing, especially by those who reside on hillsides above the dock structures or those whose view is affected by the structures. This impact would affect more homes near Sand Point than any other site. Nonetheless, many, particularly those viewing the site from the east side of the lake and from the water, would find the NOAA facility aesthet- ically preferable to the naval air station facilities presently on the site. Fewer homes would view the facility at Kenmore. In addition, the Kenmore area is already a predominantly commercial and indus- trial area; hence the NOAA ship facility would not significantly change the aesthetics of this region. Dock structures at South Mukilteo would be visible only from homes across Puget Sound on Whidbey Island. The dock structures would be visible by passing boaters regardless of the site selected. The aesthetic impact from the water would be greatest at Manchester where the facility would contrast sharply with the undeveloped character of the shoreline and adjoining land areas. Any of the split-site alternatives using Sand Point as the location of the laboratory/ off ice complex with ships located elsewhere would avoid potentially adverse aesthetic impacts to Sand Point. Quality design and extensive landscaping would increase the aesthetic appeal of the facility at Sand Point, South Mukilteo, Lake Union, or Manchester. Standard de- sign with minimal landscaping would suffice to maintain the aesthetics of the other sites. The aesthetic impacts would vary little among the split sites. The facility would have a positive impact on either the Lake Union drydock or the Salmon Bay site. Little change would result from selection of the PMC site at Lake Union. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES The Manchester and South Mukilteo sites are the only sites where any significant impact on archaeological or historic resources is likely. Development of the Manchester site would affect a Historic Preservation District, and might affect archaeo- logical resources. Although no archaeological resources are known to be present on the South Mukilteo site, much of the site is relatively undisturbed. NOISE Increased noise levels should be considered an adverse impact when a noise sensitive receptor (such as a 3-5 residential area) is affected. A few residential areas would experience noticeable increases in noise levels if the facility were located at South Mukilteo or Kenmore. Smaller in- creases in noise levels in residen- tial areas would result from the development of Sand Point or Man- chester. No impacts would occur if any of the other consolidated sites were selected. Similarly, no impacts would result at the waterfront por- tion of any split site. DEMOGRAPHY Population growth and the need to develop additional housing are con- sidered adverse only when the growth is greater than that anticipated or when plans to accommodate the addi- tional population are inadequate. Thus, although population growth would occur for any of the sites out- side the Seattle area, such demo- graphic change would be a serious problem only for the Manchester site ECONOMIC FORCES o Would the NOAA facility help main- tain or would it diversify the region's economy? All consolidated sites other than Sand Point and Manchester are zoned industrial; however, only the Kenmore site is currently used by industry. This site is privately owned, as are the South Mukilteo and South Hylebos sites. Economic diversity of the surrounding region would be furthered by the development of any site except Manchester. Thus, by these criteria, development would be most favorable at the Sand Point, Everett or North Hylebos sites, since each is publicly owned, presently unused by industry, and would contribute to economic diversity if used by NOAA. The split-sites differ little from each other. All are publicly owned, industrially zoned and, except the PMC site, are currently used for industrial purposes. All are in Seattle; therefore, economic diver- sity considerations and local costs and revenues are the same for al 1 sites. For many consolidated sites, eco- nomic factors would be positive rather than negative. Four factors were considered in evaluation of the economic impact: o Would the NOAA facility make the use of an industrially zoned site unavailable to industry? o Would the NOAA facility displace an existing industrial use and its corresponding industrial employ- ment presently on the site? o Is the site privately owned, such that real estate revenues would be lost if the land were purchased by NOAA? LAND USE Comparison of land use impacts is based on compatibility with shoreline designation, zoning and land use plans, and existing use of surround- ing land. With conditional or special uses identified for some of the alternate sites, at all sites the NOAA facility is compatible with the approved master programs of each jurisdiction. With minor complica- tions for some sites, the NOAA facility would be compatible with all local zoning ordinances. Generally, the only consolidated sites where development of the proposed facility would be in conflict with existing land use are 3-6 Manchester, Sand Point, and Kenmore. Both the Kenmore and Sand Point sites are appropriate for land operations of laboratories and office space, but the shoreline use for docks and ship moorage may be considered incompatible with the recreational use of the lake and with the residential areas surround- ing the sites. In addition, at Kenmore the operation of seaplanes and NOAA ships in the same vicinity is a potential conflict. Manchester is the least desirable site with respect to land use because of its undeveloped shoreline designation and the surrounding rural land use that would be affected by locating the facility there. Currently planned rezoning of the South Mukilteo site would make the facility compatible with the shoreline and land use designations. Opening part of the shoreline for public use at the South Mukilteo, Manchester, Sand Point and Kenmore sites would mini- mize some of the incompatibilities of locating at any of these sites. The split sites are the same with respect to land use compatibility; no incompatibility exists for any of the sites. UTILITIES AND ENERGY Public utilities would constitute a major problem only for the Man- chester site. At that site, provi- sion of domestic water supply would require drilling additional wells, and fire flows could not be provided by the water district. Sewer service would require a 7000 foot force main and a pump station; capacity of the sewage treatment plant may also be inadequate. Water supply for the Everett site would require a larger main; sewer service for that site would require a private force main and larger pumps in two pump stations. A private pump station and force main would be required to serve the Kenmore site. No significant changes to public utilities would be required to serve the remaining sites. PUBLIC SERVICES Only for the less developed sites would public services be adversely affected. The most severely affected area would be Manchester, where schools are seriously over capacity and being filled faster than new ones can be built, where the Sheriff's Department is so overloaded that it cannot provide adequate service, and where adequate fire flows could not be provided by the water district. In Kenmore, the existing problems with rising school enrollments would be aggravated. Near the South Muk- ilteo site, NOAA related growth would ensure that planned increases in facilities and manpower are needed. The Seattle Fire Department might need to increase equipment and man- power near Sand Point if that site were selected. The Tacoma schools would be benefited by increased en- rollments if either of the Tacoma sites were selected. No significant impacts on services would result from development of the waterfront split-site facilities. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impacts on traffic and circulation would be minor for all consolidated sites except Manchester. Impacts would be negligible for the Everett site. The only noticeable impact due to selection of the Kenmore or Sand Point sites would be a slight increase in the number of bridge openings of the Monti ake and Univer- sity Bridges (up to 120 per year); 3-7 however, few of these openings would occur during peak traffic hours. Up to 120 additional openings per year of the 11th Avenue Bridge in Tacoma would be necessary if the South Hylebos site were selected, whereas, if the North Hylebos site were selected traffic volumes crossing that bridge would increase, resulting in greater disruption of traffic when that bridge is not operational. Selection of any other consolidated site would avoid bridge-related impacts; traffic disruption in Seattle would decrease. The free- way interchange that would be used for either of the Tacoma sites now has operational problems, but any effects of the NOAA traffic would be insignificant. Development of the South Mukilteo site could cause congestion and traffic levels inappropriate to the roads in residential areas near the site unless an access were developed from Chenault Beach Drive prior to the point where it enters residential developments. Development at Man- chester would seriously overburden the capacity of the Washington State Ferry System. This impact is unavoidable even with the implemen- tation of vanpooling and early relocation of NOAA employees. Transit service and availability also varies for the consolidated sites. Transit service to Sand Point is excellent; service to Kenmore and Everett is also reasonably frequent in peak hours. The North and South Hylebos sites can be reached by bus only between 7 A.M. and 5 P.M. No transit service is available to the South Mukilteo and Manchester sites. NAVIGATIONAL RISK Navigational risks vary with the potential hazards and existing traffic levels at each site. The only common base by which the sites can be compared is provided by the accident rate data discussed in Appendix A. The consolidated site with the lowest predicted accident rate was South Mukilteo, followed by Manchester and Everett. The rate at the North Hylebos site, which has a much greater traffic volume, was sub- stantially greater than that of Everett. The rate for South Hylebos was slightly higher than that for the other Tacoma site, principally be- cause of the additional bridge ram- ming hazard. The predicted rate for both Lake Washington sites (Kenmore and Sand Point), although lower than that for the Tacoma sites, was unusu- ally high for a small port. Risks for these sites are greater because of the required passage through the entire ship canal, which includes five bridges, and the potential risk associated with entering the locks. Among the split-site alternatives, the Salmon Bay site would have slightly lower navigational risks than the Lake Union sites. The dif- ference is a result of avoiding the risk of ramming the Ballard Bridge. SECTION 2: ANALYSIS OF TRADE OFFS To facilitate analysis of the trade-offs, four summary tables are presented. These tables are intended only to aid comparison of the sites They are not intended to summarize the text in Section 1 of this 3-8 chapter, to which the reader is referred for a more detailed discus- sion. In these tables, each envi- ronmental element evaluated in Chapter 2 is evaluated. In Table 3-1 and 3-2 adverse impacts associ- ated with development at each of the alternative sites are rated high, moderate, low or zero. These ratings took into account the factors discussed in Chapter 2 and in Section 1 of this chapter. The ratings are based on the professional opinion of specialists in the appropriate environmental fields; therefore, comparisons should be made only within a given element. These ratings are influenced by existing conditions at the various sites. A numerical rank was also assigned to each of the consolidated sites for each environmental element; these ranks, listed in Table 3-3, are based on the relative adverse impact on each element. Thus, if a given site is associated with a slightly greater adverse impact on a given element than any other site, it could receive a least favorable ranking even though impacts for development of any of the sites would be rel atively minor. Table 3-4 provides a comparable ranking of the three split sites. For many environmental elements, the differ- ence between sites was so small that two or more sites are given the same rank. Thus, for many categories, the rank of the least favorable site is less than seven. The ratings and rankings for each environmental element represent the professional judgment of the person who evaluated each element. There- fore, a mathematical approach to site comparison based on these tables would be of questionable validity. Furthermore, the signi- ficance of impacts varies among the elements; for example a moderate impact on water quality might be more important than a moderate impact on geology. These tables are, of course, relevant only to this project and these sites. A comparison of the consolidated sites can be made by reviewing Tables 3-1 and 3-3. Comparitive ranking of the consolidated sites as to which would be most suitable based on environmental considerations would depend heavily on the weight placed on each of the environmental elements. In contrast, the split- site alternatives are quite similar; none has many adverse impacts. Thus, location of ship-related facilities at any of the split-site alternatives would avoid the impacts of development of the proposed center at Sand Point on navigational risk, water quality, aquatic biology and aesthetics. SECTION 3: NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE If the facility consolidation project were abandoned, NOAA would continue on a leased facility basis This alternative would restrict NOAA activities to the limited additional leased space available at their present locations for accommodating projected growth. Additional new space in new locations would increase the present problems of dispersed facilities. The potential benefits of consolidation would be foregone. Adverse impacts that might result from development of the proposed facility at any of the alternative sites would be avoided; 3-9 however, environmental impacts due to NOAA operations at their present locations would continue. Expansion of current operations in additional leased space would also be associ- ated with some environmental impacts. The extent and nature of such impacts cannot be evaluated without specific information regarding which activities would expand and the type of facilities that would be required. Property at all of the alternative sites would continue in its present use or be available for development of other uses. The sites that are now industrial would continue to be available for water-related industry. The options for Sand Point are perhaps of particular concern since that site is the proposed action; as discussed in the FEIS (NOAA, 1976) the possibilities include no change, a natural area and wildlife preserve, a park, a general aviation facility, residential use and commercial and special purpose educational/ recreational use. 3-10 TABLE 3-1 Adverse Environmental Impact Ratings - Consolidated Sites South Sand North South Everett Muki lteo Kenmore Point Hylebos Hylebos Manchester Geology L M M L Soils M L M L CI imate Air Quality M M M L M M M Water Quality/ Aquatic Biology M H M M M L H Terrestri al Biology M M M M L M Natural Resources L L M M Aesthetics L L M M Archaeology/ Historic Res. L M Noise M M L L Demography M L L L L H Economic Forces L Land Use L L L M Public Utilities M L M L L L H Public Services M H H M L L H Transportation & Circulation M H M L M M H 2 Navigational Risk L L L L L L L H = High M = : Moderate L = Low = Zero These ratings are based on professional opinion, not an absolute scale. This table should be used with the text in Chapters 2 and 3; in isolation it may be misleading. These ratings refer only to the increase due to the NOAA project. 3-11 TABLE 3- ■2 Adverse E nvironmental Impact Rati ngs - Split Sites Lake Union PMC Lake Union Drydock Salmon Bay Geology Soi Is Climate Air Qual ity L L M Water Quality/ Aquatic Biology L L L Terrestri al Biology Natural Resources Aesthetics Archaeology/ Historic Res. L L L Noi se Demography Economic Forces L L Land Use Public Utilities L L L Public Services L L L Transportation & Circulation L L M 2 Navigational Risk L L L H = High M = Moderate L = L ow = Zero 1-r, "These ratings are based on professional opinion, not an absolute scale. This table should be used with the text in Chapters 2 and 3; in isolation it may be mi sleading. 2 These ratings refer only to the increase due to the NOAA project. 3-12 TABLE 3-3 Comparison of Consolidated Sites 1 South Sand North South Everett Mukilteo Kenmore Point Hylebos Hylebos Manchester Geology 3 4 1 1 4 1 2 Soils 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 Climate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Air Quality 2 3 7 1 4 5 6 Water Quality/ Aquatic Biology 3 5 4 3 2 1 6 Terrestrial Biology 1 4 4 3 4 2 4 Natural Resources 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 Aesthetics 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 Archaeology/ Historic Res. 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 Noise 3 7 6 4 1 2 5 Demography 4 3 2 1 4 4 5 Economic Forces 2 4 5 1 2 4 4 Land Use 1 2 3 4 1 1 5 Public Utilities 2 3 2 1 1 1 4 Public Services 2 3 4 2 1 1 5 Transportation & Circulation 2 4 6 1 5 3 7 2 Navigational Risk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,,.., • 'Within each environmental element (rows), sites have been ranked according to severity of expected adverse impacts on that element. The lower the rank, the less impact expected. In cases of ties, several sites may have the same rank. Where all seven sites differ 1 = lowest impact, 7 = highest impact. This table should be used only in context; without consideration of the material presented in the text of Chapters 2 and 3 it may be misleading. > "These ratings refer only to the increase due to the NOAA project. 3-13 TABLE 3-4 Comparison of Split Sites 1 Lake Union PMC Lake Union Drydock Salmon Bay Geology Soils Climate Air Qual ity Water Qual ity/ Aquatic Biology Terrestri al Biology Natural Resources Aesthetics Archaeology/ Historic Res. Noise Demography Economic Forces Land Use Public Utilities Public Services Transportation & Circulation Navigational Risk' 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Within each environmental element (rows), sites have been ranked according to severity of expected adverse impacts on that element. The lower the rank, the less impact expected. In cases of ties, several sites may have the same rank. Where sites differ 1 = lower impact, 2 = higher impact. This table should be used only in context; without consideration of the material presented in the text of Chapters 2 and 3 it may be misleading. "These ratings refer only to the increase due to the NOAA project. 3-14 4 Summary Two summary tables are presented to allow the reader to quickly com- pare the major adverse impacts for each alternative site and the miti- gative measures that might reduce these impacts. Major adverse impacts are listed in Table 4-1, in this Table different symbols are used to indicate those adverse impacts that are unavoidable; those that may be reduced but not avoided, and those that can be essentially avoided by use of appropriate mitigative measures. These measures are listed in Table 4-2. 4-1 TABLE 4-1 MAJOR ADVERSE IMPACTS r— .— Q> GEOLOGY AND LANDFORMS Filling a large area (60 acres or more) now underwater Excavation and construction on steep slopes Excavation of ten acres or more of fill AIR QUALITY Increased probability of violations of sulfur dioxide standards Increased probability of violations of carbon monoxide Possible odor problem due to disposal of organic dredge spoils WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY Extensive dredging (more than 10 acres) Limited dredging (up to 10 acres) Elimination of more than 20 acres of bio- logically productive habitat Maintenance dredging Increased risk of small oil spills Significant decrease in water quality ( long-term) TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY Destruction of habitat AESTHETICS Moorage facilities on a shoreline without present commercial /industrial development ARCHE0L0GICAL /HISTORICAL Development in historic district Development in relatively undisturbed area with archeological potential NOISE Construction noise noticeably above ambient levels in a predominantly residential area Operational noise noticeably above ambient levels in a predominantly residential area DEMOGRAPHY: UTIITIES: AND SERVICES Growth in population far greater than could be handled by existing infrastructure Growth in population would stress some public services LAND USE Secondary impacts due to employee relocation (e.g., housing) TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Five bridges opened as many as 120 times per year due to N0AA ships Three bridges opened as many as 120 times per year due to N0AA ships One bridge opened as many as 120 times per year due to N0AA ships Additional traffic congestion when bridge is nonfunctional Probable traffic generated would exceed capacity of ferry system Traffic volumes inappropriate to nature of road NAVIGATIONAL RISK Increased hazard of bridge ramming by N0AA vessels Increased hazard for recreational boaters in Lake Washington and the Ship Canal M MM M M M M M M M MM M M M M M M M M M U U U U M M M M M M M M M U* U* U* U M M U* U* u* u* u* u* u* u* . u* u* u* Key: M - Adverse impacts may be substantially avoided by measures listed in Table 4-2. U - Unavoidable adverse impact. * - Some mitigation possible. 4-2 TABLE 4-2 ~ MITIGATIVE MEASURES *» s * ■»-> s_ o c o '_> 01 E GEOLOGY AND LANDFORMS o Design facilities to minimize excavation and avoid destabilizing the bluff. SOILS AND EROSION o During construction, contain mounds of soil and rubble stored on site behind containment berms. AIR QUALITY o Use of low sulfur oil or engine modifications to minimize S0 2 violations. o Allow the SURVEYOR to leave port only when the wind is blowing out to sea or modify its engine. o Reduce CO emissions by encouraging car pools and staggering work hours to reduce peak hour traffic. o Minimize odor from dredge sediments with high organic content by covering dredge spoils with a layer of soil . WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY o Conduct all dredging behind a silt curtain to limit spreading of turbidity; monitor water quality daily at several points around the curtain. o Confine dredging activities to winter months when dissolved oxygen levels in the water are generally highest and fish migration is minimal. o To minimize turbidity resulting from runoff of dredge spoils, use mechanical dredges, and channel runoff into settling pond before release. o To prevent near shore sedimentation caused by erosion during construction activities, employ erosion control methods such as detention and sedimentation ponds, and prompt stabilization of excavated slopes. o To contain oil spills, use floating oil boom and contingency plan. NOISE o Installation and maintenance of mufflers on all internal combusiong engine powered construction equipment. o Careful scheduling of equipment to keep average noise levels low. o Turn off idling equipment not scheduled for immediate use. o Use vibrating-type pile drivers rather than impact pile drivers. 4-3 TABLE 4-2 (Cont.) o 01 01 s- c >, .— •— a> o Sf >»>»♦* -r- CO .c o jc .c .c ** E -o +J ♦> u 18 ft. draft) accidents only, assuming, in lieu of other data, that freighters, because they share a number of characteris- tics with NOAA vessels, would have similar accident rates. 3. Historical data with indirect application: the 13th District 5-38 Coast Guard files provided informa- tion on all commercial vessel accidents within the LWSC. Accident rates were then developed (from Corps of Engineers data) and prorated, using the OIW mathematical model for small ports, to arrive at an extrap- olated accident rate for freighters for the LWSC. A separate "hypothetical" analysis (Section V) was conducted to identify and provide detailed information on navigational risks in the LWSC and the relative impact of such identified risks on transits through the LWSC. This "hypothetical" analysis was not compared with historically derived data. Clarifi- cation on this matter has been introduced into the SEIS (Section VI). Port of Tacoma and City of Tacoma (M. Parker, Mayor) Comment : The historical data base (from Coast Guard files) is sparse or inadequate: 1. The observation period for accidents in the Port of Tacoma is not sufficiently long. 2. Only "real" data was used for the Port of Tacoma. 3. The data for Tacoma Harbor does not pinpoint accident locations. 4. Accident data for the entire Port of Tacoma was applied to the Hylebos Waterway; this latter site should have a separate accident rate developed for it. Response : 1. The observation period for the Port of Tacoma has been increased from 1971-1976 to 1971-1977 — an adequate base covering about 3,500 freighter port calls. Additionally, Coast Guard accident reports have been rechecked for the period 1974-1977 for the Port of Tacoma; minor errors were corrected and each accident was categorized as to type and magnitude. 2. As discussed in the previous comment, "real", i.e., historical data, was used for all cases. 3. A map has been added (Figure 8) indicating the locations of each accident in the Port of Tacoma in the period 1974-1977. These acci- dents are also listed in Table 6. Additionally, a map showing the route which NOAA vessels would take in reaching the Hylebos Waterway has been included (Figure 12). 4. A separate accident rate would have been developed for the Hylebos Waterway if a sufficient data base had been available. However, only accident location could be delineated by waterway; port calls could not. (Even if the number of port calls to the Hylebos Waterway could have been determined, the number of such calls in an 8-year period would have been small, clouding the statistical reliabil- ity of the result.) In lieu of more detailed information, the accident rate of the Port of Tacoma is used. Figure 8 (added to the Final SEIS) shows that the Blair Waterway had many more accidents in the period 1974-1977 than did the Hylebos Waterway (8 and 2, respectively). The development of good statistics on the usage of the various waterways in the Port of Tacoma could be a useful tool in clarifying accident rates within each waterway. 5-39 By way of contrast, it is possible to differentiate the accident rate for the Port of Seattle (of which the LWSC is a part) because the Corps of Engineers provides a breakdown on port calls to the two portions of the Port of Seattle, ( i .e. the LWSC and Elliott Bay which are geographically and navigational ly separate entities) . Port of Tacoma Comment : Port calls for private piers are not listed in computing accident rates for the Port of Tacoma. Response : Confusion between the Port of Tacoma -- a generic term used by the Corps of Engineers to identify all commercial shipping activity within Commencement Bay and waterways therein and the "Port of Tacoma" -- a publicly owned corpora- tion, is believed to be the basis of this comment. An appropriate clarification has been introduced into the SEIS. The Port of Tacoma is used in the study in the generic sense and does include all port calls to both public and private piers. M. McDermott and A. Duxbury Comment : Fires have been included in the accident data for the LWSC; they should be excluded since they are independent of the characteris- tics of the channel . The resultant accident rate (for freighters of 218 foot draft numbered in collisions, rammings or groundings) was virtually unchanged in this analysis. A footnote to this effect has been added. A. Duxbury Comment : The Coast Guard indi- cated (after a brief search) that they had no record of a bridge ramming in Lake Washington in the period 1974-1977. Response : The accident referred to in Appendix A, as identified in the Coast Guard accident file, involved a barge hitting a bridge (unspecified) in Lake Washington in October, 1974. Damage was minor. M. McDermott Comment : The term "standard deviation" has been misused. Response : This error has been corrected. B. Smith, Jr. Comment : I consider NOAA as commercial -type ships. Response : The design character- istics and cababi 1 ities of NOAA vessels are not typical of commercial type ships. See Appendix 4 to the navigational risk assessment. Response : The point is well taken even though fires are included in accident rate determination (cf., OIW). The accident rate for the LWSC and Lake Washington was recal- culated without fire-related accidents Montlake Community Club Comment: Why should Portage Cut be dredged to accommodate NOAA vessels? 5-40 Response : The c depth of the Lake W Canal is adequate t vessels. As discus removal of a shoal the dredged channel vessel maneuvering a waiting area for however, it is not required for safe t one of the proposed measures shown on P K. Regan urrent dredged ashington Ship o acommodate NOAA sed on Page A-40, near the edge of would improve room and provide vessel traffic; necessarily ransit. This is mitigating age A-53. A. Candidate mitigating measures are presented in Section IV. Comment : NOAA's EIS admits that of all the sites proposed, Sand Point would be the most dangerous. Response : This statement is not correct. Section 6 of Appendix A (Page A-69) provides a comparison of predicted accident rates for candi- date sites. It shows that Sand Point has a lower adjusted accident rate than either of the two Tacoma sites. City of Kirkland Comment : NOAA vessels pose a potential hazard to the recrea- tional boating traffic and other recreational activities within Lake Washington and the Monti ake Cut. Response : A discussion of the navigational risks of NOAA vessels transitting the Lake Washington Ship Canal is presented in Appendix D. Harsch C. Hilgeford A. Hunt R. Leed J. McClelland Comment: 1 What are the opinions and concerns of the NOAA ship captains about the hazards that may be presented by transiting to Lake Washington? Response : Six active duty and two retired NOAA Commissioned Officers were queried as to their opinions of the navigational hazards to be anticipated when piloting NOAA ships between Lake Union and Lake Washington. All eight officers hold the rank of Captain, have consider- able experience in ship-handling and have had or now have command of a Class I and/or Class II NOAA ship. Their responses were similar in most respects. The officers noted that NOAA ships have transited the canal into Lake Washington a number of times under ideal conditions without incident. It was the unanimous opinion that if routine transits were made of the Lake Union-Lake Washington portion of the canal, it is likely that accidents would occur due to any one, or combination of the conditions as stated in Appendix A of the SEIS. The results of this inquiry bear out the validity of potential hazards as perceived in the navigational risk section of this document. 5-41 POLICY QUESTIONS State Department of Transportation Comment : If the final site selected requires traffic control measures on any of our highways, the developer will be expected to participate in these costs. Response : Acknowledged. Department of the Army Seattle District Corps of Engineers Comment : With respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's areas of responsiblity for flood control, navigation, hydropower and regulatory functions we do not have any comments. Our general comments are as follows: 1. The Final Supplemental EIS should include a specific commitment to mitigative measures for the selected plan. 2. We suggest that the supple- mental statement address the follow- ing points: a. The feasibility of including reacreation facilities for the public as part of the overall development plan. b. The amount of shoreline that would remain accessible to the public for general recreational pursuits out of the total shore- line that the proposed project would occupy. Response : All mitigative measures designed to reduce potential adverse environmental impacts will be reviewed and considered for implemen- tation prior to making a final decision on site selection. It is not possible for NOAA to construct public recreational facilities as part of its develop- ment of a Western Regional Center since it would be a misappropriation of federal funds. NOAA does, however, encourage public interest and visitation and will provide information stations, interpretive signing and educational displays in several of the buildings. The center grounds and shoreline (except the piers and staging area) will be open to the public. More than 2,100 feet of the total 3,200 feet of the NOAA-owned Lake Washington shoreline will be available for public strolling, jogging, and other limited recreational pursuits. The exact amount of shoreline available at other alternative sites will depend on the particular design for piers and the staging area. J. McClelland Comment : There has been previous testimony that fresh-water berthing is no longer particularly advanta- geous. Why was the subject raised in the EIS? Response : We are unaware of any testimony in this regard. Fresh water berthing is more attractive than salt water berthing since it reduces corrosion and barnacle growth and eliminates problems associated with tidal variations. However, it is not an overriding factor. The point made in the Supplement (Page A-2) is that this factor is an operational considera- tion and does not pertain to naviga- tional risk. 5-42 Comment : Did NOAA present copies of the investigative staff report of the House Appropriations Committee to URS? I request this document be thoroughly evaluated prior to the preparation of the final EIS. Response : A copy of the House Appropriations Investigative Staff report dated June 10, 1976 has been provided to URS Company for their consideration. However, the report contains no information on any environmental impact caused by NOAA development so it is unclear how this report will be of use to URS in preparing the Final Supplemental EIS. Comment : There are statements in the SEIS about NOAA scientists who also receive salaries from the University and grants from NOAA. Do all federal agencies permit their employees to enjoy such benefits and privileges? How can NOAA justify such an excessive expenditure of tax dollars? Response : No such statements are included in the SEIS. The NOAA scientists holding faculty positions at the University receive no salary for their services. NOAA provides the University with grants, not vice versa. H. Winter Comment : I believe NOAA's overspending, such as the estimated $225,000 for its EIS report and its many other unnecessary expenses to bring ships into Lake Washington, will put a real cog in the wheel for Jarvis' Proposition 13 for the U.S. Response : Preparation of the Supplemental EIS is estimated not to exceed $135,000 and is required by federal law as a prerequisite to major federal developments such as that contemplated by NOAA. V. Gunby Comment : I would urge that the employees of your facility be encouraged to live close to the place of work, and that your parking facilities and programs encourage the use of transit, van pools, and carpools. Response : NOAA's plans for a Western Regional Center include active programs to encourage employee use of mass transit systems and car pooling and consideration of van pool schemes. Efforts will be made to ensure that adequate public bus service to the center is available and that certain parking privileges will be provided as an incentive for carpooling. Comment : The EIS did not include a statement which indicated that a split site would not serve as well or better than a combined site. Response : As referenced in the supplement, NOAA's "Management Considerations for a Western Regional Center," dated July 1978, addresses the various split site options and their impacts. B. Caminiti Comment : The state has filed a suit in federal court on whose laws will govern the coastline. The Plaintiff is the State of Washington Department of Ecology v. the United States of America, Juanita Kreps . It is No. C78-223V. I would think that this whole hearing and all your progress and processes are and 5-43 should be declared moot until the results of that federal trial which will probably go to the Supreme Court is heard. I think your whole processes have no legal merit. Response : The law suit brought by the State of Washington is unrelated to the environmental impact statement process in the course of which the comment was made; and, whatever the ultimate decision in the law suit, it cannot "moot" the necessity of the environ- mental impact assessment process which NOAA is now pursuing. Two different federal laws and two different issues are involved. The law suit involves the inter- pretation of a section of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) which excludes certain federal lands from a state's coastal zone, and, therefore, excludes them from the direct application of that state's approved coastal zone management program. On the other hand, the environmental impact statement process stems from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires that, before undertaking any action which can significantly affect the environment, the federal agency principally involved must assess the effects of the activity upon the environment and balance those effects against the desirability of proceeding with the activity. The outcome of the law suit under the CZMA has nothing to do with whether, pursuant to the balancing process required by NEPA, NOAA's proposal for a western regional center Sand Point should proceed. R. Van Moppes Comment : Why did Seattle Light install a transformer power pad on Sand Point Way outside of the NOAA entry? Response : The U.S. District Court injunction, dated March 16, 1978, prevented NOAA from dredging and pier construction at Sand Point. NOAA voluntarily halted all construc- tion and design activities with one exception while undertaking an effort to objectively consider other site alternatives. The construction of the North Gate Corridor was well underway at the time the injunction was issued. NOAA believed it was necessary to complete the corridor work since it would seriously disrupt Navy activities if work was suspended. Much of the construction is to isolate Navy and NOAA utility services which require City Light to install an underground vault in Sand Point Way. The transformer pad is an integral part of the corridor work. R. Dunham Comment : It is clearly in error for any NOAA official to conclude that the SEIS indicated any prefer- ence for consolidation of the ocean-going facilities at Sand Point. Response : The purpose of the SEIS was not to indicate a site preference for consolidation but to objectively analyze and evaluate navigational risks and environmental assess several alternative sites, including split sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comment : Although the statement maintains that NOAA still prefers to locate the entire facility at Sand Point, it is not clear on what basis this decision was made. We suggest 5-44 that the Final Supplemental Environ- mental Impact Statement discuss NOAA's analysis in more detail. Response : The introduction indicates that Sand Point is the proposed action, and not necessarily an agency preferance. As stated on P. 1-2 of the Draft SEIS, two NOAA management documents that reconsider the previous decision to consolidate at Sand Point were prepared. These reports conclude that consolidation is preferred to other development schemes, and that such consolidation would be most advantages at Sand Point. The final NOAA decision will be based on consideration of environ- mental impact, navigational risk, administrative effectiveness, site characteristics, ship activities, economics, accomplishment of agency mission, and public comment. D. Harsch Comment : No reference is made to costs, repair or rebuilding the space that NOAA presently occupies. Response : Of all the space that NOAA presently occupies (294,620 Sq. Ft., excluding Montlake Laboratory) approximately 33% is leased in five different locations. At these locations, expansion is not physically possible due to limitation of additional space. Space presently utilized on NOAA property at Sand Point (50,163 plus 147,500 sq. ft. unheated warehouse) is not suitable for proper laboratories and is inadequate structurally and mechan- ically, making it uneconomical to modify. 5-45 References Anderson, A.C. et al . 1947. Soil Survey of Snohomish County, Wash- ington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Series 1937, No. 19. Anderson, John. 1978. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Personal Communication. Bannister, R. W. 1978. Chief, Kenmore Fire Department, King County Fire Protection District No. 16. Personal Communication. July 6. Beanblossom, Gary F. 1978. Demographer, Seattle Public Schools. Personal communication. July 12. Bloundt, Dean. 1978. Kitsap County Senior Planner. Personal communi- cation, May 3. Bloomer, R.S. 1978. Acting Field Supervisor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. Personal communication. May 19. Busby, R. 1978. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. June. California State of, Division of Highways. 1972. Mathematical Approach to Estimating Highway Impact on Air Quality . Cameron, Ron. 1978. Traffic Engineer, City of Everett. Personal communication. May. Cannon, G. A. 1978. "Variability of Current and Water Properties from Year Long Observation in a Fjord Estuary". Hydrodynamics of Estuaries and Fjords . J.C.J. Nihoul, ed. Elsevia, Amsterdam. Cline, Leslie, L. 1978. Sergeant, Identification Division, Kitsap County Sheriff's Department. Personal communication. June 12. Cook, R. R., P.E. 1978. Gray and Osborne, Inc., P.S. Personal communi cation. June 13. Cooper, Dr. Thomas. 1978. Director of Facilities Planning, Northshore School District. Personal communication. June 12. Craddock, D.R., J. Parker, C.A. Spjut and G.F. Slusser. 1978. Effect of Lake Washington Sediment from the Sand Point Dredging Site on Coho Salmon Fingerlings. National Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, Washington. R-l Cratty, Jo Ann, M. 1978. Lieutenant, King County Police. Personal communication. June 16. Crumbley, Dennis. 1978. Traffic Engineer, City of Tacoma. Personal communication. May 9. Derickson, Dennis. 1978. Snohomish County Planner. Personal communi- cation. May 8. Driggers, V.W. 1964. Tracer Dye Studies in Lake Union and Bellingham Bay. M.J. Thesis, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Edmondson, W.T. 1976. "The Recovery of Lake Washington from Eutro- phication", Recovery of Damaged Ecosystems . John Cairns, Jr., ed., Univer- sity Press. Virginia Polytechnic, Charlottesville, Virginia. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. STORET Water Quality Data Retrieval System, Region X. Seattle, Washington. Everett City Council. 1976. Shoreline Master Program for City of Everett . Everett, Washington. January. Federal Register. 1978. Volume 43, No. 43. National Ambient Air Quality Standards, States Attainment Status, Friday, March 3, 1978. Fjeran, Orin B. 1978. Assistant Superintendent for Business. Everett School District No. 2. Personal communication. May 31. Fields, Frank, Jr. 1978. Water Service Director, Seattle Water Depart- ment. Personal communication. May 18. Foley, Kevin. 1978. City of Tacoma Planner. Personal communication. May 3. Garling, M. E., D. Molenaar, et al . 1965. Water Resources and Geology of the Kitsap Penninsula and Certain Adjacent Islands. Water Supply Bulletin No. 12. Department of Conservation. General Service Administration. 1975. Energy Conservation Design Guidelines for New Office Buildings , Second Edition. Goetz, Larry. 1978. King County Planner. Personal communication. May 10. Gregwire, Dennis. 1978. City of Everett Planner. Personal communica- tion, May 8. Greimes, J. W. 1978. General Manager, Water District No. 79. Personal communication. May 15. R-2 Hansen, Frank R. 1978. Chief, Seattle Fire Department. Personal Communication. June 19. Hermes, Rodney C. 1978. Superintendent, Mukilteo School District. Personal communication. June 2. Holm, Kristine L. 1978. Environmental Planner, Municipality of Metro- politan Seattle. Personal Communication. June 12. Howe, W. B. 1978. Chief, Engineering/Construction Division, Department of Public Utilities, City of Tacoma. Personal communication. May 24. Kerwin, J. 1978. Fisheries Biologist, Puyallup Indian Tribe, Tacoma, Washington. Personal communication. King County Department of Planning and Community Development. 1978. Final Environme ntal Impact Statement for Harbour Village Marina , Parts I and II. April 14. Kirk, Chet. 1978. Chief, Kitsap County Fire District #7. Personal communication. June 20. Kirkland, Mr. Port of Everett. Personal communication. May 8. Kitsap County Department of Community Development. 1978. Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Additions to the Wastewater Collection Facilities at Manchester, Washington . Port Orchard, Washington. January 13. Kitsap County Department of Community Development. 1977. Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Plat of Megan Heights" ! Port Orchard, Washington. December 13. Kitsap County Department of Community Development. 1977. Shorel ine Management Master Program . Port Orchard, Washington. July 11. Kitsap County Planning Department. 1976. People and Kitsap - A Data Profile of Kitsap County . Port Orchard, Washington. October. Kloster, John. Coldwell Banker. Personal communication. May 2. Kriener, D.L. 1978. Manager - Customer Services, Puget Sound Power and Light Company, North Central Division. Personal communication. June 14. Lake Washington Regional Citizens Advisory Committee. 1973. Lake Washington Regional Shoreline Goals and Policies . October 31. Layton, J. A. 1975. Water Circulation Studies of Lake Washington. CHpM/Hill, Bellevue, Washington. R-3 Leavitt, Howard. 1978. Acting Deputy Fire Marshal, Tacoma Fire Department. Personal communication. July 3. Liesch, B. A., C. E. Price and K. L. Walters. 1963. Geology and Groundwater Resources of Northwestern King County, Washington. Department of Conservation. Mack, Rod. 1978. Shorelines Division, Department of Ecology, Olympia. Personal Communication. July 11. McCormick, Dorothy. Mayor Royer's Staff. Personal communication. May 9, McKee, B. 1972. Cascadia . McGraw-Hill, New York. Mahnken, C. 1972. Benthic Invertebrate Data for Clam Bay, Kitsap County, Washington. National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory, Manchester, Washington. Metcalf, Dan. 1978. Northeast Lake Washington Sewer District. Personal communication. May 17. METRO, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 1977. "A Study of the Composition, Growth and Distribution of Aquatic Macrophytes in Fourteen Lakes and Bays of King County". Meyer, J. H. and D. A. Vogel. 1978. An Examination of the Smaller Benthic Invertebrates in Hylebos Waterway, Tacoma, Washington. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington. Mowrey, J. W. 1978. Manager, Consumer Service and Conservation, Light Division, City of Tacoma. Personal communication. May 26. Newcomb, R. C. 1953. Groundwater Resources of Snohomish County, Washington. USGS Water Supply Paper 1135. NOAA. 1976. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed NOAA Western Regional Center Development. Sand Point, Seattle, Washington. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA. 1978a. Management Considerations for a Western Regional Center . Management Analysis Division. July. NOAA. 1978b. Operational Considerations for Site Selection of a Western Regional Center . Western Regional Center Project Office, July. Pacific Northwest Bell. 1976. Population and Household Trends in Washington, Oregon, and Northern Idaho - 1975-1990 . April"! Patten, B., W. McConnaha and L. Callahan. 1976. Aquatic Baseline Assessment of the Environs of Lake Washington at Sand Point - with Predic- tions on the Effects of Developing a Vessel Docking Center. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. R-4 Payne, Tim. 1978. Traffic Asst/Marketing, Washington State Ferries. Personal communication. May. Pearson, Jim. 1978. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Personal communication. Perkins, M. 1978. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Personal communication. Perrett, W. W. 1978. Chief of Police, City of Tacoma Police Department. Personal Communication. June 6. Price, Michael P. 1978. Chief, Sewer Utility Division, City of Tacoma, Public Works - Utility Services. Personal communication. May 17. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 1977. Air Monitoring Statis - tics for 1977 . Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 1977. Air Quality Data Summary, 1976 . Technical Services Division. Seattle, Washington. Raymond, John. 1978. Washington Department of Ecology. Personal communication. Roller, John A. 1978. Superintendant , Water Division, City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities. Personal communication. May 19. Sanderson, J. P., Jr. 1978. Superintendant, Kitsap County Department of Public Works. Personal communication. May 12. Scharf, Sgt. J. 1978. Planning and Research, Snohomish County Sheriff's Department. Personal Communication. June 6. Schmidt, K. 1977. Letter to Art Lum dated 29 June 1977. Seattle Department of Community Development. 1977. Seattle Shore! ine Management Master Program . Seattle, Washington. July 11. Seattle Office of Policy Planning. 1978. A Proposal for the Prepara - tion of Land Use Policies for Seattle . April. Seavy, G. Douglas. 1978. Chief of Police, City of Everett. Personal Communication. June 14. Short, Wesley P. 1978. Fire Chief, Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1. Personal communication. May 31. Smith, Jeanneane. 1978. City of Seattle Planner. Personal communi- cation. May 8. Snohomish County Planning Department. 1977. Possession Shores EIS. R-5 Snohomish County Planning Department. 1974. Snohomish County Shoreline Management Master Program . Everett, Washington. September. Snyder, G. 1978. Proposal for Monitoring the Effect of Dredging at the Proposed NOAA Western Regional Center Development. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Stewart, Willie C. 1978. Assistant Superintendant, Personnel, Tacoma Public School. Personal communication. May 30. Tacoma City Council. 1976. Master Program for Shoreline Development . Tacoma, Washington. December. Tacoma, City of. 1978. Tacoma Alternate Site Location for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Western Regional Center . May 1. Tacoma, City of. 1975. Land Use Management Plan - Goals and Policies for Physical Development . Tacoma, Washington. April 22. Terry, Herb. 1978. Customer Engineer, Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1. Personal communication. May 31. Thede, Pat. 1978. Washington Department of Ecology. Personal communi- cation. Thompson, N. C. 1978. Sewer Superintendent, City of Everett. Personal Communication. June 6. Tomlinson, R. D., R. J. Morrice, E. C. S. Duffield and R. I. Matsuda. 1977. A Baseline Study of the Water Quality, Sediments and Biota of Lake Union. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Turner, D. B. 1969. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates . U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-26. URS Company. 1977. Stormwater Management. Seattle, Washington. URS Company. 1976. Water Quality Summary of the Major Water Bodies in the Seattle Metropolitan Area. Seattle, Washington. URS Company. 1973. EIS on the Outer Hylebos Small Boat Basin. Tacoma, Washington. Seattle, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Unpublished sediment chemistry data for the East Waterway in Everett and the Hylebos Waterway in Tacoma. Seattle District, Washington. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA. 1977. Tide Tables 1978. National Ocean Survey, Washington D.C. R-6 U.S. Department of Commerce. 1973. Washington State Characteristics of the Population . January. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1973. Washington Population Employ - ment, and Housing Units Projected to 1990 . February! U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. "Mobile Source Emission Factors". Office of Transportation and Land Use Planning. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Compliation of Air Pollu - tant Emission Factors . Third Edition. Research Triange Park, North Carolina. Walters, K. L. and G. E. Kimmel. 1968. Groundwater Occurance and Stratigraphy of Unconsolidated Deposits. Central Pierce County, Washington. Water Supply Bulletin No. 22. Department of Natural Resources. Washington State, Department of Ecology. 1977. Washington State Air Monitoring Data for 1976 . Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Fisheries. 1978. Letter from Gordon Sandison, Director. Olympia, Washington. June 1. Washington Department of Fisheries. 1975. A Catalogue of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Olympia, Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1972. Washington Marine Atlas. Olympia, Washington. Washington Office of Fiscal Management. 1977. State of Washington Population Trends . August. Westley, R. E. 1978. Shellfish Management Chief, Washington Department of Fisheries. Brinnon, Washington. Personal communication. Wiatrak, Paul A. 1978. City Engineer, Seattle Engineering Department. Personal communication. May 22. Williams, Jeanette. 1978. Seattle City Council Woman. Personal communication. May 10. R-7 Appendices APPENDIX A NAVIGATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CANDIDATE SITES: NOAA WESTERN REGIONAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: William H. Van Horn URS Company San Mateo, CA July 1978 APPENDIX A NAVIGATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CANDIDATE SITES In this appendix the sites have been identified by names and differ from those used in the main body of the Supplemental EIS: EIS APPENDIX A North Hylebos Tacoma North South Hylebos Tacoma South South Mukilteo Mukilteo Also in this appendix reference to ports, e.g., the Port of Everett, is in the generic sense, including all facilities, private or public, within geographical confines as outlined by the Corps of Engineers in their various publications (see Appendix 3). A-i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Page I INTRODUCTION A-l Background A-l Approach A-l Candidate Sites and Options A-2 1 1 BASELINE A-5 Candidate Sites A-5 Existing and Projected Traffic Patterns A-ll Accident Baseline A-19 III IDENTIFICATION OF RISKS A-39 A Transit Through Puget Sound A-39 Direct Access A-41 The LWSC and Lake Washington A-43 NOAA Vessels A-52 Officers and Crews A-56 IV MAJOR MITIGATING MEASURES A-58 V NAVIGATIONAL RISK ANALYSIS FOR THE LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL A-63 Locational Risk A-66 Safety Weighting Factor A-70 Exposure to Risk A-70 Operational Risks A-71 VI COMPARISON OF CANDIDATE SITES A-74 VII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A-85 APPENDICES 1 Files Reviewed A-87 2 Persons and Organizations Contacted A-92 3 Major Standard References A-94 A-ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) APPENDICES Page 4 Characterization of NOAA Vessels Located at the Pacific Marine Center, Lake Union A-96 5 Criteria for Calculation of Locational Risks in the Lake Washington. Ship Canal A-109 6 NOAA Vessel Mishaps A-114 A-iii LIST OF FIGURES Number Page 1 Location of NOAA Candidate Sites A-6 2 Annual Volume of Commercial Freight and Passenger Traffic for Various Ports A-13 3 Indices of LWSC Usage by Commercial and Recreational Vessels, 1972-1976 A-14 4 NOAA Vessel Transi ts i n LWSC A-l 7 5 Average Transits Per Quarter by NOAA Vessel Class to Lake Union A-18 6 Commercial Ship Accidents in Greater Puget Sound A-22 7 Location of Freighter Accidents in the Port of Seattl e (1 974-1 9/7 ) A-28 8 Location of Freighter Accidents in the Port of Tacoma (1974-1977) A-29 9 Boating Accidents by Type in Greater Puget Sound A-34 10 Type and Location of Boating Accidents in the Lake Washi ngton Waterway A-35 11 Small Boat Accidents in and about LWSC A-36 12 Vessel Transit Routes to LWSC and Tacoma A-40 13 Features of the Lake Washington Ship Canal A-44 14 Large Class I NOAA Vessel Superimposed on the Portage Cut A-50 15 Composite Risk Values Derived from Estimated Frequency of Occurrence and Consequences to Property and/or Life and Limb A-66 16 Comparison of Risk for Alternative Sites and Options within the LWSC A-73 A-iv LIST OF TABLES Number Page 1 Candidate Sites and Options A-3 2 Baseline Characteristics of Candidate Locations Pertaining to Navigational Concerns A-12 3 Projections of Current and Future Boat Ownership, by Class, in Area 8 A-16 4 Characterization of Ship Accidents Occurring in Greater Puget Sound A-20 5 Frequency of Ship Accidents, by Cause, at Various Locations A-23 6 Dry Cargo Vessel (> 18 ft. draft) Accidents in the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett for the Period 1 974-1 977 A-25 7 Freighter ( > 18 ft. draft) Accident Rates for the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Everett Based on 1974-1977 Data A-30 8 Major Characteristics of NOAA Vessels Presently Based in Lake Union A-53 9 Candidate Mitigating Measures for LWSC for NOAA Vessel Transi ts A-59 10 Mitigating Measure Packages in LWSC A-62 11 Components of the Risk Analysis A-64 12 Example Matrix for Determining Locational Risks A-68 13 Summary of Value of Calculated Locational Risks A-69 14 Calculated Values for Operations Risks at Various Candidate Sites A-72 15 Comparison of Accident Rates at Candidate Sites A-75 16 Freighter Accident Rates at Several Major and Smaller Port Systems in the U . S A-78 17 Comparison of Accident Rates for Candidate Sites with National Average Accident Rates A-79 A-V LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Number Page 18 Ranking of Candidate Sites with Respect to Estimated Accidents to NOAA Vessels over Facility Lifetime A-81 19 Base and Incremental Accident Rates A-83 20 Categorization of NOAA Mishaps A-116 A-vi I. INTRODUCTION This report is an addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the URS Company for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It addresses only the navigational risks associated with the proposed NOAA Western Regional Center Development and for the candidate sites and options. The reader should refer to the Supplemental EIS for details on other respects of the proposed project. BACKGROUND This navigational risk assessment was undertaken as a result of a United States District Court injunction (Civil Action Number C77-914M) which, among other issues found the initial Final Environmental Impact Statement dated 30 January 1976 inadequate in its identification and consideration of navigational risks associated with the proposed transit of NOAA vessels through the Monti ake Cut into Lake Washington to a proposed site at Sand Point. Additionally, the court ruled that sufficient atten- tion had not been directed at alternate sites and options. Hence, this study is intended to identify and consider in detail all possible navi- gational risks associated with transit of NOAA vessels into any site or sites in Lake Washington; and to compare the navigational risks for all proposed sites and options, after appropriate mitigation measures have been applied. APPROACH Initially, the court ruling and all supporting evidence, was reviewed. Additional information from the public files as well as those from within NOAA, were examined in an effort to assess the perceived risks and to ensure full disclosures of known or suspected risks. A list of documents reviewed is given in Appendix 1. Additional inputs were obtained from interviews and/or contacts (primarily telephonic) with a variety of organi- zations and persons who had either expressed previous interest and/or concerns or who, in the course of the analysis, were identified as data resources. These organizations and individuals are shown in Appendix 2. These inputs, including continuing contact within the NOAA organization plus standard references, listed in Appendix 3, then provided the basic data inputs for the analysis. The navigational risk assessment methodology used required: estab- lishing a baseline of the present operations, usages of the water, accident rates, and NOAA vessel characteristics; next, all risks for each site were identified qualitatively emphasizing the location of potential accidents, A-l the likelihood of such accidents occurring, and the probable magnitude of consequences of any such accidents; then mitigating measures which might be incorporated into the project to reduce either the likelihood or the magnitude of the consequences of potential accidents were developed; a quantification, to the extent possible, of the mitigated risks was done; finally, the relative risks at each site compared. The intent of this study was to provide an objective analysis which, in as much detail as possible, would rank risks, providing useful informa- tion to the decision-maker. Data which were not fully documented were corroborated by one or more of the "experts". Where disagreement was identified, further investigation was undertaken to ensure that findings were either essentially correct or required modification. CANDIDATE SITES AND OPTIONS Three possible options were considered: a consolidated site in which all land based and water based operations are at one site; a split site configuration in which the water based (that is ships and support facili- ties) operations are at a separate location from the land based operations and a split site configuration with provision of a single berth staging pier adjacent to land operations at Sand Point. This last option, which applies only to split sites within the Lake Washington Ship Canal (LWSC), envisions the berthing of the fleet at one location with an occasional ship movement to Sand Point to expedite project work on the ship involved. Table 1 lists the proposed sites and possible options. Table 1 also makes a distinction between those sites with direct access, that is, located on Puget Sound and indirect access, that is, requiring movement through the Chittenden Locks and a portion or all of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. The advantage of a location in the freshwaters of LWSC and/or Lake Washington, are primarily two-fold: tidal variations are absent, elimi- nating certain problems associated with such variations; and freshwater tends to reduce corrosion and barnacle problems. On the other hand, salt- water and tidal candidate sites are always available without any require- ments to transit a lock system. However, these factors are operational concerns and do not pertain to navigational risks. Details on the candidate sites will be presented in subsequent sections. However, it should be noted that greater attention will be provided in this analysis to those candidate sites within the LWSC and Lake Washington for two reasons. First, the major concern of the court ruling had to do with A-2 TABLE 1. CANDIDATE SITES AND OPTIONS Split with Candidate Staging at Site Consolidated Split Sand Point Direct Access to Puget Sound Everett X Mulkiteo X Manchester X Tacoma North X Tacoma South X Indirect Access to Puget Sound Sand Point X Kenmore X Lake Union o PMC (present) X X o Dry dock X X Salmon Bay X X A-3 sites within this geographical area. Second, the navigational risks en- countered within the LWSC, in particular, are of a different type and degree than those identified elsewhere in more open waters. Hence, only by a detailed analysis of this particular waterway could an adequate assess- ment be made. A-4 II. BASELINE CANDIDATE SITES The candidate sites and the location of the candidate sites are shown on Figure 1. All sites are reached by a transit of the Strait of Juan De Fuca through Admiralty Inlet into Puget Sound proper. From there, just past Point No Point, vessels move to the respective candidate sites. Puget Sound, in general, offers sheltered berths and deep waters which provide for minimal navigational risks into and within Puget Sound itself. The climatic regime within Puget Sound is quite constant. Occasional storms can sustain winds of 40 knots which, in long fetches, can create waves of considerable magnitude. Fog occurs regularly with peak times in the winter months. It is generally a night and early morning fog which breaks by midday. Puget Sound also has a number of regularly scheduled ferry services. The Coast Guard maintains a Vessel Traffic System (VTS) including Greater Puget Sound and extending down to Tacoma, but not including the Lake Washington Ship Canal. This VTS includes designated traffic lanes, a variety of navigational tracking devices and a central control center in Seattle which maintains contact with vessels and advises them. The most northerly candidate site is at the Port of Everett, which is reached by a transit through Possession Sound into Port Gardener and then into East Waterway. Logging, lumber, and paper-related industry dominates the waterfront on Port Gardener and the related shipping activities. Several of the 17 piers in this area accommodate large ships and there is a 30-foot dredged channel, about 800 feet in width, into the East Waterway. Just north of the proposed site, the Snohomish River begins with a dredged channel which accommodates an additional number of shallow draft piers and log rafting activity. About one-third of the traffic each year is in rafted logs, most of which are ultimately exported. Total traffic in 1976 was just over 4 million tons. Tides and weather are similar to all other points in the Puget Sound area although because of its closer proximity to the ocean winds tend to be somewhat higher. Small boating activity is present but not unusually heavy nor concentrated near the commercial shipping activity. The entrance way is broad and visibility is good. The second candidate site is just south of Elliott Point and the small town of Mukilteo. The land portion of the site is located on a bluff above Possession Sound and the proposed piers would extend into the Sound. There is no present industrial waterside activity in the area and, because of the residential development to the north and south, none is likely in the future. The nearest support activity for marine services is Everett; A-5 4 -ui 32 ,30 31' 34 lO I 11 •l2 23« .19 20' ■22 '21 27 ,%25 26 28' Legend (^P Sites Selected for Environmental Analysis I Potential Alternative Sites (Numbers refer to Table 1 - 1 ) Note: Site No. 29 (Potential) located at Astoria, Oregon Scale in Miles Figure 1 Sites Considered for NO A A Regional Center however, most support would be drawn from Seattle. In order to reach the site of the proposed piers from the land side, it would be necessary to cross over the two main tracks of the Burlington Northern Railway which lie at the bottom of the bluff. The inshore waters are shallow so that considerable dredging to allow bringing in larger ships would be required. Because of the almost north-south alignment of Possession Sound, storm winds over the long fetches require a protected mooring; hence the need for breakwater into the proposed site is indicated. Climatically, this site is very similar to the Port of Everett. The Manchester site is reached by continuing down the main channel shipping lanes past the Port of Seattle, then veering west toward Bremerton, This site, which is just at the beginning of Rich Passage, does not present any special problems in its approach, although the ebbtides through Rich Passage produce some of the heavier currents (over 1 knot) in the Puget Sound area. Rich Passage, which has several visible shoals and one yery sharp turn, is regularly used by the Seattle-Bremerton Ferry, and to a lesser extent by naval vessels from the Bremerton Naval Shipyard. Boating traffic is generated from a number of private piers on adjacent residential areas but no large marinas are close by. The proposed Manchester site in Clam Bay (a large, very shallow bay with several hundred yards exposed at low tide) would necessitate either a great amount of dredging or a very long pier. Presently an aquaculture facility is located in the Bay. At this site additional navigational aids would be required and, possibly, a breakwater. Support services would be obtained from Seattle. The two other sites with direct access to Puget Sound are located in the Hylebos Waterway in the Port of Tacoma.* These sites are reached by a continuation on the traffic lanes into Commencement Bay where the Hylebos Waterway lies to the extreme north of the Bay. The Port of Tacoma, the second largest port in the State of Washington, handled just *As used in this report, and following the terminology and jurisdictional boundaries set forth by the Corps of Engineers in their publications (e.g., Port Series No. 35 and Waterborne Commerce of the U.S.), the Port of Tacoma includes all commercial facilities and shipping activities, public and private, within Commencement Bay and waterways connecting thereto. The "Port of Tacoma" in a more restricted sense refers to the municipal corporation which owns and operates several facilities within the Port of Tacoma. Unless specifically called out, all references in this study are to that larger entity which includes waterborne traffic using both public and private piers. The Corps of Engineers Series 35, "The Ports of Tacoma, Grays Harbor, and Olympia, Washington," Revised 1975, provdes detailed information on pier type, ownership, location, etc. within the Port of Tacoma. "Waterborne Commerce of the U.S.", published annually by the Corps of Engineers, provides information, by vessel class, on port calls to Tacoma, but not the individual waterways. A-7 over 10 million tons of vessel traffic in 1976; rafted logs accounted for 2 percent of this total. About 200,000 passengers were moved by ferry from the south side of Commencement Bay; however, no interface with traffic following the designated traffic lanes (in East Passage) to the Hylebos Waterway occurs. Traffic is not growing greatly although the Port is aggressively attempting to increase trade. The Hylebos Waterway, including piers fronting on Commencement Bay, encompasses 32 piers according to the Corps of Engineers (1975). Thir- teen piers can accommodate ocean-going vessels; commodities handled at these facilities include chemicals, petroleum, and logs. Naval vessels also use piers at the entrance of the Waterway. Seven piers are used by firms concerned with ship repair, fitting or building. The remaining shallow draft piers are used for barge or tug mooring, or for movement of commodities (logs, fuel oil, sand and gravel). Ships using the upper portion of the 2.8 mile Waterway utilize a turning basin at its terminus. The North Tacoma site is about a mile above the entrance to the waterway on the north shore and would provide sufficient waterside space for N0AA vessels after construction (involving both dredging and filling). The 190 foot wide channel with a project depth of 30 feet is heavily used by large ocean-going cargo ships. The South Tacoma candidate site is reached by movement through the East 11th Street Bridge to a distance about 2 miles above the entrance to the waterway. The waterway narrows to 160 feet above the bridge while the project depth remains at 30 feet. A number of industrial sites are found beyond this point and a turning basin has been established to accommodate large vessels. The East 11th Street Bridge was constructed in the mid-30' s, and because of its age, has a history of failure. However, extensive maintenance activities are scheduled for the bridge to ensure prolonged life and assured operation for the next decade. In case of bridge failure, it is left in the open position to allow access by ships to the piers east of it. This bridge, which is operated by the State of Washington, is tended 24 hours per day. The South Tacoma site would require both excavation and dredging in order to provide adequate waterfront footage in the limited space available, The remainder of the candidate sites are all reached through the Lake Washington Ship Canal (LWSC), that is, by indirect access. (The LWSC is considered by the Corps of Engineers, as a part of the Port of Seattle -- a generic entity not to be confused with the "Port of Seattle," a munici- pal corporation which owns and operates a number of piers on Elliott Bay, in the Duwamish Waterway and in the LWSC. Data for the LWSC are separated by the C0E from that for the Port of Seattle within Elliott Bay.) The Lake Washington Ship Canal was constructed initially to promote industrial development on Lake Washington by allowing access by ocean-going vessels. A-8 The LWSC is entered by a large lock (a smaller lock is used for smaller vessels) which provides a constant freshwater level.* Lake Washington, which requires transit of the entire LWSC, was mostly heavily used industrially during World War II and shortly thereafter. A brief resurgence in usage occurred in the early 1970* s in support of the Aleyska pipeline. Although accurate records as to exact usage were not developed, it is known that the LWSC was used by medium-sized freighters and tankers, most of which were larger than the largest of the NOAA vessels. However, following the cleanup of the waters of Lake Washington, industrial activity in Lake Washington itself has decreased markedly as have the transits of the LWSC to it by ocean-going vessels. At the same time, the residential and recreational activities on Lake Washington have increased and have extended to some considerable extent into the eastern reaches of the LWSC. Recreational vessels also use the LWSC to reach the open waters of Puget Sound. Boating traffic density, at peak periods, is considerably higher in the restricted waters of Lake Union. Climatic conditions within the LWSC and Lake Washington are similar to those found elsewhere in the Puget Sound area. Within the locks, tidal variations are absent and currents are weak or negligible except in a few areas which are well known to the knowledgeable sailor. Much of the LWSC is sheltered by adjacent hills so that winds are much lower than in the open waters of Puget Sound. To a somewhat lesser extent, Lake Union and Lake Washington also are sheltered from prevailing winds. The two cuts in the LWSC, which pose constraints on maneuvering room for larger vessels, are less susceptible to beam winds which could increase maneuvering difficulties, According to Nickum and Spaulding (Sept. 1, 1977): "It must be noted, however, in the most restricted part of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, the Montlake Cut, where the banks on either side rise to a height of approximately 60 ft., the vessel's hull and superstructure are completely blanketed from beam winds. Any sailor attempting to sail through the cut without power has knowledge of this fact. The other restricted area of the Lake Washington Ship Canal is from the Fremont Bridge to the site of the old Northern Pacific Railroad Bridge which has its banks lined with tall poplar trees and industrial buildings. These obstructions shield the vessel's hull and superstructure from beam winds. Observations show that prevailing winds tend to align with the longitudial axis of the canal rather than across it which minimizes the problem of ship maneuverability while transiting the canal." *The limiting dimensions on the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks are 29.4 feet depth and 80 feet width. The Locks are normally closed down with adequate notice, for about two weeks each year for maintenance. Other major con- straints within the LWSC are the Fremont Cut and the Portage (Montlake) Cut, both with controlling depths of about 27 feet and channel width of 105 feet. A-9 Vessel traffic into LWSC, which is part of the Port of Seattle, fluc- tuates considerably; in 1976 it amounted to almost 1.4 million tons, of which almost 400,000 tons was rafted logs. On the average about 40 percent of this traffic moves on to Lake Washington, and consists almost entirely of log rafts and sand and gravel barges. Commercial activity within the LWSC is concentrated in Salmon Bay just inside the Chittenden Locks, and in Lake Union, the site of the present N0AA ship base. Transit of the LWSC requires passage through one or more bascule (draw) bridges. Because of the heavy vehicular traffic on these bridges, there is an inherent conflict between traffic in the LWSC and that on the surface. Hence, bridge tenders, who are employees of the City of Seattle, must use best judgment in traffic control and may, on occasion, delay waterborne traffic. Officially, vessels of less than 1,000 tons cannot request a bridge opening during the peak vehicular traffic hours of 7 to 9 a.m. and 5 to 7 p.m. on weekdays. As a matter of self-imposed policy N0AA vessels do not request bridge openings, during these hours. The first candidate site within the LWSC is on the north shore of Salmon Bay just west of the Ballard Bridge. This is a split site alterna- tive; that is, all the ships would be based here whereas land operations would be at Sand Point. As an option, an occasional ship from this mooring might proceed to a staging pier at Sand Point. Water depths are adequate at this candidate site and maneuvering room, after construction, would be adequate for N0AA vessels. Two candidate split sites are located on Lake Union, one at the existing Pacific Marine Center (PMC) operation on the southeast shore of the lake and the other just adjacent to the south of it at the existing Lake Union Drydock Company. Both sites are accessible and both could also be used optionally as split sites with occasional passage to a staging pier at Sand Point. The next candidate site is a consolidated operation at Sand Point. A possible option for this site is that of a single staging pier which could accommodate one or two N0AA vessels being equipped for research efforts. In both the consolidated and staging pier concept, vessels would be moored to the north of Sand Point in a relatively sheltered and accessible area. Dredging would be required for the piers. The final site proposed is at Kenmore at the north end of Lake Washington. This is proposed as a consolidated site with all ships moored there. Presently there is a fair amount of tug and barge activity (primarily sand and gravel), pleasure boating (including a large marine sales operation), and a seaplane base located near the candidate site. The lake is quite shallow at this point and considerable dredging would have to be undertaken to permit mooring of N0AA vessels in this location. Also, the Sammamish River feeds into Lake Washington at this point so that fairly frequent maintenance dredging would be required. A-10 The characteristics of the candidate locations discussed, in relation to navigational concerns, are summarized in Table 2. In most cases only a relative ranking is given since the table is intended to provide the reader with an overview of the candidate sites. Additional information can be obtained from the Supplemental EIS and from standard references shown in Appendix 3. EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC PATTERNS Figure 2 shows the annual volume of commercial freight and passenger traffic for the various major ports on or about sites which are under consideration for NOAA facilities. These data covering the years 1971 to 1976 show, in general, a modest growth pattern for the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, with a slight decline for the Port of Everett and for the Lake Washington Ship Canal portion of the Port of Seattle. The Corps of Engineers indicates that no substantial growth in commercial traffic is anticipated at any of these ports. However, a rather consistent growth is noted for the passenger volumes carried by the numerous ferries in the Port of Seattle. From Figure 2 it is obvious that commercial traffic is greatest at the Port of Seattle; most of this traffic concentrated in Elliott Bay and less than 15 percent in the Lake Washington Ship Canal. These commercial transits within the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Washington have been further differentiated using a Corps of Engineer printout (Water- borne Statistics, New Orleans). Figure 3 shows values normalized for 1972. Actual values can be obtained by taking the 1972 base, shown on the figure, and multiplying it by the appropriate normalized values for any given year. For example, the number of commercial transits into Lake Union from Puget Sound in 1976 was about 7,400 (8,176 x .9 = 7,358) while those commercial transits from Lake Union to Lake Washington were only about 1,900 (1,007 x 1.9 = 1,913). Similarly, the recreational transits through the Chittenden Locks exceeded 77,000 in 1976. Figure 3 is valuable in indicating trends in the waterway usage. Thus, commercial transits from Puget Sound to Lake Union and from Lake Union to Lake Washington have declined at about the same rate in the last few years. (The marked increase in the transits from Lake Union to Lake Washington from 1972 to 1974 was almost entirely attributable to activity associated with construction of the Alaskan pipeline). In general then, commercial usage within the Canal (including Lake Union) and within Lake Washington is dropping, although annual variations can be appreciable. On the other hand, recreational usage of these waters is increasing as can be seen in the increased recreational transits through the Chittenden Locks between 1972 and 1976. The increase in the annual number of bridge openings over a 5 year period (comparing 1972 to 1977) also attest to the increased use of the LWSC: A-ll c x: (U O +J ■•- o C XI -D 3 , ,— -- (U i- Ol 1- QJ > Ot o s- >, -— QJ ■— QJ S- > (_ O S~ >, <— O 0J i— at > at at > s_ o (- >> o ai i— at t- xi > at > oj CD (13 X) fD > QJ 0J at at it) fD QJ TO (Ll ro > i- > i~ o at o at QJ f0 QJ fD > i- > S_ o at o a> 3 t- > t- o a< o at 3 CTD fl-r CO fO •i- QJ C > "O QJ •r- -a •^ fD V) L. c 3 E -c Q. S- -M m « S_ '^ >> 3 o fO QJ t- E CO E QJ xj E aj c A3 CO ound rther Surv summe +■> XI oo 3 cr Q. 3 U_ rO C fD a> co 4J Q) -r- E en a> e> JZ QJ a> QJ TD en «ox) u E c c E +J S~ i3 at E c M- LU to o 4-> tn OJ s- 3 0) x: c +J aj 3 en o CO c fO 4-> U C OJ * E x: at +-» > year in the under Basel i h the Nationa y be encounte QJ at _c 3 O l-Xl enro E 3 c +-> O E qj o> 3 E O o QJ o 10 aw o >. c E o l- <*- x; QJ +-> xr -r- ■M 2 days iscus e thr which >> E T3 r— o c o -a >» s- ••- 1 ••— t— *f- u LT> *i- > en QJ OJ cO ra *f- QJ at a. >» t- ■M > +-> 3 3 C c >> fO u +-> i- (O u O o o o -*-> 3 O) 3 O fd cr c ai c- fO CO 5 i— -a rO +-» "O co cr O 3 E O •— oo +-> obi ems abo existing p fie Coast, en cr +j rd O XI at aj at at * oj i_ -f- o E E E c (O co en Q. S- U O o O o 0) E 3 O fO -(-> CO CO CO c -a cr 3 i- a. o +J cr CO 1_ at qj x: bility vity f t 7, P c 3 o E ra in O CO +-> •<- ••- O en CD CO c: i- CO -4-> . — cr > (O Cl- o ro r0 ^ CO c at c +j C «=t" Oi en t— < c io ■ — +-> * >^ **- o "O O- CO ■■— ro +-» (J j-> en ■♦-> u at • +-> 3 U O fD C at ai i~- CO fl S-U CO at QJ •-- > >^ cr, x: a* ai CJ QJ S- E ■i- i- "O 3 +j E x: E • at E U fD ■*-> 1- cr E en en E is) <+- O aj o u ai i- at c 3 »i- o o • a* o ro en x> fD Li_ cn t- m x: Ll. t_> ZD cc en n3 a> ■»-> cr CL C r- CO o cu s- -o V- s- q. cr Q. i- C7> ia o -w E O O ■!-> >*- CL A-12 18 16 14 12 c o I 10 E I 8 to 3 C C < Seattle (incl. LWSC) Tacoma ,-- Seattle (incl. LWSC) Everett LWSC Only Tacoma 1971 1972 1973 1974 Year 1975 1976 _ Total Traffic, Including Rafted, in Tons — Passengers, Number Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1976, Corps of Engineers. Figure 2 Annual Volume of Commercial Freight and Passenger Traffic for Various Ports 3.0 2.75 2.50 - > S 2.25 Q. /S. q " 2 CM * u Commercial Transists, Lake Union to QJ Lake Washington ■i 1 - 75 (Base = 1007) > -a a> _N 1 1.50 o 2 * Recreational Transits S^ through Chittenden Locks 1.25 (Base = 54,006) 1.0 Commercial Transits, -s^ Puget Sound to Lake Union (Base = 8176) 75 i i i > f 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Sources: City of Seattle Bridge Maintenance Department and Corps of Engineers Waterborne Statistics Division, New Orleans. Figure 3 Indices of Lake Washington Ship Canal Usage by Commercial and Recreational Vessels, 1972-1976 Bridge Incremental Increase Montlake 2,677 University 3,530 Ballard 3,166 Fremont 4,796 The incremental increases, in view of the almost stable commercial traffic volume, are attributed to increased recreational traffic. (The appreciably higher incremental increase for the Fremont Bridge is related to its lower vertical clearance which required smaller boats to request an opening. ) An estimate of projected recreational boat ownership in the LWSC has been developed. This projection (Table 3), based on a study done by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission in 1968, lists pro- jections for 1977 and 2000, based on an estimated growth of 3-9/16 percent per annum to 1980 and 3-3/8 percent per annum thereafter. Thus, by the end of the century boat ownership within the LWSC and Lake Washington is expected to more than double, with smaller boats continuing to predominate. The placement of these craft is, of course, uncertain but, their use in the eastern portion of the LWSC and in Lake Washington seems to be becoming increasingly popular.* Vessels owned by N0AA and predecessor agencies have been using the LWSC to reach their home port at Lake Union for well over 30 years. Exist- ing vessels which will be described subsequently in more detail, range in size from less than 100 feet to 303 feet in length and, for ease of designation, are subdivided into five different classes, Class I being the largest.** This fleet of 10 vessels averages about six transits per month as shown in Figure 4. The marked decrease in transits in December and January reflect the usual practice of having the ships "home" for the holiday season. Figure 5 has been prepared which shows by class of ship, the number of transits through the LWSC each quarter. Some interesting variations are revealed. Based upon this 3-year record, the Class I and Class II ships use the LWSC most frequently in the third quarter (July, August, and September) and the least in the first quarter (January, February, and March). On the other hand, the smaller Class III *For example, the University of Washington reported that from July 1, 1976 to June 30, 1977, there were approximately 132,000 individual rentals of sailboats and canoes from their facility located at the west end of Union Bay Reach. These rentals involved 370 sailboats, canoes and other small craft. By comparison, in the early 50' s this facility had 20 to 30 canoes for rent. **PMC currently has no Class IV vessels quartered in Seattle. A-15 TABLE 3. PROJECTIONS OF CURRENT AND FUTURE BOAT OWNERSHIP, BY CLASS, IN AREA 8 (the LWSC and Lake Washington) Type 1977 2000 Motorboat o Inboard 5,400 11,600 o Outboard 28,000 60,200 Sai "I boats o Auxiliary 440 950 o w/o power 1,870 4,000 Miscellaneous (canoes, etc) 19,600 42,200 53,310 118,950 A- 16 Figure 4 NOAA Vessel Transits in Lake Washington Ship Canal «3 D o - ^i_ 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Class I Ships Class II Ships Class III Ships Source : Pacific Marine Center, NOAA Figure 5 Average Transits Per Quarter by NOAA Vessel Class to Lake Union ships peak in the second quarter (April, May, and June), and are lowest in the third quarter. The two Class V ships (not shown) have maximum transits in the winter months. The historical data in Figure 5, although indicative for the 3 year period, are limited in forecasting future use patterns and total usage because of changing program requirements. For example, in the FEIS, p. 16, transits reported are: 1972 1973 1974 100 (approx.) 100 (approx.) 48 Whereas more recently total transits were: 1975 82 1976 67 1977 69 Further, the number of ships in the NOAA fleet fluctuates somewhat, although the maximum number proposed for the forseeable future is 12 as against the current 10. For purposes of projection through the year 2000, the 6 year average (73.4 annual transits) was used as a base and a maximum estimate of 120 transits (60 port calls) per year was determined. This value of 120 transits per year, representing a "worst case" condition, was applied to the use pattern, by quarter, shown in Figure 5, in subsequent analyses. ACCIDENT BASELINE Commercial Vessels With the cooperation of the Marine Safety Division of the 13th Coast Guard District, accident reports for the Greater Puget Sound waters (reports from as far north as Anacortes and as far south as Tacoma) were surveyed for the period 1974 through 1977 by 0. Leon Crain of URS. In this initial assessment all commercial vessel accidents, including those involving freighters, tankers, tugs, barges, and fishing vessels, were considered. (In a later review of the discussed subsequently, the same files provided more information on dry cargo vessel (with draft >18 ft.) Ports of Everett, Seattle and Tacoma.) By initially considering a]J_ commercial accidents, rather than just dry cargo vessels ("freighters") which are most comparable to NOAA vessels, the cause and location of accidents could be better defined (i.e., by increasing the data base to include all accidents - not just the 18% represented by freighters - more information could be deduced). Of interest is the type of ship accidents which were found. Table 4 shows the percent of total accidents due to Coast Guard files, detailed accident accidents for the A-19 TABLE 4. CHARACTERIZATION OF SHIP ACCIDENTS OCCURRING IN GREATER PUGET SOUND Typical % by Vessel Size, tons Percent Acci dents Due to - Vessel Rammin g Grounding Col 1 ision Fire Other Type Vessel Type Tug 100-500 32 16 24 ? 26 35 Barge 1 ,000-5,000 Freighter >10,000 53 3 22 16 6 18 Tanker >10,000 100 -- -- -- -- 3 Fishing Boat <50 9 21 30 21 19 26 Ferry 1 ,000-5,000 65 18 5 -- 12 10 Other 8 100 Source: 13th Coast Guard District and URS. A-20 various causes and attributable to various vessel types. Freighters which, of the commercial categories, are most similar to NOAA vessels, accounted for 18 percent of the total accidents.* A majority (53%) of freighter accidents were due to ramming; 22 percent to collision with other vessels; 16 percent to fire; 3 percent to grounding; and 6 percent to miscellaneous other causes. Commercial ship accidents, based on the data for Greater Puget Sound, do not vary greatly on a monthly or seasonal basis (Fig. 6). A similar analysis indicated that the average number of accidents remains almost constant throughout each 24-hour day suggesting that nighttime movement is relatively safe. Table 5 shows the annual frequency of ship accidents, based on these same files, and their cause at several locations thoughout Puget Sound. Of particular interest is the breakdown of accidents by cause, within the LWSC. Table 5 can not be used, however, to directly determine accident rates for freighters alone. Casualty (i.e., accident) rates for freighters have only in recent years been the subject of statistical correlation (tankers, because of the concern with oil spills, have been more thoroughly studied). Recently the Oceanographic Institute of Washington made a study of freighter accident rates which was useful in the present study.** In the OIW study the accident rates for a number of major (including Greater Puget Sound) and small port systems were determined, using Coast Guard data, and a relationship between the number of port calls and the number of accidents was determined.*** The relationship established is of the form: *N0AA vessels are substantially different from commercial vessels in many respects, particularly in propulsion. Unfortunately, research vessels, such as the NOAA fleet, are too small in number to appear as a separate category in Coast Guard statistics. The choice of freighters, upon which a good statistical base is available, is a reasonable alternative, since freighters share the same general vessel configuration as do larger NOAA vessels. Ocean-going passenger vessels, although more similar to research vessels, again have a very small statistical base -- especially in Puget Sound. For further detail see Appendix 4. **DuPont Navigational Risk Assessment, Report to Weyerhaeuser Company by the Oceanographic Institute of Washington (OIW), September 1977, also addendum dated 22 May 1978. ***It has been found that traffic density as measured by port calls, corre- lates more closely with number of accidents than do other indices such as cargo tonnage. One port call consists of two transits (inbound plus outbound). A-21 Average Number /\ /\ i i / i i i i i I i n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Source: 13th Coast Guard District and URS. Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 6 Commercial Ship Accidents in Greater Puget Sound \£> en n u> CM ^O <-* CM m o lT) m fNJ O CNI LD in CO cc a? O -^ o c T JZ (V => Z£ cv c E c eo a. J Tl O JZ C TJ T uJ Q uO UO i_) _j _j ro .c 01 "□ a. ■a w HJ Of T3 3 c C7: a* Zi T3 C U U 0J *U en T1 at O -Q cu > * E 3 CJ o ceo < -j _ A-23 Accidents = K (number of port calls) Where: K = 0.0016 for smaller port systems (< 1,500 port calls/yr) K = 0.0035 for larger port systems (>1,500 port calls/yr) K is normally expressed as accidents/1,000 port calls, e.g., 1.6 accidents/1,000 port calls. The value reported by 0IW for the Puget Sound Port system (which includes all ports, both large and small, within the waters generally referred to as Greater Puget Sound) was 3.6 accidents per 1,000 port calls (that is, K = 0.0036). However, to better differentiate accident rate patterns which might exist within this port system, particularly as related to candidate sites, more detailed information on ship accidents was obtained in a second examination of the Coast Guard files pertaining only to accidents to dry cargo vessels (freighters, bulk cargo carriers, etc.) with drafts of greater than 18 feet. Further, only accidents relating to ramming (bridges, piers, or other objects), collision with another vessel or floating object or grounding were considered, since such accidents are the best indices of operational constraints, such as fog, erratic currents, narrow channels, etc., associated with a particular port. Accidents involving collision, ramming or grounding (C/R/G) were identified for the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett. A list of these accidents is shown in Table 6. The table includes the Coast Guard file number (files are available for inspection at the Marine Safety Office of the 13th Coast Guard District at Pier 26 in Seattle); locale and the location of the accident keyed to maps (Seattle, Fig. 7; Tacoma, Fig. 8); the vessel name, whether assisted by a tug at the time of the accident or not; the type of casualty; and finally, the total monetary damage to both the vessel and other property caused by the accident. These data for C/R/G accidents were used to calculate accident rates for this 4-year period, for the identified ports, as shown in Table 7. Accidents have been categorized as either minor, that is, damage of between $1,500 and $10,000, or major, that is, damage exceeding $10,000. In addi- tion, other types of accidents which included those involving fire or mechanical failure on the vessel resulting in damage only to the vessel itself were identified; these, following the 0IW practice, are included as a part of the overall accident rate for the port. The accident rate was then calculated for each category; that is, minor, major, and overall, as shown. Not unexpectedly, the accident rates for the larger Ports of Seattle and Tacoma were well above the average found for Greater Puget Sound while that for the smaller Port of Everett was well below. The accident rate developed for the Port of Seattle was not applied to the LWSC which is physically removed from Elliott Bay and has a different use and accident pattern (although the LWSC accounts for about 15% of all port calls to the Port of Seattle - according to the Corps of Engineers - no_ freighter accidents were reported in its confines, i.e., from Shilshole A-24 r>» <3- r-* CT> t— t cc O Q ^O O i— i 2: cc —> 3: Q J— z: => CC QC u_ 1— «1— CU UJ 2: a: of q — 2: =c h- «=c 2: 2: UJ o Q C_> »-h cc o h- 4- I— 03 cc t- UJ "O OO ■M O 4- 00 00 I— h q; A ° OO OO o 2: e? o o: 1— 1 - _i a: o Q O to CO to ■a c c CU i- O 00 ■r- •r - -M sz S O E •r— O) CU >> 4-> E c 4-> 03 E 03 to s- O S- 3 S- O C3 Ul CD 03 E,_ 03 <— Q§ 00 L< X 00L-0L X X X X X X X £^ OL-9'L X X X X X X 4-> 6uLpunoag X X 3 03 U0LSL[L03 X X 4- en ' -iBM^O O a. E E 'jaj. VI 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3 00 CU CO CU CU CU CU CU CU 1- - >- >- >- >- 2: >- >- >- CU C •r- O S- s- CO c E •r- •r— •r— >> -x. 03 •r— 03 A3 -O 03 c 03 ±£ 03 C_) S- +J 2T 2: 3 21 03 s 03 00 c S- ■l-> 03 t a: •t— ■0 QQ 3 •r- O =J •r— CU c C c J- C 1— CU r— •1— 4-> Q ja 00 03 03 cu 03 t— -a -!-> =3 4- J= CU E 00 en •1— •r— CJ> r^ r— 03 >> 00 03 •r— 01 O 00 3 CU ai S- "O CU CU 03 O •r— 00 O CU r— 2: r^ > S- 03 c S- 2*L CU r— S- 03 03 •r— 00 O 2: 1— 1 OO 00 _J ZD (_> in to <3- *d- ^> in tn r<» to to to r^ r». r^ r~» r^. .»■« r-» r^. '■^^, r>» r^ l-«. to ^^, r^. r^ r» CU ■^ **>. ~>^ *~^ ^^. in ^. "v^. ■^^ r» ^^. r>- *^» +J T— 1 r»« CT> CO LD CM r-t r^. CO ^%^ t— i 00 •^^ 00 03 CM f— 1 CNJ CM CM ^•^ 1— 1 i-H CM t-H "v^ CM in r— Q "^. ■v^^ >>, •^^ "^ ~»^ -^ "■■v. "«««, 1— 1 > -^ s- ^v. "~s^ «=*• 00 00 r-l CO i-H CM in in cr> T-H t-H CM CM r-> <" »a i-H C\J CO >* IT) to r^ 00 (T> T-H CM co ^J- 2: c CD CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU +-> 03 +-> +-> +-> +-> +-> +-> 4-> ■M ■M -M ■f-> 4-> -M +J (_) +J 4-> +-» 4-> +-> 4-> •i-» 4-> 4-> +-> 4-> ■!-> ■»-> ■M 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 1 CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU a> CU 0) 00 00 00 O0 O0 OO 00 OO OO OO 00 OO OO 00 "O "vf «3- «3- in to to to f^«. r>. r». S- r~- r>« r»» IX) in r^» to to r-» r«» l^» r^ r>. r^. 03 ~^ -v^ *»^ r-. !~«. ^^_ l^» r^ ">v» ^v» ^^, ^. "•«^ *~v. 13 Lf) CD CM ■^^ ^^^ to *v»^ ■^>. I-H o> 00 CO r^. CD O CO r^. en cr» in t-H to 00 r— 1 'i- (T) t-H CM CM 2T 1— « CNJ CM i-H to CM in 00 I— 1 i-H i-H •^ ^N^ *v^. -M ^•^ ^^ *^ *\ ^^ "^^^ ^^^ ^^ -^ "^^ ^^ CM CM CM 00 cn CX> o\ CT> cn CT> cr> cr> en to to to <_> Li_ LO LO LO IT) in in in in in in in I-H i-H i-H A-25 r^. i <3- r^ cr> r-H O Q \o 21 on l-H ct C_> H- C_> < •> 03 - — CO CD CD O CD CD *r m i- 00 00 O 4- 4-> -C 4- ■*-> c +-> >, ■1— CD 03 >i ^: ^: E CD > CJ E -O 03 +J CD O CD 03 ZJ O CNJ rc Q. H- CD E_ 00 L< X X 00L-0L X X X X X ■25 i— OL-5'L X X X X X X >> 6iiLpuncu9 X X 03 =3 (/> U0LSL[[03 X X X X O 4- C7) ^mo O O) Q- E E 'Jaij X X X X a; a6pug X X X X 4-> 00 •1— CD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 3 00 CD CD CD CD CD CD O CD CD CD 1- <£ >- >- >- >- ■21 21 >- >- 21 >- >- >- CD CD jz ZJ CD E 21 c 00 t— , S- 03 03 C •t— r — r-t 03 c t— 1 — ■ 3 S- 03 •r— =«= ZJ s: 03 1 — •1— s_ O s: 3Z S. i- N CD 03 03 00 00 03 u 3 03 03 r— tO •r~i ^ SI 3 •!- c 3 -a c •r- J3 (O s- SI 2 CD S- U. .a s- 03 JD 03 i- 4-> C S- 03 03 00 S- 03 O E Q. -^ E E CD C -r- 03 s: O NZ 00 0) S- >> J^ 3 03 00 3 03 +J 03 03 -^ >> CD CD > 03 +-> Z3 r— O 03 1— 00 r— CXI 1— *r— •1— C > 03 +-> 03 >) O ^— 03 +J •r" •"-3 CD O CO _ CO VI O -_SE— O O N^ >- , , LO LO «SJ" r-^ r^> LO vr> UD CO . r^» r~>. CD r-^ ^\ 1— t CNJ -^ •^^^ — ^ "^s^ -^ r-^ -l-> ~"v». co CNJ CNJ UD UD 1— t LO CNJ r-^ r~^ ^x. n3 CNJ r— 1 ^\ ^^^ "^^ 1— 1 CNJ l-H CNJ CNJ r-H c» Q ^v. ** — O i—l CNJ ■v^ ■^^ ' — ^ CNJ ^*^ ^^^ ^ — ^1- t^. 1— 1 l-H <— t CNJ CNJ CO cr> »-H >^- CO >o CD LO 1— 1 CNJ CO <^- LO CD r^ 00 «— 1 CNJ 1— 1 r-i I—l r-H c •r— CD -M 1— • 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 ro 4-> E E E E E E E E E E E E u ■»-> O O O O O O O O O O O O 03 O O O O O O O u U (J CJ O 1 CD 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 CO K- H- H- h- y— 1— 1— I— 1— h- 1— 1— r^» r^ "O S_ 03 1^. ^J- LO LO LO VO <£> r^. r^ 1^ r-^ r^ r^. r^. r*~- 10 UD CO r^ r^ r^. ^^ •~s^ "*-^ ■*^-^ *^ *^ ^*^ r-^ r^>. r-^ «^^ *^^^ LO 00 ZJ • I— 1 00 CO f— 1 CNJ CO »=J- cr> t— 1 LO 00 1— t H "*^ CVJ CVJ CNJ CNJ CO r^ 00 i—l CNJ *\ ^>^ *^s^ 00 ^^ ***^ "^v^ \^ * — b ^^^^ -^^ CNJ CNJ CNJ 00 CD CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO fO >~ O -r- CJ> Lu r-- *3- «3- «3" «^- •=i- «=3- «=3- «^- «3- r-» r>. r^ vo CT> CTt CT> cr> CT> cn C3^ CT> cr> CO CO vo •—I LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1— 1 T— 1 - 1 A-26 r-^ «3- r~^ CTl «— t cc O Q \o Q i-t 2: q; q: oc li- cj h- «l— O LlJ 2: cc: t— t UJ S > 21 LU Cd Q 2T <=t CO 1— h- 4- H- ^— ■* T3 2: a> 3 o; h-i c «=t CO 'i — <_) l-H +-> __i c: >- _J DC O C_> Q O to +J c a> E E o cu en o, +-> ra =3 CO 03 O Q_ 00 L< 00L-0L L-9 * L = 6uj.punojg U0LSL[[03 en c E E rO cc: J91U0 ; J3L(j 96pug ! CD CD O ra s- X 4-> CO cn oo 3 1/1 CO >- CD E r0 cu 00 ro c ra ai s_ o ^c T3 CO CD 4-> (T3 o KD CO D- TO TO o 2: O c o •I — ra <_> o T3 CJ3 to ro O O CU 1^- 00 CVJ <3- co ro E O o ro LO CXI ro cu s- Qi > CO ro en LO CU +-> ro CD CO +-> o S- 4-> CO C3 O 4-> CO CO cu ■a s- (O O CO ro O c_3 CO CU o S- o CO A-27 PUG ET SOUND Seattle AIki Point 1 ,00 2,000 I yards Figure 7 Location of Freighter Accidents in the Port of Seattle (1974-1977) Commencement Bay 500 1 , 000 1,5 00 I yards Figure 8 Location of Freighter Accidents in the Port of Tacoma (1974-1977) TABLE 7. FREIGHTER ( >18 FT. DRAFT) ACCIDENT RATES FOR THE PORTS OF SEATTLE, TACOMA AND EVERETT BASED ON 1974-77 DATA Number C/R/G 4 Accidents Other 5 Port 6 Calls Ace i dents/1, Port Call 000 s Port Minor Major Minor Major All Seattle 1 6 9 6 4,086 1.5 2.2 5.1 T 2 Tacoma 7 6 2 2,034 3.4 3.0 7.4 3 Everett I 7 — -- 548 1.8 — 1.8 Port of Seattle, as used here, includes Elliott Bay and the Duwamish Waterway; it does not include the LWSC because no freighter accidents were reported for it. Port of Tacoma, as used here, includes Commencement Bay and all water- ways connecting thereto. Port of Everett, as used here, includes Port Gardner and piers capable of accepting ocean-going vessels; it does not include the Snohomish River. Number of accidents taken from Table 6. Minor accidents are defined as involving total damage (to vessel and to other property) of between $1,500 and $10,000. Major accidents are defined as involving total damage in excess of $10,000. Includes accidents such as fire and mechanical failure. These accidents are included in the "all" or total accident rate calculations. Port calls are defined for all dry cargo vessels greater than 18 foot draft, as: annual inbound calls + annual outbound calls Data for the years 1974-1976 were obtained from "Waterborne Commerce of the United States," published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers annually. The value for 1977 (the annual report has not been published at this time) was estimated by averaging the values for 1975 and 1976. The one accident in the Port of Everett is not technically "reportable" since total property damage was somewhat less than $1,500. It has been treated as "reportable", however, in lieu of disregarding it and arriving at an unreal istically low accident rate of zero for the Port of Everett. A-30 Bay to Lake Washington). Hence, a separate analysis, described later, was required for the LWSC. Although the Port of Tacoma consists of a series of waterways (in which most accidents occur) differentiation of accident rates in each waterway was not possible because the Corps of Engineers data on port calls is not so disaggregated. However, from Figure 8 it is evident that the Blair Waterway has had considerably more accidents in the period covered (1974-1977) than have other waterways. In the absence of data on port calls to the various waterways, no definitive accident rates can be determined for the candidate sites on the Hylebos Waterway. However, on a judgmental basis, it would appear that the Hylebos Waterway is likely to have a lower accident rate than that for the Port of Tacoma and, if such is true, the Blair Waterway would be expected to have a higher than average accident rate. However, in lieu of more detailed data, the accident rate for the Port of Tacoma has been applied to candidate sites on the Hylebos Waterway. Accident rates were not obtainable for the candidate sites at Man- chester and Muilteo which, at present, have no shipping activity. In lieu of historical data for these two sites, an accident rate, based on the historically-derived data developed for small port systems by OIW, was used. The accident rates for the LWSC, including Lake Washington, were based on all commercial vessel accidents, rather than just freighters which represent little of the commercial traffic within the LWSC and none of the freighter accidents (cf. Tables 5 and 6). Hence, an indirect approach was used. Initially, the number of port calls (for all commercial vessels) to Lake Union and Lake Washington (data from the Waterborne Statistical Center of the Corps of Engineers) were determined: Destination Transits Average Annual Port Calls Percent Puget Sound to Lake Union Lake Union to Lake Washington 9,211 2,226 4,606 1,113 80.5 19.5 5,719 100.0 Accidents were allocated to these two locations by multiplying the total accidents/year (from Table 5) by the percent of traffic to either Lake Union or Lake Washington. The results are shown below: A-31 Place of Accident Shilshole Bay Channel Lake Union Lake Washington Accident rate is then -- Total Total Accidents in Accidents/yr Lake Union Lake Washington 1.0 .8 .2 2.7 2.2 .5 .5 .5 1.0 1.0 5.2 3.5 1.7 Accident rate/ Accidents Port Calls 1,000 Port Calls Lake Union 3.5 4,606 .8 Lake Washington 1.7 1,113 1.5 Following this reasoning, the accident rate for ships moving through the LWSC to Lake Washington is almost twice that of vessels moving only to Lake Union. Applying these accident rates to the overall accident rate for all vessels using the LWSC, we find 5.2 accidents/5,719 port calls = 0.9 accidents/1,000 port calls. The individual values calculated above deviate from the base value for the entire LWSC as follows: Lake Union 0.8 n Q LWSC base value 0.9 " u * y Lake Washington _ 1.5 LWSC base value 0.9 ■ 1.7 A base accident rate of 2.0 accidents per 1,000 port calls (a value somewhat greater than the average for small port systems, as identified by 0IW, that is, 1.6 accidents per 1,000 port calls, was assumed to account for the constricted waters of the LWSC and their relatively high usage) was used to determine the apparent freighter accident rate of the two loca- tions as follows: Lake Union 2.0 x 0.9 = 1.8/1,000 port calls Lake Washington 2.0 x 1.6 = 3.4/1,000 port calls While the derivation of freighter accident rates for Lake Union and Lake Washington is by no means rigorous, and does assume the presence of freighter traffic, it does provide a comparison which indicates significant differences.* *The elimination from the above analysis of fire-related accidents, which constitute a significant proportion of the accidents in this "port system" but which are generally considered to be independent of the port character- istics, had little effect on the results as they pertain to freighter accidents, namely: Lake Union = 1.7 freighter accidents/1,000 port calls. Lake Washington =3.4 freighter accidents/1,000 port calls. A-32 Recreational Vessels Statistics on recreational boating accidents in the Puget Sound were obtained from the records of the Boating and Safety Division of the 13th Coast Guard District. Boating accidents by cause are shown in Figure 9 for Greater Puget Sound for a 3-year period (1975-1977). Similar data for locations within the LWSC are shown in Figure 10. Although fire/explosion and grounding cause the greatest damage to boats, such accidents normally involve only the affected vessel and do not implicate other vessels. Collision, which involves two (or more) vessels, and capsizing, which may be caused by wake or "suction" action, are of interest in the present study. Collisions are the most common type of accident, normally involve another recreational craft, and result in most cases in limited (< $1,000) damage. No collision accidents involving a small craft and an ocean-going vessel were found in either the LWSC or Greater Puget Sound. It is of interest, in Figure 10, that collisions are appreciably higher in Lake Washington than at other points in the waterway reflecting, probably, the higher usage and higher speeds on Lake Washington. Capsizing does occur but no instances of capsizing due to wake from large commercial vessels were identified. The absence of any capsizing accidents within the LWSC may be attributable to the speed limit of 7 knots in effect in these waters (of course capsizing of canoes, kyaks and Other small craft OCCUrs regularly but permanent damage is unlikely). The number of capsizings in Lake Washington is higher relatively, but not attributable to commercial vessel operations. Small boat accidents, as might be expected, show a marked seasonal variation (Fig. 11). The number of accidents rises in early spring, peaks in July, and drops in August and September. In contrast, a 1966 survey found heavy usage of the waters of Puget Sound from June through September with a third of all owners reporting usage throughout the year.* A similar usage pattern is likely in the LWSC. However, recreational boat usage in the LWSC and Lake Washington is concentrated in two major regimes: late afternoon and early evening during the week and from late morning to dusk on weekends (dependent, of course, on weather conditions). Two other sources of information on accidents were contacted: City of Seattle Bridge Maintenance Division and the project engineer at the Corps of Engineers' Chittenden Locks. Damage to the locks does not appear to be a problem, aside from normal wear and tear and few accidents of consequence (primarily fire and/or explosion in small boats) have occurred in the locks. *Pleasure Boating Study, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, November 1968. A-33 15 150 10 100 E 3 Z Number s 5 n n I975 I976 1977 1975 1976 1977 Fire/Explosion Collision Damage exceeded $1000.00 Damage exceeded $1000.00 in 91% of all accidents in 25% of all accidents 15 15 10 10 1 E 3 Z 5 1 E 3 Z 5 n n 1975 1976 1977 1975 1976 1977 Capsizing Grounding Damage exceeded $1000.00 Damage exceeded $1000.00 on 16% of all accedents i in 57% of all accidents Figure 9 Boating Accidents by Type in Greater Puget Sound (0 fe 10 n E 3 z 12 3 4 Location Collision Damage exceeded $1000.00 in 21% of all accidents 2.0 1.5 0) £ 10 JS E 3 Z 0.5 Number/Year b en 0.5 12 3 4 12 3 4 Location Location Capsizing Other Damage exceeded $1000.CK ) Damage exceeded $1000.00 in 33% of all accidents Location 1 - Shildole Bay in 17% of all accidents 2 — Lake Washington Sh p Canal 3 — Lake Union 4 — Lake Washington Figure 10 Type and Location of Boating Accidents in the Lake Washington Water Way 10 k_ OJ .Q E 3 2 5 CD a> > < o i i i i i i ■ i i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source: 13th Coast Guard District and URS. Figure 1 1 Small Boat Accidents in and about Lake Washington Ship Canal > The Seattle City bridges in the LWSC are frequently "brushed" by the antennae and/or masts of both recreational boats and commercial vessels often resulting in damage to the vessels but little or none to the bridge. According to representatives of the Seattle Bridge Maintenance Department, the Montlake Bridge has the fewest such incidents (one was identified in the period from 1971-1977) while the Fremont Bridge, with lower vertical clearance has the most (17 in the same period). No instances were recalled in which a ship struck a bridge with sufficient impact to cause damage which necessitated its closure for more than inspection purposes. NOAA Vessels Over the many years of operation within the LWSC, NOAA vessels have reported several incidents where NOAA vessels have caused property damage either to themselves or to property owned by others. A brief description of such incidents since 1959 and their severity is included in Appendix 6. Only one reportable accident* (the Surveyor hitting the old Great-Northern railroad bridge in 1960 causing $5,000 damage to a pier but none to the ship), occurred in this reporting period. (It should be noted this one accident falls in the "non-major" category. According to the OIW study, previously referenced, only 27% of all reportable accidents in Greater Puget Sound are "non-major"). While a statistically valid accident rate cannot be developed from one event, an "apparent" accident rate can be calculated, namely: 40 port calls per year x 19 years = 1-3 accidents/ 1,000 port calls The NOAA fleet has an "apparent" accident rate which is less than that experienced by freighters in small port systems, that is, 1.6 accidents/1,000 port calls (OIW, Sept. 1977, based on the "best fit" curve for 9 small port systems). For comparative purposes, based on both the "apparent" accident rate and the special handling characteristics of NOAA vessels (discussed in Section III), an accident rate of 1.1/1,000 port calls (2/3 that of commercial vessels) has been assigned vessels in the NOAA fleet. NOAA vessels have had, as do most commercial vessels, on occasion, engine failure, steering failure, and engine room fire.** None of these incidents, which can be generally termed as breakdowns in the water, re- sulted in accidents primarily because most occurred in open waters where the vessel could drift safely. By comparison, the Coast Guard ship *A reportable accident, as used here, is one in which property damage exceeded $1,500 damage resulting from collision, ramming or grounding. **Mechanical failure, in NOAA's experience, is most likely to occur after a vessel has undergone some type of repair or renovation. A-37 accident rate for the Greater Puget Sound reports about 20 requests a year for Coast Guard assistance due to breakdown. Most of those incidents, as with NOAA vessels, occurred in open waters with no serious accidents resulting. If any larger vessel were to breakdown while transiting portions of the LWSC where the channel width is narrow, collision or ramming might result. However, historically such accidents have not been reported. For example, returning to the Coast Guard data for Puget Sound, fourteen accidents with damage were attributed, in a 4-year period, to mechanical failure; most were related to tow ropes breaking, bilge pump failure or miscellaneous causes. Only two cases relate to engine failure, one with minor damage and the other with major damage (the engine of a ferry failed as it approached its dock). Thus, while mechanical breakdown does occur, it appears to rarely result in serious accident. NOAA vessels have never experienced a collision or ramming accidents and, consequently, have never experienced a massive fuel oil outflow which sometimes results from such accidents. Fueling, which typically causes the most and largest of the dockside spills, is not conducted in the LWSC with minor exceptions.* NOAA has reported a total of eight dockside spills, primarily from internal fuel transfer operations between 1973 and 1977 at the Pacific Marine Center on Lake Union, resulting in an average oil loss of 40 gallons per event. Since the ships are normally "boomed," little or none of this oil entered into the waters of Lake Union. PMC has operating procedures, which will be discussed in more detail later, for the containment and cleanup of small or large spills which it might cause. *Class V vessels occasionally fuel at a commercial pier in Salmon Bay, A-38 III. IDENTIFICATION OF RISKS NOAA vessels are just one of the many users of the waters of Greater Puget Sound and, with other users of these waters, share the same navi- gational risks. These risks are not seen as unusual, reflected in the accident rate for the Greater Puget Sound which is average for a large port system. Puget Sound has its share of foul weather but, on the other hand, commercial traffic is rarely heavy, the waters are deep, currents are generally weak, and the shelter provided by adjacent lands helps minimize wind effects. Further, the vessel traffic system which is operational within Puget Sound provides information to the skipper in these waters. (The VTS, through direct communication with each ship -- including NOAA vessels -- as well as shore-based radar, tracks each vessel, at all times, within the waters of Greater Puget Sound). Further, all NOAA vessels are equipped with onboard radar and sonar equipment (normally with backup units), which allows the skipper to continuously monitor potential naviga- tional risks as he moves forward. Additional details may be found in Appendix 4. However, there are navigational risks which are of concern. These risks have been identified for the various candidate sites and will be discussed below. Again it is stressed that because of the particular interest in those sites within the Lake Washington Ship Canal that it will receive more attention than other sites which have direct access to Puget Sound (also, more information is available on the transit through the LWSC because of previous study related to the Environmental Impact Statement). A TRANSIT THROUGH PUGET SOUND All candidate sites would require transit of the waters of Puget Sound. To determine if the accident potential varies due to transit differences a case study was conducted comparing potential risk exposure for NOAA vessels proceeding to (1) the LWSC, and (2) the extreme terminus at Tacoma. A route which NOAA vessels would take in each of these transits is shown in Figure 12. In either transit, the vessel would utilize the Puget Sound Vessel Transit Service (VTS) and would follow the designated traffic lanes. Each one-way traffic lane is 1,000 yards wide with a 500 yard separation zone. The traffic lanes include, where necessary, precautionary areas to accommodate traffic from nearby ports moving into or out of the traffic lanes. The first precautionary area is located at Point No Point to accommodate traffic from Everett and elsewhere. From this point, LWSC-bound NOAA vessels would proceed in the southbound A-39 Port Madison Precautionary / Area ) | Elliott Bay Comparative Accident Density • accident locations Figure 12 Vessel Transit Routes to Lake Washington Ship Canal and Tacoma traffic lane to a buoy abeam of Shilshole Bay where they would turn sharply to the left (to minimize time in the northbound traffic lane) to reach the waters of Shilshole Bay. At this juncture, the vessel would notify the VTS of its departure from the system. Because of the low traffic density at this point, there is no designated precautionary area. Tacoma-bound NOAA vessels would continue in the southbound traffic lane, passing through precautionary areas, just west of West Point and Alki Point, which accommodate Seattle traffic. There is also a great deal of cross traffic, primarily ferries, in this area. The vessel would then continue in the southbound traffic lane down East Passage to the terminus of the VTS in a precautionary area outside and just to the north of Commencement Bay. At this point, the vessel would sign out of the VTS, indicating its destination. The NOAA vessel would then proceed past a buoy just off Brown's Point entering the deep, open waters of Commencement Bay, bypassing an anchorage area prior to entering the Hylebos Waterway. No data were found which could be used to quantify the risk during transit (say in the form of 0.000XX accidents per transit mile). However, the probability of accidents increases with increased exposure (that is, total distance traveled). On this premise then, the risk of accident while in transit to Tacoma is greater than while in transit to the LWSC. Although the incremental increase in the risk is difficult to measure, it appears to be inconsequential in relation to the risks associated with the much longer transit through upper Puget Sound or with increased accident risks associated with the movement in the restricted waterways of the LWSC or Hylebos Waterway. DIRECT ACCESS The candidate site at the Port of Everett is easily reached once the vessel passes Point No Point by movement up through Possession Sound into the port which is sheltered to some considerable degree from the higher than average winds in that area. The vessel must cross the route of the Mukilteo-Whidbey Ferry but no particular problems are foreseen. Although maintenance dredging is required periodically in the Port of Everett, grounding has not been found to be a problem by ocean-going vessels. Commercial traffic density is relatively low and recreational boating is common but does not appear to present any special navigational risks to NOAA vessels. The candidate site at Mukilteo presents no special features and does not cross any ferry routes.* However the proposed site on Possession Sound is on open waters with no land features to break winds to the north or to the south. These long fetches have been reported to cause waves of up to *Aside from Canada- and Alaska-bound ferries in the main traffic lanes in Puget Sound which run in summer months only. A-41 6 feet in height in winds of 40 knots. NOAA personnel indicate that a breakwater to the north and to the south of the proposed pier location would be required to permit safe operations. (In heavy seas the breakwater in itself could present a hazard to incoming NOAA vessels.) The proposed site would also require considerable dredging because of the shallow depths near shore but, once dredged, vessel grounding should be unlikely within the maintained channel. An onshore safety concern, unique to this site, is the requirement to cross the two tracks of the Burlington-Northern main line which lie at the base of the bluff, separating shore facilities from the proposed pier site. While gates could regulate surface traffic, the conflict between moving supplies to the pier in an orderly manner would better be resolved by the installation of an overpass. The Manchester site is reached by normal traffic lanes to a point opposite the City of Seattle and then following essentially the path of the Seattle-Bremerton Ferry to the beginning of Rich Passage. This transit into Clam Bay is through relatively open waters which, in addition to the ferry which runs on a 1-hour schedule, may include occasional Navy vessels and the usual recreational traffic. Caution would have to be exercised in leaving the piers to prevent possible conflict with eastbound traffic through Rich Passage. Ebbtide currents through Rich Passage can become fairly high (well over 1 knot) and, partly for this reason, a partial breakwater at this site may be required. The Manchester site, located in Clam Bay, is on a shallow shelf, necessitating either extensive dredging, a wery long pier, or a combination of both. Although the rate of siltation is not well known, maintenance dredging would certainly be required, and the dredged channel would have to be well marked and closely followed. Recreational boating is relatively low in this area (partly because of the relatively low residential density as well as the lack of large marinas) so that no particular problems are foreseen. Winds are lower than average at this site but fog may be slightly more frequent. The two Tacoma sites are reached by continuing down Puget Sound through East Passage into Commencement Bay. The passage up to this point is well marked and no particular difficulties are expected. The North Tacoma site on the Hylebos Waterway is reached by a dredged channel (190 feet wide and 30 feet project depth). With proper pier design, NOAA vessels could dock without impinging on the existing channel. Commercial activity within the Hylebos Waterway is relatively heavy but simultaneous movement of two large vessels is infrequent. A boat sales outlet near the proposed site would generate little recreational traffic; rather a marina further up the waterway is the source of most recreational traffic. The South Tacoma site requires passing through the East 11th Street Bridge which has a horizontal clearance of 144 feet (the vertical clearance of the unopened bridge is 21 feet). At this point the channel narrows to 160 feet. Channel depth in the Hylebos Waterways varies between 26.0 and A-42 28.3 feet. The proposed South Tacoma site would likely require that NOAA vessels at times maneuver into the main channel while entering or leaving the dock. However, the use of the turning basin at the upper end of the Hylebos Waterway might alleviate this particular possibility. This site, like the North Tacoma site, is well sheltered from the lower than average winds experienced in the Tacoma area, but, is likewise subject to a higher than average accident rate. Recreational traffic, although present, does not seem unusually high. The East 11th Street Bridge, which because of its age and construction has experienced over the years operational difficulties, is unlikely to create any major risks or problems. If bridge failure occurs, the bridge is left open to allow water traffic to proceed until such time as repairs are completed. Visibility in both directions on approaching the bridge is good, but nonetheless, it would be advisable for NOAA vessels to maintain radio contact with the tender on approaching the bridge. In summary, all candidate sites with direct access to Puget Sound have a common asset: virtually unrestricted availability at all times. THE LWSC AND LAKE WASHINGTON For simplicity, the identification of risks in this waterway will proceed from Puget Sound and Shilshole Bay through the LWSC to the terminus at Kenmore. These identified risks will, in a later section, be quantified so that any portion of this route which is used by any particular candidate site condition can be evaluated in terms of risk. Figure 13 is a map showing various features pertaining to navigational risks along the LWSC. A similar map is not included for Lake Washington because of the relatively simple transit in those waters. Shilshole Bay entrance range affords a wide, deep channel which provides sufficient maneuvering room to minimize problems and/or accidents in these waters despite the presence of a very large marina for small boats just at the entrance (north side) and the "stacking," particularly of recreational boats, at the end of weekends, awaiting movement through the Chittenden Locks. However, the approach to the locks themselves can, and sometimes does, present difficulties. Vessels must first pass through the Burlington-Northern railroad bridge just prior to entering the locks. NOAA vessels attempt to coordinate these two actions such that the bridge is open and the green light for entrance into the locks is visible since standing by in these waters can be difficult, especially when the locks have just opened releasing water and creating transient currents. (Currents can also be a problem in this area when spring runoff necessitates the release of water from Lake Washington.) Some difficulty has been experienced by NOAA vessels in this transit and in two instances vessels have damaged topside equipment by brushing against the bridge. In one case the bridge was not open sufficiently to allow A-43 c 5 (0 (0 o -J o O <3 .g> S2 CO £ > ♦"< o 0) < o ♦-> _ 00 > L. (D o at c c m (8 00 3 a C D) CD -J the vessel to pass (an apparent misjudgment on the part of the bridge tender) and the other resulted from a communications problem. There is always some concern among NOAA skippers that the bridge will not open as requested to allow direct movement into the locks. This juxtaposition of bridge and locks has been identified as a potential problem area. Although by regulation, government vessels can take precedence over other vessels in entering the Chittenden locks, NOAA vessels do not exercise this perogative. Moreover, NOAA vessels normally try to enter Shilshole Bay and the locks at off-peak hours, generally prior to mid- afternoon, so that traffic is unlikely to be heavy. Since NOAA vessels often pass through the locks at the same time as other vessels, NOAA vessels may be affected by their presence. A slightly heightened poten- tial for fire and/or explosion in pleasure craft which could affect other vessels in the locks is a notable example. Likewise, occasional brushing of vessels within the locks can occur but rarely has serious consequences. A possible serious accident could occur if a large ship coming into the locks were to proceed too rapidly and ram the gate at the east end of the locks. Conceivably such a movement could spring these gates open, jamming them and allowing a deluge from the higher level waters of Lake Washington. An incident of this nature has never occurred but, to preclude such a possibility, normal operations of the locks requires that, immediately upon entrance into the locks from Shilshole Bay, the westerly gate be closed. The problem does not exist outward bound because of the configuration of the gates and their inherent strength. The locks themselves are adequate in both depth and breadth for NOAA vessels and no constraints have been experienced. A saltwater barrier normally extends into the locks to preclude saltwater intrusion into Lake Washington. Its presence is signaled by an appropriate light and it would be lowered prior to the passage of larger NOAA vessels. Larger NOAA vessels (Classes I, II, and III) are, and would continue to be, unable to use the LWSC during certain periods. The large Chittenden Lock is closed for maintenance for about two weeks each year. However, this closure is scheduled well in advance so operations to date have not been affected. Emergency repairs on the locks have not caused any reported problems. The LWSC is also officially devoted to recreational vessels on "Opening Day" and one or two other regatta type events which occur on weekends. Unofficially, the LWSC is avoided by commercial traffic on summer weekends because of the heavy recreational traffic. The worst "traffic jams" are reported on Sundays (or Mondays on holiday weekends) when recreational vessels wait to pass from Shilshole Bay into the LWSC. A-45 Leaving the locks, vessels proceed into Salmon Bay which is suf- ficently large and deep to provide maneuvering space. There is a consider- able amount of industrial and pier activity in Salmon Bay and the southern end includes the major portion of the fishing fleet within LWSC and a place for log booming. The first split site alternative is located on the north side of Salmon Bay just west of the Ballard Bridge. Salmon Bay is judged to have sufficient maneuvering room for present and future commercial activity. Leaving Salmon Bay, vessels must pass the Ballard Bridge, which is the first of a series of bridges operated by the City of Seattle. Bridge tenders operating alone, are selected for their perceptiveness and ability to make quick decisions. In some instances they operate traffic lights (shown in Fig. 13) which control vessel traffic of over 300 tons through the LWSC. Bridge tenders must be capable of evaluating the surface flow over the bridges versus the requirement to open the bridge for an oncoming vessel. Oncoming vessels, using appropriate whistle signals, signal their request to the bridge tender for a bridge opening, normally at a distance of about 350 to 400 yards. The bridge tender responds if he intends to open the bridge. If not, the oncoming vessel must come to a full stop in the water and hold in place until the bridge tender indicates an opening is forthcoming. However, on rare occasions, the bridge tender may not respond promptly and the skipper of an oncoming vessel must then make an on-the-spot evaluation as to whether to slow down preparatory to stopping or to assume that the bridge will open prior to his arrival. In some very rare circumstances, bridge mechanisms can fail and the bridge may not open or only open partially. However, no serious accidents have occurred as a result of such failure. This concern over the possible failure of bridges to open in a timely manner (and the resultant requirement to stop quickly) has led the skippers of larger N0AA vessels to request PMC to dispatch personnel to the individual bridge tenders to alert them of the forthcoming transit of a N0AA vessel. In this manner, radio communication along the LWSC can be maintained between the PMC representative on the bridges and the vessel to verify requests for an opening. As an improvement in its service, and to reduce the possibility of ramming of bridges, the City of Seattle is presently installing radio equipment which will allow direct communication from the ship bridge to the bridge tender at all times. Presently only the Fremont Bridge has this radio equipment installed but all bridges operated by the City of Seattle will be so equipped within the near future. The City is also planning nighttime bridge tender staff reductions which will require ratification of bridge openings, after 12 midnight. This change should have no impact on N0AA operations. A-46 Despite the various precautions undertaken by NOAA and the upgrading of the communications between ships and bridges, some risk is associated with passing through bridges, especially where the channel provides little or no maneuvering room in case the bridge does not open. In the unlikely event of a ship hitting a bridge, damage to the superstructure of the ship and to the bridge structure itself could result. On the other hand, piers and bridges along the LWSC are properly protected (usually by bulkheads) and the possibility ". . .of crippling damage caused by a colliding vessel, NOAA or otherwise, is almost non-existent." (Nickum and Spaulding, Sept. 1, 1977, pp. 13-14). Shortly after leaving Salmon Bay, NOAA vessels enter the Fremont Cut with a project depth of 30 feet and a channel width of about 100 feet. Traffic through this constricted cut is regulated by two sets of traffic lights, one just west of the Ballard Bridge and the other just west of the Fremont Bridge. These lights are, in turn, regulated by the bridge tenders who have clear views, from their respective bridges, to determine if traffic control is required. All vessels over 300 tons are so regulated Smaller vessels are not controlled by the lights and are free to move through the cut. Normally no problems are encountered with recreational vessels since there is additional water on either side of the dredged channel into which they can maneuver if necessary.* Generally the traffic system operates effectively although on occasion traffic lights are ignored and vessels of greater than 300 tons have met in the cut. Infrequently, barges, and sometimes ships, touch bottom (i.e., temporarily ground) in the cut, particularly near the east end of the Fremont Bridge. Generally the consequences are minor. The Fremont Bridge, which is the lowest of the series of bridges (vertical clearance of 31 feet at the center as contrasted to 44 to 46 feet at the center of the other bridges), requires many more openings than these higher bridges. It also experiences a much higher accident rate, as noted previously. Because of the lower clearance on this bridge, ramming of it in an unopened position by any large vessel might incur considerable damage to both ship and bridge. Such, however, has never occurred. After passing through the Fremont bridge vessels pass under the fixed Aurora Bridge to enter Lake Union. Lake Union is heavily utilized for industrial, commercial and recreational purposes. The eastern shore is the present location of the Pacific Marine Center (candidate split site No. 2) and candidate split site No. 3. Lake Union, and to a lesser degree Salmon Bay, include the various ship fitting and repair services which are presently utilized by NOAA vessels and would continue to serve any candidate sites within the LWSC locale. The western shore of Lake *In most portions of the Fremont Cut the width at the surface is about 270 feet, providing maneuvering room for small craft with shallow drafts. A-47 Union includes some marinas for small boats and a number of firms engaged in boat sales and services. The eastern shore of Lake Union, just north of the PMC, includes moorings for a number of houseboats which are susceptible to flooding from wakes. However, no complaints about wake disturbance from NOAA vessels to houseboats were found. The northern portion of Lake Union is also occasionally used for regattas and seaplanes routinely land on its waters. Surprisingly few problems related to traffic density have been identified despite the heavy usage of the waters of Lake Union. From Lake Union, vessels proceed northeasterly where they must make a 113 degree turn under the Interstate 5 fixed bridge and, immediately, must be prepared to request a bridge opening for the University Bridge. Because of the lack of visibility at this turn, concern has been expressed as to the reliability of bridge opening for eastbound vessels. For example, if a NOAA vessel were to complete the 113 degree turn and find that the bridge was not open, the vessel would have to attempt to come to a rapid stop by reversing engines. In such stop, it is conceivable that the vessel might overreact and damage shoreside facilities. However, the implementation of radio contact capabilities on this bridge will alleviate this particular risk considerably. Nonetheless, the passage under University Bridge remains a moderate risk concern.* The vessel then proceeds through Portage Bay Reach where the channel is adequate. The southern portion of Portage Bay itself contains a number of houseboats and marinas which generate considerable recreational boating activity. The vessel must then make a slight turn to line up with the Portage (Montlake) Cut at the end of Portage Bay Reach. Maneuvering room at this point is somewhat limited because of the presence of a charted shoal, making it difficult for larger ships to be accurately aligned prior to entering the cut (channel width is about 100 feet and project depth is 30 feet). The Portage Cut, unlike the Fremont Cut, is steeped bank allowing little maneuvering room outside of the channel itself for small vessels.** Larger vessel traffic (greater than 300 tons) is controlled by the bridge tender on the Montlake Bridge, which is in the middle of the Portage Cut. Some concern has been expressed about the visibility of the *A detailed account of the navigational concerns experienced by the Oceano - grapher , a Class I NOAA vessel, in an "experimental" transit from Lake Union to Lake Washington in 1975, is available, and is reflected in observations by Captain Barbee. However, it must be recognized that the problems noted by Barbee are his own perceptions. Other NOAA Class I vessels have made this transit previously, but observations, similar to those of Barbee, were not recorded since that was not the intent of such transits. **Width at the surface is 170 feet. A-48 single traffic lights at either end of the cut (they are "commercial" size) which, although not controlling small boats, could at least alert them of a potential traffic problem. The vessel, once aligned with the Portage Cut, then proceeds, signaling the Montlake Bridge for an opening. Visibility from the Montlake Bridge is excellent in both directions, possibly accounting for the very low accident rate at this bridge. An expressed concern, however, is that in the event that the Montlake Bridge should fail to open or if some other unusual event occurred, such as a recrea-tional vessel cutting in front of the oncoming NOAA vessel or a tug running the traffic light, that the NOAA vessel would have to make an effort to stop or maneuver to avoid an accident. The configuration of the Portage Cut allows little safety margin for larger NOAA vessels, as shown in Figure 14. NOAA vessel striking the stepped sides of this cut might suffer structural damage. However, the extent and seriousness of such damage as might occur is speculative. A minor risk noted in the Portage Cut is a METRO storm drain overflow, which operates only in very heavy rains. It discharges into the south bank of the Portage Cut near the Montlake Bridge. On one occasion, a yacht reported navigational problems as a result of this discharge. A new regu- lator is presently being installed which will eliminate storm drain over- flow into the cut. In any event, this discharge does not pose a risk to NOAA vessels. A very real concern, however, is the presence of heavy recreational usage of the waters of both the Portage Cut and of Union Bay Reach just beyond it. The University of Washington Yacht Club and Waterfront Activity Center are both located at the east end of the Portage Cut and generate very high recreational usage of the waters of Union Bay and of the Portage Cut itself. However, small rental craft (canoes, kayaks) are not permitted inside the Portage Cut. Some swimmers are also found in these same waters. NOAA skippers, particularly on larger vessels, could have difficulty in spotting such small objects as swimmers or boats (including kayaks, canoes, etc.). This disadvantage is overcome by the use of "spotters" on the bridge "wing" and on the bow. These spotters can alert the skipper to upcoming craft as well as to proximity of the vessel to the channel walls. Still the concern remains that a NOAA vessel may have to attempt, in the very constricted waters of the Portage Cut, to stop or otherwise maneuver to avoid careless or reckless recreational craft or persons.* This, indeed, is a real concern and alone accounts for the higher risk value assigned to the Portage Cut. However, it must be noted that in the off season or in off-peak hours, the Portage Cut may be little utilized for recreational purposes and, at those times, the risk is lower. *A consistent concern expressed was the lack of training and licensing of recreational boat users in the State of Washington. Numerous accounts are given of "less-than-cautious" actions on the part of some small boat operators, seemingly without regard to navigational risks. A-49 303' 170' 105' G A) Top View > Channel Boundary +20' + 10' *&?s\ Float Float $u>fa^-— -30'—' ry* 36' » o o i- ■ X <£ Q < a: ro i- i- s- u j- i- ra fa r- ■.-•.- O O ra mc-)c\j t— « i— i uo i_nu"> oocr> comi-n r>- r^ ro ro m c\ic\jc\j t— tt— * U"> LT> O O O O O O LT) CD O O CO CO -H CO CO oo m en i— i r-i »-i m ui o o o~i en cm ^t* a» 2,500 gallons), the resources of the Puget Sound oil spill cooperative, Clean Sound, would be called upon (on a contract basis since NOAA is not a member); Clean Sound would, in turn utilize the various resources in the area. The Coast Guard's National or Regional Response Team would also be available if required. Normally such massive action would only be required if a loaded tanker or tank barge were involved). Spills caused by NOAA vessels or NOAA operations would likely be light fuels such as diesel #2. Such materials, although they disperse quickly, leaving little visual residues, are difficult to contain and to clean up. And such materials are toxic to both flora and fauna. Hence, quick response after a spill to minimize damage to the environment is essential. Present plans should be reviewed with this concern, that is rapid response, in mind. Larger NOAA vessels, as shown in Table 8, and Appendix 4, have good onboard fire detection and suppression capabilities. If, however, an uncontrolled fire were to occur, additional firefighting capability could be drawn from existing shoreside fire departments or from fireboats which are located at several points in Puget Sound. Smaller boats can also be readily provided with pumps for additional waterside suppression capability. However, aside from the two Class V vessels which are of wood construction, NOAA vessels have a low fire potential and such resources are unlikely to be required. OFFICERS AND CREWS Senior officers and chief crew members on NOAA vessels are considered to be well qualified and with adequate experience. The qualifications of candidates for commanding officer or executive officer, that is The use of the maximum credible spill concept is useful in comparing the relative ranking of various vessels; however, it is not an indication of the likely size of spill if collision or ramming does occur nor is it any indication of the likelihood of such accident occurring. For example, no NOAA vessel has ever sustained a hull rupture leading to an oil spill. A-56 those responsible for the safety and operation of the ship, are reviewed by a joint committee comprised of the head of the National Ocean Survey (which is responsible for ship operations) and the director of the NOAA officer corps. Typically the officers selected are of the rank of captain and commander for the larger vessels and commander and lieutenant commander for the smaller vessels. However the Class V vessels are now commanded by licensed civilian masters and first mates who fall under the Wage Marine Personnel category. Most crew positions on NOAA vessels are filled by Wage Marine Personnel, similar to civil service employees of the U.S. Government. NOAA officers, like military officers, are reviewed annually for performance and for advancement. Because of this unusually close scrutiny, at least as compared to civilian masters, commissioned officers can be expected to be exceptionally careful in their operations, not wishing to blemish their records and opportunities for advancement. This desire to maintain a "clean record" as well as recognizing a responsibility for public safety may also account for some differences in the viewpoint of NOAA officers on the relative risks associated with the transit through the LWSC. These officers do have, by the very virtue of their placement, a fine record and a strong desire to maintain such a record. On the other hand, commercial masters, while certainly not wishing to blemish their records, are more motivated by economic incentives such as minimizing transit times and maximizing loads to maximize the profit to the ship's owner. Hence the civilian masters may tend to be less cautious in under- taking transits which have a higher degree of risk than normal. The differences between these two philosophies is not be be construed as approval of either; rather it is an intangible difference which must be recognized. A-57 IV. MAJOR MITIGATING MEASURES Mitigating measures refer to changes in operations, procedures, or hardware, either on NOAA vessels or elsewhere with the intent of reducing either the frequency or the consequences of perceived risks. Mitigating measures for candidate sites with direct access to Puget Sound are rela- tively simple and have been described in general terms (which is all that is possible at this time) in Section 3. However mitigating measures which may be applied to the proposed transit from Lake Union to Lake Washington have been the subject of considerable previous investigation and discussion and will be presented in some detail herein. The list of mitigating measures presented in Table 9 has been compiled from the data bases of Appendix 1 and 2 and from the author's own inputs. The candidate mitigating measures shown in Table 9 are extensive and all are not of equal value. Further, many because of their nature, effect not only current or proposed NOAA operations but operations of many or all of the other users of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Hence many of these mitigating measures are not under direct control of NOAA and would require cooperation and approval of other agencies and, in some cases, of the general public. Mitigating measures may have adverse as well as beneficial conse- quences; these have been noted. In two cases the adverse consequences are sufficient to require special discussion.* In the first case, it has been proposed to limit the speed of all NOAA vessels in the LWSC to the maximum of 4 knots (under present operations, larger NOAA vessels voluntarily limit their speed in the LWSC to about 4 knots). A mandatory limitation on speed can, under some circumstances and with some vessels, reduce maneuverability characteristics to an unsafe level. Hence this proposed mitigating measure should, as with existing practice, limit speed in the LWSC to about 4 knots. Further, the Class V NOAA vessels, which are similar in many respects to commercial fishing vessels have no demonstrated requirement to limit their speed to 4 knots and should be allowed to proceed up to the legal limit of 7 knots as do other commercial vessels of comparable size. In the second case it has been suggested that NOAA vessels not only continue the present practice of avoiding any bridge openings between the hours of 7 and 9 a.m. and 5 and 7 p.m. on weekdays (to accommodate surface rush-hour traffic) but, that NOAA vessels also not transit the LWSC other than in daylight hours. Other commercial vessels do transit the LWSC in the evening and even nighttime hours without particular difficulties. NOAA vessels also have made the transit to Lake Union in the evening and night- time hours safely and without any particular difficulty (the FEIS, at one *Both mitigating measures are proposed in the Corps of Engineers Dredging Permit for the Sand Point facility. A-58 01 ,— C I— OJ OJ E E a* m 1 — Oi o> 3 01 s- u •*- -C ro 01 "a >> i/> 0> i- m ■>-> U 03 S- *<- a> •r- a. LA 3 >>*»- cr o> ro JO 01 01 -C £ m > cc *~> C C -r- c a. qj e =j >> •<- X! r- aj •U +-> 03 VI -C c e m Ol OJ 1- OJ ■■- -a U CO 4- c c o = 3 S CO •»- Cm .— r- nj 3 in ^- ■a +-> t- •— oj .c o ro (J 03 m OJ E ■•-i "O a* c o <+- t- "O o JZ *r- -C <— 4-» 01 Q..C Q- ■t-> c O .*: 0_ U u 3 .a 3 (/) +-> CD ■4-> W 3 o -C > ^ ■+— >> u> >* 2 O) c in t- i/> +j ifl+i o o ^ 01 •r- O -r- c u U) 0) i/) fc. S- Q. I- c in 01 ai jO 03 03 •r- 01 •*- > u 01 a> r— U i— O 3 U) %n 6- > 3 •*- 3 -r- s- "O o o O 03 E -a E a. 01 ai S- JZ > 03 01 03 E cc _1 -j a CL • — ' 03 li_ or i«- •— i (O u in ui d)c oj oijc o u U I— •!- i/» i — 4- ■i- OJ TJ t- > lil r— 4J i- 0J o C l/l 'i- o *J o>>— -u ra e -i- O M- J3 S- J3 5- ■!- OJ O Ul a i— c m a. r- en o i- e ui in r— oj OJ U 4-> c in 3 &. S- v) T3 gj ra a» oj . — 3 > tt < m uj i/l o O uj a- o i-o < O) < ,CQ <: ,Q3 (_> OJ < (D UJ O OJ o Z uo l_> -« UJ < o o CJ z 01 3 > 01 CT >> 3 in TJ C CT oi m m O o> C 01 3 •»- O 03 > E 01 03 ,T3 (- 01 C O i— -r- U .c 03 Z C i- 01 3 o n i- CT4- ■<-> C O *j .*: -i<: c ^ 03 03 01 a. w cn ai oi E Q. U — a. q. 0) o ■*- ■t-1 4-> >, 3 3 o OJ O O E T3 -— i— 01 1- O O O U -4-> — OJ — o. oj oj e c a u i-. i- in o cr >« c cu > c S- 01 3 Q, to O >» 01 4- cr "a T3 O i_ e ao CTT3 C C ■<- 3 C ■r- (_> 03 t-O 1- 3 +J -J 3 C .— •^ CU L O T3 •r- C T3 ai -CO! Q. **- *-> CJ .a n i— OJ 'r- > -— t- a* i— 3 A-59 C J- J QJ «— S_ fO J- QJ i- +J q> E f- XI 3 QJ *y> +-> ro oi .— 3 i- C QJ U S- O F— O) fO 1 +-> QJ "O XI TD X3 £. i/l i — u C r— 01 o> Ol 3 (0 3 3 3 14- >— i: c S- S- fC -O +-» Ol o o o 3 O 3 E E JD >>o +J 0_ 03 Ol Ol o> s- c o> 01 J- cn OJ t- c c 0» o» ■a to Q_ 0> c c c +J O.XI iD 03 -* 3 > QJ QJ fj QJ s- X3 >t C c o> xz Ol 01 E +j ro Ol C 4-> CT> Ol 3 QJ E S- i- C Of a> (0 i— r ~ """ QJ U Ol n Ol 03 3 a>X3 O O O •!- u S- Ul Q. E ui fD t- -o qj "a a> "O +-> i— i- .— Ol— XI 3 U 3 1- 3 CT O C O 03 O •<- IS -p- 3 — 3 *J -O UJ LU (D i/l HI O O -*-> ro O C_) O wju >,ai o r- O 4-J -i- •!- — u o - >% 03 ■ r- **- f0 **- ZD "•- 3 iD m f0 QJ i- QJ • — t- XI e 3 u u fD O 03 3 ro o: ■D <— QJ "O y_ •i- = a> C r— q: qj > S- 3 ro u QJ U ■o >> fU o ol Qj 0J o CO . u ID C a: -h> co a_ a_ QJ <: i— 4-J X3 to c 3 QJ >1 E X3 Ol "O o> c ■o u to c 4J Ol Ol *J a. > ro A-60 point, mistakenly indicates that nighttime operations would require addi- tional lighting). If both of these restrictions were made .mandatory, a potentially unsafe condition can be foreseen; namely, placing pressure on the skipper of an incoming NOAA vessel to reach the Chittenden Locks suf- ficiently early in the afternoon to ensure arrival at the PMC base prior to night fall. This condition would most likely arise in the winter months when the days are short and night fall occurs prior to 7 p.m. In toto, restrictions on movement after dark in the LWSC has no demonstrated bene- ficial consequence and could increase the probability of accident on the inward passage. Hence, this mitigating measure, that is, of restrictions on nighttime movement, is of dubious value. (It should be noted that NOAA vessels schedule their arrival at Shilshole Bay in the morning or early afternoon hours whenever possible. However, exceptions do occur and these exceptions should be accommodated). Further detailed discussion of the various proposed mitigating measures will not be presented here but can be found in the references listed in Appendix 1. In conjunction with the quantified navigational risk analysis which follows, mitigating measures which would have significant impacts on per- ceived risks were identified. These risks were placed into groups or packages with common characteristics to simplify the analysis. Package I consists of mitigating measures which reflect current practice. Package II consists of mitigating measures which can be instigated by NOAA itself or are presently in the process of being implemented. Package III includes mitigating measures which would require action by other government agencies and which, in general, would impinge on other users of the LWSC and, in some cases, could entail considerable costs. These three packages which are summarized in Table 10 will be used in the navigational risk analysis section. A-61 Table 10 MITIGATING MEASURE PACKAGES IN LWSC Package Mitigating Measures Notes II III o Limit speed of larger NOAA vessels to about 4 knots o Bridge opening constraint o Familiarize new skippers with LWSC transit o Restrictions on travel in severe weather Package I + o Radio communication capability between vessels and bridge tenders o Alternate berth for NOAA vessels outside of LWSC o Determine maneuvering characteristics of larger NOAA vessels at low speeds Package II + o Portage Cut - Large lights at either end - Traffic control for all vessels or use of advance boat when boat traffic is heavy - Dredge west of entrance o Fixed navigational aides in Portage Bay Reach and Union Bay Reach Measures now generally in force. Measures now generally in force. Measures now generally in force. Measures now generally in force. Radio communication capa- bility now being installed on City of Seattle bridges An alternate berth in Salmon Bay would also be acceptable Package requires changes in rules and regulations involving the Corps of Engineers and Coast Guard The use of an advance boat to alert small boat traffic can be instituted with minimal effort and would provide "fair warning" to small boat operators A-62 V. NAVIGATIONAL RISK ANALYSIS FOR THE LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL An analysis which quantified risks for various sites within the Lake Washington Ship Canal was made to determine if differences existed and, if these differences were sufficient to rule out one or more candidate sites. The type of analysis used relied upon subjective evaluation since historical accident data were extremely limited and of indeterminate quality when available. However, to maximize the utility of the analysis, inputs which required subjective evaluation were disaggregated initially as far as possible so that any given input would not unduly skew the final aggregated result. The major components of the risk analysis are shown in Table 11. Locational risk is defined for each major feature though which a NOAA vessel would have to pass in the transit from Shilshole Bay to Lake Washington. Features were considered in three major categories: open waters such as Shilshole Bay; restricted waters such as Fremont Cut; and physical barriers such as the Ballard Bridge. For each feature, the type of accident (for example, ramming a bridge), which might be associated with the passage of a NOAA vessel through the feature, was considered. Finally, the perceived risk from such an accident assigned to the NOAA vessel itself, to other vessels which might be involved, to persons and/or to shoreline property. The locational risk for a given feature then was obtained by summing all of the individual disaggregated risks (an example will be given later) . The safety weighting factor describes the relative maneuverability of NOAA vessels moving at slow speeds and is an index of relative safety. The basic premise is that large ships are more difficult to maneuver than are small ships. The safety weighting factor has been developed for each class of NOAA vessels, reflecting the characteristics of individual ships in that class. The frequency of exposure to risk is based upon the number of transits which each class of NOAA vessel will make through each feature over a period of time. The probability of accident, all else being equal, is directly proportional to the number of transits. The final value to be determined is the operational risk which is derived as follows: Operational Risk = Locational Risk x Safety Weighting Factor x Exposure EQ. 1 The derivation of each component will be described briefly below. A-63 Table 11 COMPONENTS OF THE RISK ANALYSIS Locational Risk o For each feature (open water, constricted water, bridge, etc.) through which passage is required. o Considers accidents which could result from - Col 1 i si on with Commercial vessels Recreational craft - Ramming of Bridges Other fixed objects or channel wall - Grounding - Wake damage to Houseboats Small craft or swimmers o Estimates consequences of accident to - NOAA vessels - Other vessels (commercial and/or recreational) - Persons (life and limb) - Other (on shore) property o Considers differences in risk for summer and winter conditions. o Quantifies accidents as to estimated frequency of occurrence and magnitude of the consequences. o Considers mitigating measures which can be applied to reduce the frequency or consequences of perceived risks. Safety Weighting Factor o Provides, for each class of NOAA vessels, a relative ranking covering - Ease of maneuverability in restricted waters - The spatial requirements as related to breadth and draft A-64 Table 11 COMPONENTS OF THE RISK ANALYSIS Frequency of Exposure to Risk o Provides projections on frequency of transit, through each locational risk feature, by - Class of vessel - Season First quarter (Jan. , Feb. , March) when recreational activity is minimal. Third quarter (July, Aug., Sept.) when recreational activity is maximal. Operational Risk o Provides a numerical rating for each candidate site, of the perceived risks of long-term operations for - Winter and summer conditions - Average condition A-65 LOCATIONAL RISK Risk has two major components: frequency and magnitude of the conse- quences. The combination of these two components determines both the seriousness of the risk and its overall acceptability, for example, 1f both the frequency and the consequences are low, the risk is generally considered inconsequential and acceptable. If on the other hand the frequency is low but the consequences are high (for example, the risk of living in earthquake prone country) the risk may be tolerated. Using these two components, a simple model, shown in figure 15, was developed for this analysis. In this model values ranging from 1 (the lowest risk) to 10 (the highest risk) have been assigned based upon both frequency and consequences. (No risks with a value of 9 or 10 were identified in the course of this analysis.) In the evaulation, subjective judgment (based upon an understanding of the problem and, where available, accident rate data) were used to assign appropriate values. For example, if the likelihood of hitting the Burlington-Northern Railroad (BNRR) Bridge was seen as occurring once in 100 years and resulting in substantial damage to both the ship and the bridge (a worst case condition was normally considered), then a value of cX was assigned with an associated numerical value of 6. Any other risk can be similarly coded and valued. The manner in which locational risk was determined is best illustrated by an example. The headings in Table 12 include the parameters just dis- cussed and are the basis for the locational risk analysis. For the first location, Shilshole Bay, the perceived risk to NOAA vessels (N) from col- lision with commercial vessels is coded as bX, with a value (from Fig. 15) of 4. Similarly, the perceived risk to persons (L) for this same type of accident is coded as aX with a value of 2. Other values are similarly determined for each possible type of accident within Shilshole Bay and totaled (in this case, 33). The next feature, the BNRR Bridge is similarly evaluated resulting in a total of 16. The cumulative total (i.e., 33 + 16 = 49) then represents the risk accrued by a NOAA vessel passing first through Shilshole Bay and then through the BNRR Bridge. The locational risk for any candidate site then, is the cumulative total of all the features which must be transited in order to reach the candidate site. Appendix 5 lists the assigned values used in the analysis. Values are given for a winter and summer condition and for the three mitigating packages described in Table 10 (the example above was for mitigating measure Package I and for the summer season). A summary of the locational risks for all cases is shown in Table 13. A-66 MAGNITUDE OF CONSEQUENCES /$ <^ 05 (0 °- E >. 05 (0 «-E s « QlQ 05 C _J_J 05 fij a E 2 « £ E ^" Sis i- D5 05 R> °- E 2 « £ E a b C d c 05 u c O k_ 3 U u O o > _j >-' o z 1X1 O LU DC a. >150 years W 1 3 5 7 15-150 years X 2 4 6 8 2-15 years Y 3 5 7 9 < 2 years Z 4 6 8 10 Figure 15 Composite Risk Values Derived from Estimated Frequency of Occurrence and Consequences to Property and/or Life and Limb 01 (tl ro CJ O XI u a< a: ro U 3 C-J I I i i i i i i ro XOJ .a x «*• .a >>Ln u >,r- ro >>oo I I ! ro X M I I I J2 X* I I u 3m u Xsf (0 X <\J .a X *j- CO XM 01 +J 3 ul i — O) n £Z Q- a> I — OJ •i— ■r~ OJ (/> C£ to (/) ^— ' c a ^ ■>-> to S_ Ol 01 S- c ai z o _l a. A-68 Table 13 SUMMARY OF VALUE OF CALCULATED LOCATIONAL RISKS Location Mitigating Measure Package I S W* 33 27 16 16 21 17 30 23 13 13 37 27 22 22 31 25 37 37 27 18 55 38 16 16 45 31 II S W S III W 33 27 33 27 10 10 10 10 21 17 21 17 30 2o 30 23 8 8 8 8 37 27 37 27 13 13 13 13 31 25 31 25 19 19 19 19 27 18 22 14 55 38 34 26 9 9 9 9 45 31 30 23 Shilshole Bay BNRR Bridge Chittenden Locks Salmon Bay Ballard Bridge Fremont Cut Fremont Bridge Lake Union University Bridge Portage Bay Reach Portage Cut Monti ake Bridge Union Bay Reach Lake Washington Sand Poi nt 30 23 30 23 30 23 Kenmore 35 26 35 26 35 26 * S W = Summer = Winter season season A-69 SAFETY WEIGHTING FACTOR The safety weighting factor accounts for the operational characteristics shown in Table 8 and the nayigational constraints posed by vessel size in constricted waters, as shown in Figure 13. Considerable variation for the safety weighting factor can occur within a given vessel class. Most notably in Class I the Oceanographic and the Discoverer , sister ships, have twin screws plus through the hull -bow thrusters which, in toto, make these ships handle well despite their sizes. On the other hand, the Class I Surveyor , which is almost as large, has a single screw and a much less effective stern mounted Harbormaster; its handling characteristics, and hence its ability to maneuver safely in tight quarters, are more limited. Dif- ferences between vessel classes are accounted for by the use of safety weighting factors, namely: Class Safety Weighting Factor I 1.2 II 0.75 III 0.5 V 0.3 EXPOSURE TO RISK Frequency of transit was derived from available data (shown graphi- cally in Figure 5) and two cases were selected for evaluation: first quarter (Jan-Feb-Mar) when large ship transits are lowest and third quarter (July-Aug-Sept) when large ship transits were highest. These quarters also coincide closely with minimum and maximum recreational uses of the waters of LWSC. The first quarter, then, constitutes a best case and the third quarter a worst case. The projects transits Cone-way trips) per quarter to either consoli- dated or split site alternatives used were: a ass I ii III V Summer Winter 11.5 7.5 13 4.5 3 7.5 5.5 11.5 Annual Total = 120* Represents a worst case through the year 2000. A-70 An average seasonal value was used for the split site with staging pier at Sand Point option. These values, for transits per quarter, were: Class II III 2.5 1 1.5 1 Annual Total = 20* OPERATIONAL RISKS Operational risk was determined for each candidate site and for each option using the methodology and the values just described and applying equation (1). The total values calculated by this procedure are shown in Table 14. These values were then averaged (where both summer and winter cases were determined) and normalized using the split site alternative at Lake Union, mitigating measure package No. 1 as the base (this represents the present operation on Lake Union). These average normalized values are displayed in Figure 16. Figure 16 which expresses the deviation from the existing operation on Lake Union, clearly shows the increased risk associated with any operation on Lake Washington even when various mitigating measures are applied. Although differences between the Sand Point and Kenmore sites were recognized and initially determined, these differences were masked by the much larger cumulative risk values. Hence, in this discussion the two sites are not differentiated (differences are noted in Section VI). Again, not surprisingly, the split site alternatives at Salmon Bay show a marked decrease in risk over the present operation at Lake Union. Each split site alternative with the optional staging pier at Sand Point resulted in an increase in the risk but, still lower than the consolidated sites on Lake Washington proper. It is noteworthy, however, that the proposed mitigating measures, which were directed at reducing risks in the transit to Lake Washington, were according to this analysis, quite effective. Mitigating measures, being directed at the eastern portion of the canal, were naturally of little consequence in their effect on locations in either Lake Union or Salmon Bay. In summary, this analysis has shown significant differences between the various sites and options. *Represents a "worst case" condition through the year 2000. A-71 TABLE 14. CALCULATED VALUES FOR OPERATIONS RISKS AT VARIOUS CANDIDATE SITES Mitigating Measure Package Candidate Site I II III W S W S W Consolidated Sand Point Kenmore 11,275 6,185 10,046 5,349 8,927 4,903 o Averag< 8,730 (2.01) 7,698 (1.77) 6,915 (1.59) Split 2,136 (0.49) 1,998 (0.46) Salmon Bay 2,730 1,542 2,566 1,430 Lake Union 5,542 3,158 4,995 2,786 4,350 (1.00) 3,890 (0.89) Split w/Staging Salmon Bay 3,487 (0.80) 3,110 (0.71) Lake Union 5,245 (1.21) 4,664 (1.07) * S = Sumner W = Winter NOTES: (1) Values are determined in non-dimensionless units from Equation 1, and have not been rounded. (2) Values in parentheses indicate risk relative to present PMC operations. A-72 +100 +50 - o> c x: O III Lake Washington -50 Present ^fSite (Split) Lake Union I, II, III: Mitigating Measure Package Consolidated Site Split Site; No Staging Pier Split Site; Staging Pier Figure 16 Comparison of Risk for Alternative Sites and Options within the Lake Washington Ship Canal VI. COMPARISON OF CANDIDATE SITES Accident rates provide a convenient and meaningful comparison of the navigational risks at alternate sites. Only historically-derived accident rates were used for comparative purposes but the same data base could not be used for all candidate sites. The differences in the data bases are shown below: Candidate Sites Everett Tacoma Manchester Mukilteo LWSC (all) LWSC (all) Years Covered Type Vessels 1974-1977 Freighter > 18 ft. 1971-1977 ii 1971-1976 ii 1971-1976 H 1974-1977 All commei 1971-1976 Freighter* Derivation Direct - from CG & COE draft data on the port Indirect - from CG & OIW data on similar ports al Direct - from CG & COE data on the port Indirect - from CG & OIW > 18 ft. draft data on similar ports These data bases were used, as described in Section II, to arrive at a "base" accident rate, representative of existing conditions. The base rate was then "fine tuned" to account for factors which might add to or decrease the base accident rate (Table 15). Consideration was given to possibility of collision with either commercial or recreational vessels, ramming (bridges, but not piers), and grounding. This fine tuning was intended to reflect accidents which would be of special concern to NOAA operations in transit to or at the candidate site. Since some value judgments were used in assigning base rates, the criteria used will be described: Everett : A base rate of 2.0 accidents per 1,000 port calls, slightly higher than the value noted in Table 6 (that is, 1.8), has been used to be on the conservative side, the higher value was chosen. No other factors were identified in the risk assessment which would modify the base rate so the adjusted rate is identical; that is, 2.0 accidents per 1,000 port calls. ,-74 co co o CO LU C£ O O o UJ or. Q o _l < o co i — i q: CO ■O (0 01 e ■r— ■O C 3 O S- O 1— § 3 JO C£ •r- S_ +-> 4-> «=t CD c O 4-> O) 03 •1— oc ca •1 — 1— • 1 — ■ E O O O O CD Qi CO 4-> 00 QC CD 4-> •r— TO E 00 HH0O o o o o CXI OOO I* o CM O O O O CO o o o o o o OOO o CNI CO CO CO CO CO CO o CNI CO 00 ^1- 1— « .—I CO C O +■> cn c >>Ct- -»-> CD3 S- U 3 O Qi O E O) z: CO 1— j*: _*: 4-> CD CO (D (O lO +-> ■p r— e O O CO OOO > 3 +■> O 1- S- E +■> O CU 4- 0. J= TO O 3 S- • at •r- CO 1— 1 c JC O . +J .,- Qi CO 1 +-> cn ,+J O JO O Q_ CO O f0 O) 1— io-o i. i- ^~ cu =J O (O Qi cn s: s_ i- s- c ■a •!- cn Ol ai 1— c • jo -0 •1— -»-> c 4-> 4- TO A3 A J= «0 '\ tO -r- •r- s- SI CD O o_ CO Qi C (A Qi a. O co S- +-> CO 4-> a> s- -0 a» CD J= c CO TO CT>r— t— 00 s- M JO M- -r- CO > a> +-> d) fO +-> 4-> s_ s- s- a» •r" (O 4-> TO 3 C t/j m Qi c _l •r- c i- Qi m 0) •nzr ■M 0. TO +■> 4-> 4-> JO c -a "O CO Qi CT3 4J a> •r" CO a> •r- a» CO CO (U 1- Q> r— 1— o_ 3 ■*-> CL tO Q_C|- I- ■!-) (O Qi (O o_ 0) J= TO ad S.CQ (0 S. co cC . , ^-, ^-^ t-H CNJ CO CO Qi 4-> O A-75 Mulkiteo : Since this candidate site presently has no commercial vessel activity, a base accident rate slightly below the average value derived from the OIW for small ports was selected. Because of the possibility of ground- ing at this site s the rate was increased, resulting in an adjusted rate of 1.6 accidents per 1,000 port calls. Manchester : Since this candidate site presently has no commercial vessel activity, a base accident rate slightly below the average value derived from the OIW model for small ports was selected. The possibility of grounding and the routing of the Seattle-Bremerton ferry on the ingress to this candidate site resulted in an adjusted rate of 1.7 accidents per 1,000 port calls. Tacoma : The experiential accident rate for the Port of Tacoma for a 4-year period was found to be 7.4 accidents per 1,000 port calls (Table 6), However, in reviewing the data and in comparing it with an addendum to the OIW Study, it was noted that this value may have been skewed by an unusually high number of accidents in the sample period, especially in 1976. Since data on accidents in the Port of Tacoma for the period from 1971-1973 were available (in the OIW addendum), these values were incorporated, providing a data base for the years 1971-1977, representing over 3,000 freighter port calls. The resultant rate, 5.6 accidents/1,000 port calls, reflects, as expected, the lower number of accidents reported in the years from 1971-1975. The value of 5.6 accidents/1,000 port calls was then used on the base rate for the Port of Tacoma.* This base rate was then adjusted for the north Tacoma site downward to 5.4 accidents per 1,000 port calls to reflect the fact that no bridge traversal was required. LWSC : No freighter accident rate could be determined for the LWSC, no such accidents being reported. Rather an estimated rate of 2.0 accidents per 1,000 port calls -- slightly above the OIW average for small ports -- was used. Based upon the analysis in Section II, which reflects expected accident rates for ocean-going vessels using the waters of LWSC, base rates were assigned to the three candidate sites in the LWSC. Salmon Bay : The base rate of 1.8 was decreased to 1.7 accidents per 1,000 port calls because the site requires transit through only one bridge. *Changes in accident rate as the data base increases are to be expected. However, caution must be exercised in extending the time frame since older data may reflect operational or navigational conditions which no longer pertain. A-76 Lake Union : The base rate for Lake Union was increased to 1.9 acci- dents per 1,000 port calls because of the several bridges which have to be transited in arriving at this site. Lake Washington : The base rate of 3.4 accidents per 1,000 port calls was increased to reflect the increased probability of accidents involving recreational vessels in the Portage Cut area, increased probability of bridge ramming and increased probability of grounding at the west end of the Portage Cut, resulting in an adjusted rate of 3.8. The adjusted accident rates do show differences between candidate sites but leave unanswered the question: are these rates within acceptable limits? The definition of acceptable risk comes into play since, ideally, we prefer no accidents and no risk situations. Realistically, however, the "real world" involves risks. Normally an accident rate for a given situation which is relatively constant over time and which does not deviate markedly from the accident rate for similar situations, is assumed to be acceptable. In this framework, then, the projected accident rate for the N0AA candidate sites were compared with accident rates experienced by large and small port systems across the United States. The Oceanographic Institute of Washington, in their pioneer study of freighter accidents in Greater Puget Sound (previously referenced), developed freighter accident rates for 7 large port systems (defined as all ports within a waterway or locale) and 9 smaller port systems. The results are shown in Table 16. The rate for larger ports averages 3.64 accidents/1,000 port calls with a standard deviation of ± 1.24. As would be expected, two major port systems (San Francisco and Los Angeles, interestingly, both areas on the West Coast), are more than one standard deviation removed from the average. The spread in accident rates for smaller port systems is even greater than for large ports. By eliminating Searsport, Maine (which having experienced a single accident with a very low port call rate apparently has a very high accident rate), an average of 1.40 accidents/1,000 port calls with a standard deviation of ± 0.98 were found. Accident rates for the candidate sites are compared with the national average in Table 17. From Table 17 it can be seen that all candidate sites except Lake Washington and the two Tacoma sites fall within one standard deviation of the national averages found by 0IW. Lake Washington, being more than 2 standard deviations from the average for small ports, poses some questions as to acceptability of the risk at that location.* However, *The application of mitigating measures, Package III, is estimated to reduce the risk, on the average, in the transit to Lake Washington by 20 percent over MM Package I. If MM Package III is instituted, the apparent rate drops to 3.0 accidents/1,000 port calls, well within two standard deviations from the average (about the same placement as San Francisco is to the average for large port systems). A-77 Table 16 FREIGHTER ACCIDENT RATES AT SEVERAL MAJOR AND SMALLER PORT SYSTEMS IN THE U.S. (period 1969-1975) Average Annual Accidents/1,000 Port System Port Calls Port Calls New York 5,738 3.4 Delaware 2,671 3.2 Chesapeake 6,222 3.2 Gulf Coast 3,770 4.9 Los Angeles/Long Bi 2ach 2,773 1.7 San Francisco 2,815 5.5 Greater Puget Soum i 2,004 3.6 Average/Standard Deviation 3,713* 1,638 3.64±1.24 Searsport, Me. 41 10.3 Portsmouth, N.H. 24 Plymouth, Mass. 321 1.8 Fall River, Mass. 58 2.5 Charleston, S.C. 1,187 2.2 Savannah, Ga. 1,024 1.5 Miami, Fla. 1,238 1.0 Pensacola, Fla. 192 2.2 Crescent City, Ca. 128 Average/Standard Devi at ion 468 ± 522 2.38±3.11 (without Searspo rt) 521.5 ±531 1.40 ±.98 Source: 0IW. A-78 TABLE 17. COMPARISON OF ACCIDENT RATES FOR CANDIDATE SITES WITH NATIONAL AVERAGE ACCIDENT RATES Estimated Large Small i 2r Annual Ports Ports Port Calls* National Average 3.64 ± 1.24 1.40 ± .98 (3,713 large) (522 small) Tacoma-North** 5.4 __ 575 Ta coma -South 5.6 -- 575 Mukilteo — 1.6 60 Salmon Bay -- 1.7 80 Manchester -- 1.7 60 Lake Union -- 1.9 72 Everett -- 2.0 187 Lake Washington — — 3.8 62 Note: Tacoma is treated as a large port because of associated barge and tanker traffic. *Includes 60 port calls/year for NOAA vessels plus freighter (>18 foot draft) traffic. A-79 it must be recalled that the risk values for all sites within the LWSC were derived indirectly and are used only as guidelines. For example, it might be argued that the apparent accident rate for Lake Washington should be lower, using the following reasoning: Based upon "best recollection" (primarily active and retired pilots), only one ship accident of any consequence (and that a tanker) has occurred in the movement of ocean-going vessels into Lake Washington over the years since before World War II. A "best guess" accident rate based on this "hearsay" data would be closer to 1.5 accidents/1,000 port calls. The Port of Tacoma is within 2 standard deviations of the national average -- in about the same range as the San Francisco port system. Statistically, the accident rate value for the Port of Tacoma is within the normal range. In an effort to determine if "criteria for acceptability of accident rates" were available, representatives of the shipping industry and ship underwriters were contacted (see Appendix 2). The concensus was that no standards exist for acceptable risk. However, an underwriter of hulls (ships are insured by their components) provided some interesting guide- lines: o Accidents, as such, have little meaning. Most important is the seriousness (magnitude) of the accident and, to a lesser extent, the cause of the accident. o Concern is expressed if one ship (normally in a larger insured fleet) has more than two accidents/year. o Underwriters do recognize some general locations (such as the Orinoco River) as higher risk, and in some cases may increase the premiums for ships regularly engaged in traffic to such higher- risk ports. However, no port system, regardless of its accident record, is "blackballed." (Further, individual ports are generally not considered; rather the area of concern is the general locale, such as Greater Puget Sound). Since no recognized criteria for acceptability of risks levels at the candidate sites (or for any other port, in fact) was found, no conclusions in this regard can be drawn. It can be noted, however, that apparent accident rates are appreciably higher at candidate sites on Lake Washington and at Tacoma. Although the risk assessment analysis has not eliminated any candidate sites due to unusually high navigational risks, it has delineated differences between them. As a potentially useful tool to the decision-maker, Table 18 A-80 TABLE 18. RANKING OF CANDIDATE SITES WITH RESPECT TO ESTIMATED ACCIDENTS TO NOAA VESSELS OVER FACILITY LIFETIME Rate 1 » Est imated Number of Candidate Accidents/1,000 Accidents to NOAA Rank Site Port Calls Ves: sels 1 Mukilteo 1.6 2.6 2 Salmon Bay 1.7 2.7 3 Manchester 1.7 2.7 4 Lake Union 1.9 3.0 5 Everett 2.0 3.2 6 Lake Washinc o with Miti |ton igation 3.8 6.1 (Package HI) 3.0 4.8 7 Tacoma - Nor •th 5.4 8.6 8 Tacoma - Sol ith 5.6 9.0 NOTES: Assumes present practice (i.e., MM Package I) unless otherwise noted; values from "adjusted rate" column, Table 15. 2 Assumes 60 port calls per year over a 40-year facility design life and a NOAA vessel accident rate which is 2/3 that of the base (freighter) accident rate. Source: URS Company A-81 has been prepared which ranks the candidate sites according to the number of "reportable" accidents, that is total damage exceeds $1,500, which might be anticipated over the 40 year design lifetime of the facility.* How- ever, the table does not and cannot predict the severity of accidents which might occur nor the time frame in which they might occur because of the probabilistic nature of accidents (a series of reportable accidents might occur in a very short period followed by a very long period without accidents). It is evident that, all things being equal, candidate sites with low accident rates are to be preferred over ports with higher accident rates. On the other hand, it must be stressed that operations at any site does entail risk, and that the occurrence of accidents at any site cannot be ruled out. For this reason, as with any project, mitigating measures should be thoroughly considered initially and as the project progresses these should be, to the extent possible, incorporated to ensure that the project is as safe as possible. The candidate sites can also be viewed in terms of the incremental impact of NOAA fleet location at each of them. Table 19 compares, for each site, the number of accidents, estimated for a ten year period, which can be attributed to NOAA fleet operations and to commercial freighter operations. The incremental impact of NOAA operations, in terms of projected accidents, is of course, greatest for those sites where existing traffic is light or absent; on the other hand, NOAA operations at busy ports, such as Tacoma, would have little incremental impact on the accident rate. The obviously greater incremental impact of NOAA operations at sites with presently low traffic volumes is not, however, the complete picture. Two additional factors must be considered; the benefits to be accrued from operations at the selected site and the "displacement of the risk" from sites which were rejected. Risk cannot be measured in absolute terms; it is only half of the equation; risk vs. benefit. That is, risk is never routinely accepted unless a substantial benefit is also anticipated. In the overall picture, then, the expected benefits for each site must be weighed against the perceived risks at the site. While such an assess- ment is not within the scope of this study, it must be remembered that, normally, greater risks can be tolerated where greater benefits are foreseen. In this perspective, candidate sites cannot be eliminated on the basis of either higher than average base accident rates or incremental impacts. *In Table 18, the adjusted accident rates from Table 15 are used. The reader is reminded that this "adjusted rate" does not statistically differentiate any candidate site from the comparable national average. However, "large ports", such as Tacoma, would be expected to have a statistically significantly higher accident rate than would "small ports". A-82 TABLE 19. BASE AND INCREMENTAL ACCIDENT RATES Estimated Number of Accidents Over a Ten Year Period *• Site Freighters* NOAA Mukilteo .64 Salmon Bay .34 .68 Manchester .68 Lake Union .23 .76 Everett 2.54 .80 Lake Washington o MM Package I .08 1.52 o MM Package III — 1.20 Tacoma North 28.35 2.16 Tacoma South 29.40 2.24 NOTE: Values are expressed to two decimal places for comparative purposes only. Only one decimal place is warranted by the data used *Accident rates and freighter traffic projections based on Table 17, **Accident rate for NOAA vessels assumed to be two-thirds that of the base (freighter) rate. A-83 The second factor, displacement of risk, is difficult to quantify, but is, nonetheless, a consideration. The selection of one site, while raising the incremental impact at that site, simultaneously reduces the potential incremental impact at all other sites. It can be argued on this basis, that by "spreading the risk" (for example, placement of the NOAA fleet at Mukilteo with a low estimated accident rate as against Tacoma with a higher accident rate), the overall risk (in this case to Greater Puget Sound), would be lowered. No matter what candidate site (including the present location) is selected, the possibility of a reportable accident involving a NOAA vessel remains. The potential for accident, regardless of how low, is an unavoidable impact associated with the proposed project. A-84 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Major conclusions of this study are: (1) Differences have been found between the various candidate sites. However, no basis for eliminating any candidate site from consideration was found. (2) Mitigating measures which would be of value in increasing the safety at each candidate site have been idt ;fied. The incor- poration of these mitigating measures into preliminary and final design should be pursued. It is recommended that mitigating measures be incorporated into any site selected as deemed necessary. Specifically, in any of the candidate sites located within the LWSC, the following recommendations regarding operational procedures are made: (1) Accountability of skippers entering the LWSC in foul weather should be improved. To this end regulations should be issued for each vessel (taking into account the individual characteristics of the vessel) indicating under what foul weather conditions the skipper must obtain a mandatory radio briefing from PMC prior to undertaking the transit. At the same time PMC headquarters should provide the incoming skipper with any information on available alternate berthing either in a Puget Sound berth or within the western confines of the LWSC. (2) An alternate berth capable of accomodating at least 1 large and 1 medium size NOAA vessel simultaneously should be made available in Puget Sound to ensure that transits of the LWSC would not have to be attempted under conditions of stress, in foul weather, or when traffic jams occur within the LWSC. Alternatively a dedicated alternative berth at Salmon Bay would be marginally acceptable although it does not provide the flexibility that a berth on Puget Sound would. (3) Any NOAA vessel should transit the LWSC only when at least one senior officer has previous experience on the transit. This requirement should be made mandatory to ensure that a rapid turnover of personnel does not unintentionally leave the ship without an experienced senior officer aboard. In lieu of the use of experienced NOAA personnel, a Puget Sound Pilot could be used. A-85 (4) Limitations on the speed of operation within the LWSC, which are now loosely stated, should be documented and guidelines should be drawn up, depending upon the individual ship characteristics, as to when it is permissible to exceed the suggested 4 knot speed. A-86 APPENDIX 1 FILES REVIEWED (available through NOAA) DESCRIPTION IX-A-13 LTF Lake Washington Sailing Regattas IX-A-13 U.W. to Schmidt - Dept. of Oceanography Ship Transits IX-A-13 Powell to Frank - Sd. Pt. Ship Facility IX-A-13 Carnahan to Frank - NOAA Vessels in Montlake Cut IX-A-13 Seattle Pilot Contacts IX-A-13 NOAA Ship Characteristics IX-A-13 Log of NOAA Ship Transits IX-A-13 Cost Estimate for Transiting IX-A-13 Taylor to Schmidt - PMC Vessel Transits IX-A-13 Taylor to Schmidt - PMC Vessel Transits IX-A-4 COE to Schmidt - Comment Letters on Dredging IX-A-13 Lippold to File - Passage of NOAA Vessels Through Lake Washington Ship Canal IX-A-13 LTF University Bridge Openings DATE 1/12/78 1/16/78 9/8/77 10/4/77 6/23/77 7/12/77 7/14/77 7/29/77 6/8/77 1/13/78 4/1/77 4/8/77 4/25/77 A-87 IX-A-4 Schmidt to COE - Response to Letters Commenting on Permit Appl i cation IX-A-4 LTF - Response to Public Hearing of 6/14/77 IX-A-4 Poteat, COE to Erickson - Beginning of Series of Letters on Permit IX-A-4 McCormick to COE - Discussion of 6/14/77 Meeting IX-A-4 COE to Schmidt - Shoaling Rates and Controlling Widths of Ship Canal IX-A-4 Wilkens to COE - Discussion of 6/14/77 Meeting IX-A-4 McClelland to Times - Discussion of Permit Hearing IX-A-4 Oceano. Comm. of Wash. - Discussion of Permit Hearing IX-A-4 Bernson to COE - Statement in Lieu of Attend. Hearing IX-A-4 Schmidt to COE - Comments Consolidated on Hearings IX-A-4 Hawthorne Hills Community Club to COE - Favorable Comments IX-A-13 Montlake Bridge Openings IX-A-4 Schmidt to COE - Comments Regarding Permit Request IX-A-13 LTF - Width of Lake Washington Ship Canal IX-A-13 Gough to COE - Transit of NOAA Ships Through Lake Washington Ship Canal 4/26/77 7/8/77 6/2/77 6/21/77 6/24/77 6/18/77 6/23/77 6/20/77 6/21/77 7/12/77 7/27/77 8/1/77 8/5/77 8/16/77 9/14/77 A-88 IX-A-4 Schmidt to COE - Statement of Conformity to State and Local Regulations IX-A-13 LTF - Tug and Barge Activities Through to Monti ake Cut IX-A-4 Univ. of Wash, to COE - Support of NOAA IX-A-4 Laurel hurst Community Club to COE - Opposition to NOAA Ships IX-A-4 Application for Dredging Permit IX-A-4 News Release of Dredging Permit Nickum & Spalding - Impact Study of Large NOAA Vessel Transit Through Lake Washington Ship Canal Corps of Engineers - Environmental Assessment for Dredging Permit Zabinski, USCG to Poteat, COE - Review of Navigational Safety Concerns for Dredging Permit Poteat to Gough - Discussion of Potential Disadvantages of Bringing Ships into Lake Washington Jarrett to File - Vessel Transits of Montlake Cut - Discussion with Captain Olsberg, Puget Sound Pilots Jarrett to File - Vessel Transits of Montlake Cut - Discussion with Capt. Luther, Puget Sound Pilots Jarrett to File - University of Washington Waterfront Activities Jarrett to File - Montlake Bridge Openings and Traffic Flow Conditions Jarrett to File - 2 Memos Concerning Commercial Traffic on Lake Washington 8/17/77 8/17/77 8/19/77 9/9/77 2/18/77 9/28/77 9/1/77 9/28/77 8/19/77 9/28/77 1/5/78 1/5/78 3/16/78 1/18/78 1/23 & 25/78 A-89 Miller to Speer - Lake Washington Ship Canal Traffic Albrecht - Vessel Moorage Alternatives Study Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton to NBBJ - Pier Siting Study Oceano. Inst, of Wash, to Gough - EIS Navigational Study Speer to Taylor - Large Vessel Transits into Lake Washington Lippold to File - Passage of NOAA Vessels Through the Lake Washington Ship Canal PMC Directives Concerning Water Pollution Project Instructions for Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Washington Survey issued to NOAA Ship Davidson Affidavits of Donald W. Thurning, COE; Cdr. Raymond Speer, Captain G. Fredrick Lindholm, Puget Sound Pilots Additional Information - Comparative Site Study for the Consolidation of NOAA Seattle Area Operations by Robert G. Albrecht, P.E. ADM Rockville, MD to Director PMC - NOAA Vessel Accidents in Seattle Area Taylor to Schmidt - Vessel Mishaps Taylor to Van Horn - NOAA Ships Transiting LWSC - 1977 EXBW-60 LTF - Powell to Frank - Sand Point Ship Facility EXBW-40 LTF - Lippold to Axl, NOS - Sand Point Safe Vessel Traffic Taylor to Powell - Status Report - Move to Sand Point LTF - Carnahan to Director, NOS - PMC Facility Lake Union 11/14/77 9/75 2/77 2/23/78 12/2/77 1/24/78 NOAA; and 6/74 4/28/78 5/4/78 5/4/78 9/8/77 8/15/75 4/11/78 5/9/75 A-90 Apell to Hess - PMEL at Sand Point Sand Point Building Committee to Frank - Contingency Plan for NOAA's Seattle Consolidation Hess to Carnahan - Draft EIS for Sand Point LTF - Powell to Frank - Sand Point Ship Facility LTF - ADFNxl to Jarrett - UW Recreational Boat Activity Speer to Director, PMC - Large Vessel Transits into Lake Washington Gough to Poteat - Transit of NOAA Ships Through LWSC Speer to Townsend - Calculated Stop Distances for Class I Vessels IX-A-13 Schmidt to Lum, COE - Oil Spills at PMC Zabinski to Spearman, COE - Recent NOAA Spills Geren, Water Compliance & Permits Branch to Spearman, COE - Water Quality Impacts A0F9 x 1 LTF, Stanke - Width of LWSC 3/2/78 12/1/77 11/12/74 9/8/77 3/16/78 12/2/77 9/14/77 9/1/77 6/29/77 7/27/77 8/17/77 8/19/77 A-91 APPENDIX 2 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED Lloyd E. Finney, Streets and Bridge Maintenance, City of Seattle. Captain Gunnar Olsborg, Puget Sound Pilots Association. Charles Rowland, Boating Safety and Regattas, U.S. Coast Guard, 13th District. Captain P. H. Luther, Puget Sound Pilots Association. Tom Kirsch, Waterfront Activities Center, University of Washington. Rich Tomlinson, METRO Sewer District, Seattle. Commander Jay Pounds, Marine Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard, 13th District. Captain Adam Zabinski, Marine Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard, 13th District. Carl Comnick, Operations Office, Bridge Maintenance, City of Seattle. Wayne Gorton, Operations Office, Bridge Maintenance, City of Seattle. Ray Vanderhof (Montlake Bridge Tender), Operations Office, Bridge Maintenance, City of Seattle. Commander Walton, Aids to Navigation Division, U.S. Coast Guard, 13th District. Gerry Keller, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle. Commander Harry Oberden, Boat Safety Division, 13th U.S. Coast Guard District. Byron Esko and Art Ficken, Project Office, Corps of Engineers, Chittenden Locks. Charles Keenan, Western Environmental Trade Association, Seattle, Washington. A-92 American Bureau of Shipping, New York. American Institute of Marine Underwriters, New York. John O'Donnell, American Hull Insurance Syndicate, New York. MAJOR CONTACTS AND POINTS OF INFORMATION WITHIN NOAA WERE: Admiral Eugene Taylor, Pacific Marine Center. Captain Charles Townsend, Pacific Marine Center. Henry Shek, Pacific Marine Center. James Watkins, Sand Point Project Office. Howard Langeveld, Sand Point Project Office. James Hilario, Sand Point Project Office. Captain R.E. Williams, NOAA, Washington, D.C. A-93 APPENDIX 3 MAJOR STANDARD REFERENCES Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1976, Part IV, Waterways and Harbors, Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii. Corps of Engineers. For sale by District Engineer, U.S. Army District, San Francisco, 100 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94103 - $2.00. This annual publication lists for each district comparative statement of traffic for the previous years and the freight traffic for the current year by type of commodity and destination. It also list, for each major harbor, the number of trips by type and draft of vessel. Port Series prepared by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, for sale by Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Kingman Build- ing, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060. Also for sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. This valuable series of documents provides location and general descrip- tion for each harbor, pertinent pictures, and overview or aerial photograph of the harbor, and a detailed description of each pier, wharf, and dock within the harbor, keyed to the map. Of particular value is the purpose for which pier, wharf, or dock is used. o The Ports of Tacoma, Greys Harbor, and Olympia, Washington, Port Series No. 35, revised 1975, priced $3.90. o Port of Seattle, Washington, Port Series No. 36, Revised 2975, priced $3.50. o Ports of Port Angeles, Port Townsend, Everett, Anacortes, and Bellingham, Washington, Port Series No. 37, revised 1976, priced $4.00. United States Coast Pilot 7, Pacific Coast - California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, U.S. Department of Commerce, available through marine supply stores. Nautical Charts issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, U.S. Department of Commerce, available through marine supply stores. A-94 o Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Washington, Washington. Nautical Chart 18447, Edition 16, April 1978. o Admiralty Inlet, Puget Sound, Nautical chart 18440, 11th Edition, 1977. o These nautical charts and others similar on a larger scale, provide information on channel depth, access, etc. and are very useful in following discussions in the study. 5. Tidal currents, charts, National Ocean Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. Available through navigational supply stores. o Puget Sound, Northern Part, 3rd Edition, 1973. o Puget Sound, Southern Part, 3rd Edition, 1973. A-95 APPENDIX 4 CHARACTERIZATION OF NOAA VESSELS LOCATED AT THE PACIFIC MARINE CENTER, LAKE UNION Prepared by Richard Lee Storch Naval Architect Ph.D., P.E. (State of Washington) May 30, 1978 INTRODUCTION The intent of this document is to review the vessel characteristics that pertain to navigational risk of the NOAA fleet presently home-ported at the Pacific Marine Center (PMC) and to compare those characteristics to standard U.S. commercial vessel practice. The characteristics which will be examined are: power plants, bridge control, steering, system redundancy, navigational and communication equip- ment, and slow speed maneuverability. CHARACTERISTICS OF NOAA VESSELS In general, the NOAA fleet stationed at the Pacific Marine Center is composed of vessels that have good maneuvering characteristics compared to commercial vessels of equivalent size. Maneuvering, as used in this report, implies both the ability to vary the magnitude and direction of power application and the ability to vary vessel position and orientation. The nature of the mission of these vessels, oceanographic survey and research, requires that they have maneuvering and positioning capabilities far in excess of normal commercial practice. On-site inspection and plan review of these vessels confirms this notion. A. Power Plants Of the ten vessels under consideration, three have power plants that are the same as standard U.S. commercial vessel practice. These three vessels are the Class I ship, the SURVEYOR , and the two Class V vessels, the OREGON and the JOHN N. COBB . The SURVEYOR has steam turbine main propulsion and a single fixed blade propeller, which is standard for deep draft U.S. commercial vessels. Her maneuvering characteristics have been somewhat enhanced by the addition of a stern-mounted 200 H.P. Harbormaster system. This auxiliary propulsion unit is capable of being directed in a full 360° circle, providing thrust at the stern in any direction. This feature improves the maneuverability of this vessel to a point slightly in excess of standard commercial practice. The two Class V vessels have geared Diesel engine power plants and single fixed pitch propellers. They are therefore identical to the over- whelming majority of commercial fishing vessels and tugboats of equivalent size operating in the Pacific Northwest. The remaining seven vessels have features that result in maneuvering characteristics that are superior to the standard U.S. commercial practice. The two Class I sister ships, 0CEAN0GRAPHER and DISCOVERER , have Diesel electric main propulsion, with twin fixed bladed propellers. Diesel electric systems are usually provided only on vessels that require quick response and good maneuverability. These power plants are generally more A-97 expensive than standard geared Diesel or steam turbine plants. Many of the Washington State ferries are provided with Diesel electric power plants to satisfy their requirements for quick response and maneuverability. The three Class II vessels, sisters FAIRWEATHER and RAINIER , and the MILLER FREEMAN and the two Class III vessels, sisters McARTHUR and DAVIDSON , have geared Diesels and controllable pitch propellers. Controllable pitch propellers provide greater control of power and quicker response to changes in power than fixed pitch propellers. Consequently, these vessels have maneuvering characteristics in excess of standard commercial practice. B. Bridge Control Nine of these ten NOAA vessels have direct bridge control of their power plants, the exception being the SURVEYOR . This implies quicker response on these nine vessels, since the skipper can change powering without going through the normal shipboard practice of signaling from the bridge to the engine room through the engine telegraph with the engineer then responsible for adjusting the power controls at his control panel in the engine room. All the Class I and II vessels have thrusters for pro- viding athwartship thrust including through hull, fixed bow thrusters on the OCEANOGRAPHER , DISCOVERER , FAIRWEATHER , and RAINIER , a stern mounted Harbormaster on the SURVEYOR , and a retractable bow thruster on the MILLER FREEMAN . C. Steering All ten vessels have standard commercial electro-hydraulic steering gears, with two independent pumps and motors each of which is capable of activating the rams to move the tillers and turn the rudders. In addition, mechanical backup is available, generally by rigging a block and tackle at the steering gear, or by hand-driven pumps to activate the hydraulic system at the steering gear. The JOHN N. COBB has a mechanical backup system on the bridge in the form of a wheel which produces a manual pumping action to activate the hydraulic steering system. The steering gear on these ships is equivalent to standard U.S. commercial practice. D. System Redundancy Six of the ten vessels have full redundancy of power plants. The OCEANOGRAPHER and DISCOVERER can employ any combination of their 4 Diesel- generator sets to power the 2 propulsion motors. Each motor is used to drive a propeller. Consequently, loss of a Diesel-generator set would not seriously affect power generation. Loss of a propulsion motor would result in the loss of one of the two propellers for power transmission. The FAIRWEATHER , RAINIER , McARTHUR and DAVIDSON each have 2 independent propul- sion systems, including a Diesel engine, reduction gear set and shaft and propeller. For these four vessels, loss of any part of these systems would A-98 result in loss of power from one propeller hut would not affect the other propeller. Despite this redundancy, certain failures can result in total loss of power. Such total power plant failures have occurred on at least two of these six vessels but with no serious consequences. The remaining four vessels have less redundancy in main propulsion. The SURVEYOR , while only single screw, has two boilers and two turbines and thus would be capable of some power generation despite the loss of a boiler or turbine. Problems in the drive train (gears, shaft and propeller) would result in loss of main engine power. This vessel does have a small stern- mounted Harbormaster unit, which is independent of the main propulsion system and which could provide power to limited maneuverability. The MILLER FREEMAN has a single Diesel and gear set and a single screw. Loss of a part of this system would result in the loss of main power. A retract- able bow thruster, independent of the main power plant, would provide some maneuvering power. The OREGON and the JOHN N. COBB both have single Diesel engines, single reduction gear sets and single screws. They would be without maneuvering power should they lose any part of their main propul- sion system. E. Navigation and Communication Equipment All ten vessels have navigation and communication equipment far in excess of standard U.S. commercial practice, in part as a result of their missions. All vessels have a minimum of two VHF/FM bridge-to-bridge trans- ceivers (1 is required by Coast Guard regulations) and at least one high frequency radio-telephone transceiver. All vessels have two independent radar sets and at least two shallow water echo depth sonders, with the exception of the JOHN N. COBB which has one. For transitting the waters of the Lake Washington Ship Canal from Puget Sound to Lake Washington, the VHF/FM bridge-to-bridge transceivers, the shallow water echo depth sounders and the radar are probably the most important pieces of navigation and communication equipment. F. Slow Speed Characteristics There is very little data available with which to judge the turning and stopping characteristics of the vessels in the NOAA PMC fleet. New vessel sea trial data were available for six of the vessels. These data only provided full speed turning circle diameter and advance for four vessels and full speed crash stop distance for two vessels. These data show that these vessels, OCEANOGRAPHER , DISCOVERER , FAIRWEATHER , RAINIER , McARTHUR , and DAVIDSON would compare favorably with standard commercial vessels. Since these data do not permit accurate prediction of maneuvering characteristics at the slow speeds proposed for NOAA vessel operation in the Lake Washington Ship Canal (about 4 knots), NOAA will, in the near future, conduct comprehensive sea trials to determine slow speed character- istics for each vessel. A-99 COMPARISON WITH COMMERCIAL VESSELS Standard commercial practice for deep draft vessels (equivalent to NOAA Class I, II and III) would entail either steam turbine or geared diesel main propulsion driving a single propeller. A single rudder would also be standard. Generally, no side thrusters would be installed as part of standard commercial practice. Using this as a baseline for comparison, it is quite apparent that six of the eight larger NOAA vessels are superior to commercial practice, combining twin screw, twin rudder systems with superior Diesel-electric or controllable pitch propeller systems. This includes the OCEANOGRAPHER , DISCOVERER , FAIRWEATHER , RAINIER , McARTHUR , and DAVIDSON . Twin screws provide the greatest improvement over commercial practice for turning ability, and either Diesel-electric propulsion or controllable pitch propellers provide quicker engine response to commands. The MILLER FREEMAN has a single propeller and rudder, but has a controll- able pitch propeller providing quicker engine response. This vessel addi- tionally has a retractable bow thruster to aid turning ability at slow speeds. The SURVEYOR is superior to standard commercial practice only slightly in terms of turning ability due to the presence of the stern- mounted 360° thruster. Maneuverability is less critical for the Class V vessels due to their smaller size. These NOAA vessels, OREGON and JOHN N. COBB , are identical to standard commercial practice. Although all vessels can experience total power plant failure and/or complete loss of maneuvering capability, the larger NOAA vessels are better than standard commercial practice in this regard. A-100 o o c o o o O o o P-. o o c O o LO o o o m Pd o o CM vD CM m U"| m co CM CN CM rH rH CO CO O E-" Z O M Z CO 3 H ^ es o u w w Ph CO m CM CO on CO ON < Q hJ w CO CO w > H W W ON ON CT. ON m ON CO CO ON CM CM CM CM o I CM O I vO v£> o 00 00 r-^ ^D (*•» VO O ^D vO v£> v£> vD vr> ^O \r> hJ o CO CO CM rH rH in m m o »:r O o ON co CO rH l>» r^ o ON CO CO CM CM CM CM rH rH rH r-\ CM CM o rH CO o rH r-t CM o O co CM CM CM CO CO in m rH r-^ rH CM CM CM CO CO m m ed Pi CO CO CO ed CO CO Pi Pi Pi < fcy w Pi w CO 53 z z o w 2 M W H Q s <3 o > oi z ►J s M z Id CO Pi M M r-3 > a £c O r-l tD <; S M o < o O Q CO ft. IS a Q o •-3 A-101 OJ C •H 4-1 C o o < < Q W CO CO w > H W Pu o 53 2; H O' w 53 o i— i H <; CD CD 0) cu 0) 0) C c a c c c O o H o o o o C s C3 S (3 c o o i i B o B cj B u B o B u B a B a in m m m m in m CN 1 CM CM CM CM CM CN „ H CO pd Pd o w Cu > H SH W U o » CO w ^ n 3 pi PC y H w vD v£) U CD S o Pm 4J 4J •u •u ■u 4J 4J 4J 4-1 t3 4-1 ■u 4-1 j-i 4J ■U 4-1 4-1 4-) C cti rd ca crj rd rd rd rd cd rd E2 S tss E2 3 E3 E3 E2 Es 33 CM l Csi 1 CM 1 CM 1 CN 1 CM 1 CM 1 CM 1 CM 1 1 Pi w PQ 3 Pi Pi w S3 PQ O O pr; Pi H Cn Pi 25 O w o < Pi £3 O • ,-J o > >-< y W Pi 03 CO 53 53 W *z o w 3 M W H Q 8 co <^ o > Pi 53 »J a 1-4 53 CO w CO Pi M M ►J > w 33 g o 1-4 ;=> <: £ M CJ CU CU QJ pq 4-1 4-1 4J 4-1 4-1 4J 4-1 CO CO CO cO 4J 4J 4J 4-1 4-1 4-1 is is IS IS 4-) 4J 4J 4-1 4J 4-1 CO CO CO CO cO CO m m m in IS IS 13 55 IS is CM CM CM CM in in in m m in 1 1 l 1 CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM co vD CM CM CM CM CM H W W O P- a o S3 w ►J /— N P3 • H rH Q CO W U Pi ^-^ u rJ • .-J s M CO MD co vO co CM CM in CM m m o m cm m m O rH CM O co CM O CO co CM CM O O M3 o O m rJ W P H /-> H • U rH < CO P-. o < V-* O o m m O CO CO o CM CM ..O o m m O CTi cr> r~- CO 00 vO CO ^3" w O < Pi 5 O • rJ o > U w Pi ta CO 2 S3 w o § M w H Q 8 OJ ■^ c_> > Pi 23 rJ s M 53 CO w CO Pi M M rJ > w as £ o M 13 < j M a <: Pi o o Q CO Cn S a o o ►-j A-103 o O H ' O 2 O to w o m T3 QJ 3 C 4-1 c o H 33 o O 2: t-i H en 2: o Pn H o H M w CO z O H Ph hJ < o CJ < o PS -J H b CO SS CO PJ w IS > P-i I— i ph H P Q W O" PS w w £ 2 O o M o o < 2 z r i H m ro CM CO CM fxj S PQ jTJ PS w CQ PM PS w p^ O 3 g C*S g 5?S C_) o w o a pS O • o t> >-> UJ PS u: CO s^ ?S 5 o w 3 1— I UJ H Q s o t> Oi K ►J a M js w CO PS H M -J > w pr) CJ M 3 < 3 M a H W W CO Q M C •H > 3 CD J3 cO H cO (1) CO ai a c rt •u CO T3 •H 0) a 0) ex a CO o 4-1 rH CO iH 3 Xi l*H CO CO u a u CD 4-1 CD T3 e 0) cti CO o C P o c p o c Ai c P i o c as c p o c Ai c p o o ^; oo oo ^ en C CN CN 3 vO p in m p cr\ 3 cn p J* 1 w OS p CO z 2 3 o w r-t w H Q o u x> PS 525 p S3 M o Z w CO fv^ M M p > s P u HH p < Si M o < O o o CO tJu, ?H T. o o •-) A-105 CN| CM 00 en 00 en CM 1 CN1 rH CN1 rH l I O 1 1 00 00 vO CO in m 13 0) 3 < O rd W CO CO w > H Ed w cj Cm O ss CO CO Pi w W Q J ^ X H CU X •H fe 4= o 4-1 •H P^ X) CU X •H En 4= CJ P-i X 0) X •H En co 4= a 4-1 •H En rH O U 4J C o cj a •H En O r-l 4J d O cj x: u o r-i 4-1 d o CJ 4= o 4-1 •H P-i O XI o •H P-i o u 4-1 d o CJ en en a 4-1 •H Ph X a) X •H En x: a 4-J •H En X 0) X Ed En rH rH >-i CU CU H CO en Q) CU •H •H Q Q CO XI r-i u U co co 0) 4J 60 cu co CM 4J a « 3 CO X CM 4J >-l CJ CO CU cu d 00 d o CM H CM cu d •H Xi M 3 H CO cu co a) •H Q X 0) M cd cu cu co cu •H o X cu r-l ccj cu o a) co CU •H n cu u c3 cu CJ rH CU CO cu •H O XI cu u ct) cu CJ cu CO II •H Q X cu H CO CU CJ rH CU CO cu •H o cu CO cu •H p X cu u CO cu o 4-1 cu u CO CO cu rH 00 - d rH O CU -H CO 4-1 CU CJ •H 3 Q X cu rH U cu CO cu •H n X cu u CO cu CJ OS B Pi Ed P3 PQ En Pi Ed Ed O 2 3 Pi Pi En Pi S3 CJ CJ Ed o <5 Pi EO O * rJ O > >< Ed Ed Pi a CO S3 S3 Ed J2j O Ed 3 M Ed H Q O CO <£ CJ > Di 53 hJ 9 rH CJ 2 CO Ed CO Pi rH M rd > Ed 33 £ CJ o M O EO CO En 3 CJ Pi O O •-3 A-106 Crf W a £2 a o j DS Pi fcJ < H M ixi hJ P H PS X! 33 P H < 5 CL, o • X X rH O rH O 3 H w w cd a> 60 60 3 •H 1-4 0) cu 4-J CO CM CM CM CM H CU -d H rH X rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH CO o O O o O O O O O p r-i r-l rH (-4 u u u r-l u r-l o 4J 4-1 O 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 Pi 3 3 5-i 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 H O O 4-J O O o O O o o S3 o a 3 CJ CJ O CJ O a CJ O O u ai QJ o QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ " QJ CU bo 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 di- T3 T3 e T3 13 TJ T-J -a T3 -d ss •H •H o •H •H •H •H •H •H •H H r-l r-l o M U r-l 1-1 r-4 r-l )-i O P rQ r-4 rQ X P X X X P 53 w 4-1 4-J aj 4-1 4-J 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-J +J a o 3 CJ a a CJ a a a S3 cu cu •H QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ M u r-l 60 M U }-i U u j-i !H 5~ LxJ w oi 33 en 53 53 en n o CJ1 > Pi M 53 w p P M 8 53 CO w CO on r-l M p > w a g u r-l p < 3 r-l o < Pi o o p CO Pt. s S P o *-i A-107 co erf o o Q W prf H en qj o S3 23 O M CO co W Prf PL, PL, CD CO Q S3 < S3 O M H CJ W H Q W 05 H P=4 h4 W CO CO w > H W w Ph s Pm 3 O 55 13 O M CO CO w erf Pw Prf P3 CO S3 o M H u W E-' CO Q W cj CO Cm H H W o w CO CO w 0) CJ &. CO 0) 4-1 o 01 1-1 QJ CO e o Pn CN o CJ CO 0) bfl e •H H >-l >H CO 0) o a l 00 as 0) CO 4-i CO 3 •H 0) 43 CN O CJ CN o CJ o CJ CN o CJ CO CO 0) 0) ' o >< >h S3 o 125 CO CO CO CO 0) 0! O a> QJ o o o S3 O o >-l IH S3 !* PH H S3 S3 S3 erf | w )?] pq K erf w pa Pm 2 erf erf H g S3 O CJ o w o «*! P* O • o > >-< | w erf a CO S3 S3 3 o W 1— 1 w H Q O CJ > erf S3 j s h-i O S3 w CO erf M M j > trf EC CJ M 3j < £ i— i CJ < erf O o Q CO Pn S a Q o *-3 T3 3 CO CO ^ QJ 4= CO •H 3 60 3 •H 4-1 X QJ QJ U •H M-r QJ H 43 CO 4-> n o • ex CO g 4= 01 4-1 4-1 •H CO S >v CO T3 QJ &0- ex C CU •H •H ■u 3 42 cr bO QJ •H 14-1 QJ 1 >-l OJ CO M •H CO «+-r r-i QJ >-i CO QJ CO 4-1 QJ CO > S 4-1 T-i rH iH CO < CO m . pq H o S3 A-108 APPENDIX 5 CRITERIA FOR CALCULATION OF LOCATIONAL RISKS IN THE LWSC o ^ i— •— • < ex <5 < U 1 ro x cnj ro x CM ro >>ro to 3 — « I I 0 ^£ O < O A-110 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 OJ X> 1 X I ro i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i -Q 1 1 X "* 1 X» 1 X i i i i i 1 1 t 1 , i O X l£) X> CO xi 3 co i i i ■ i i XJ X XI 3 CO U X «X> <_> 3 LT> n3 >>•- ro x :\j 3 i— i ro X cm ro 3 »-« TO X CM 3 «-t xi x -3- i3 ?<«t I l ■ rO X CNJ X> x *d- I I I I I I u x-t ,CO (O >^co XI >jLT) XI >,Lf> Xi >,ld xi >,Ln ro >>co ra >>co rO >>CO fO >>cO x» >>tn XI >>LT> -a o 3 c +-» QJ •r D (D c cr 3 CTi (Di — •r- 3 OJ C O" 3 CD — (O S- (O ■a u 3 c ■*-* a> ■i- n > TJ U 3 c: +-> QJ c cr 3 CD QJ < — ra i- ra OJ >> T3 U 13 C +-> QJ •r- 3 OJ c cr 3 en rjj i — ■a fO 0J >> -o u 3 C 4-» QJ -<- 3 QJ CUD CD QJ r— QJ >, "O U 3 C +-> QJ •r- 13 QJ C CT 3 CX) QJ .— ro S- ro QJ >> T3 U 3 C +-> QJ ■r 3 QJ C CT 3 cn qj . — QJ >■, ■o U 3 C *-> a» ■r- 13 QJ C CT 3 cn aj i— ro i- ro QJ >> ■a o 3 CZ +-> aj -r- 3 QJ c a- 3 cn qj ■ — QJ >> -a u 3 c +-> QJ ■r- 3 QJ C CT 3 CD Qj « — f- 3 QJ c cr 3 cn qj ,— _,¥- o + <>ct» o >>r^. jd jn j2»3ro _o 3 ro u X u^ ii Jro uxvo j=»3n -o >»c^ fO >tm TOXCNJ Ifl JH III 03 X CNJ O 3 «— • (D X CM HJ JH HJ >>CO OJ >> -o o 3 c cd >> *o u -M CD ■r 3 O c: cr 3 en cu r— (V 1- ro s: u. > Ill III cu -o >» 13 U -4-» C •<- 3 CD c cr 3 en cd «— ID S- v "O <-> 13 C -M CD ■-- 3 OJ c cr 3 en CD r— -Q 3 ro 1 I jQ >,LO JD >>LD x» sn CD >> ■o o 3 c +-» (1) •-- 3 OJ c cr 3 en cu • — fO S- 1 1 1 1 1 1 *0 3 t-H QJ >> T3 U 3 C +-» CD r- 3 , XJ u 3 C +-> CD •<- 3 CD c cr 3 en qj i— (T3 u > OJ >> "O U X) o 3 C 3 C CD QJ ■o u 3 C +-> OJ •--3 0) *r- 3 OJ •«- 3 CD CCT3 CCT3 CCT3 cnoji — cnojr— cnoj< — (D l- iQ fQ i- fd fD l - m ^ t-L- >■ SI U_ > S LL_ > A-lll •X -J Pi <> ■o cj 3 C fd 3 cm J3 x-j- I I I I I I J xw I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A3 X CM A3 X CM A3 X CM cu >> ~o u 3 C -M cu •r- 3 OI C CT 3 CD CU < — A3 U A3 «3h I I I I I I I I I I t I t_> X U3 £1 X^ U X U3 U X *X> -QX«^- 03 X CM 03 X CM CU > XJ U ■*-> CU ■<- 3 a c a: Cn CU <— A3 S- ft e: li_ > O X -Q X ^J" J x «x> H X-* CU >> ■o u 13 C 4-> CU •r- 3 > •o u 3 C 03 X CM A3 X CM III III -Q >>LO (O X CM I • 3 «=r i i i i i i 03 X CM I I I U X CO I I I ASH I I I -Q 3 ro -O X *3" -O X *3" I I o >»r-- i i i .a >»ro CU >> XJ U 3 C ■M CU •i- 3 CU c cr 3 en cu f— A3 1- A3 -Q >>LO "O O 3 C -*-> cu •r- 3 JH X ro A3 X CM H3 X «-( I I I I fO X CM -a x*$- cu >> 3 c: c cr 3 en cu r— A3 i- A3 , -o o 3 C -*-> CU -.- 3 CU c cr 3 en cu i — 03 i- A3 A3 X CM n3 X CM J3 X<^ J3 X»t -o x «* j3 x «^r cu >> cu >» "O U "O u 3 C. 3 C ■M CU +J CU •r- 3 CU -t- 3 CU c cr 3 c cr 3 en cu ■ — en cu > — ro S. »n fl JH O -J -Q >,LT) 1— -=c uj o u >>r- cc o UJ QC Z Tt >>n I I I I I I rtj X C\J m X CSJ J3 x *d- jO X «3" J2 x <^r _o X <* 0} >> 0) >* ~a u "O o :a c Z3 c -M QJ +J d) 3 OJ 13 O) C cr 3 c cr 3 CT> (U r— C71 a> r— Oj t- fO as S- n3 i/i jd *J i/> <— E 5- (D -r- OJ 01 tn _i Q. (/) O a* xj S- a> :>. c o_ > i- S- «=t 0J QJ O) «=£ -C H- -C O +-» •*- 4-* ^ O —J o cr ro *-< A-113 APPENDIX 6 NOAA VESSEL MISHAPS: 1959 - PRESENT 1. 1959 - HODGSON (No longer in service) On docking, ship struck PMC pier resulting in damaged bull rail and broken light standard. Approximately $1,000 damage to pier and no damage to ship. 2. 1960 - SURVEYOR Ship struck fender pier of the Great Northern Railroad Bridge and damaged piling and bull rail sections. Approximately $5,000 damage to the pier and no damage to this ship. 3. 1960 - PATHFINDER (No longer in service) Ship struck the Great Northern Railroad Bridge causing damage to yardarm and no damage to bridge. 4. 1961 - SURVEYOR When the ship was departing the old PMC base, her anchor locked on the guide wires holding the flag pole of the U.S. Naval Reserve Station. No damage was sustained. 5. 24 July 1973 - 0CEAN0GRAPHER Ship damaged a fishing net in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Claim paid in the amount of $489.82. 6. 21 November 1973 - 0CEAN0GRAPHER Ship touched bottom between locks and Lake Union. Only damage was a two foot by four foot scrape on hull. 7. 15 January 1974 - FAIRWEATHER When backing from PMC berth, ship struck Lake Union Shipyard pier, stern of ship Surveyor and PMC Pier A. Damages were to Lake Union pier - $1,010; to ship Surveyor - bent rail nicked harbormaster blade (no estimate of damages). A-114 8. July 175 - OCEANOGRAPHER Alleged wake damage to two pilings at Wheeler Yacht Sales when proceeding west bound through the ship canal. Claim denied. 9. 4 December 1975 - MILLER FREEMAN During mooring of the MILLER FREEMAN, ship struck the PMC dock and damaged six pilings. Cost to replace pilings was $1,750. 10. 10 March 1975 - McARTHUR When berthing at Standard Oil's pier at Point Wells, ship damaged two fender piles. $819.00 damage to pier and no damage to ship. 11. 14 December 1976 - RAINIER When antenna struck underside of Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge. Approximately $1,000 damage to antenna; no damage to bridge. 12. 15 November 1976 - SURVEYOR Starboard yardarm of foremast hit underside of Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge. Approximately $2,500 damage to the yardarm and no damage to bridge. 13. 27 July 1977 - FAIRWEATHER Ship's wake caused damage to Alaska Cargo Line, Inc. barge ramp system. Damages $406.02. 14. September 1977 - SURVEYOR Ship's wake allegedly caused the bows of two vessels tied up at the Western Pioneer Lines pier to come in contact. Apparently no damage was done and no claim was filed. A-115 TABLE 20 CATEGORIZATION OF NOAA MISHAPS Degree of Damage Recipient of Damage NOAA Mishap None or Signifi- Ships or Other Other Number Minor cant Serious Major Piers Vessels Persons Property 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Degree of Damage Criteria None or Minor: scratches only Significant: requires repair but causes no operational delays Serious: may stop operations until inspected or repaired Major: temporary or permanent disability of ship(s) or facilities A-116 APPENDIX B WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY CO UJ _l CO < co z o: O LjJ !-• I— I— < < 3 O 3= i—i CO U. UJ t— I QC co u. co < Q£ _l o O U. >- co (— Q i— i c£ -i < < q ZD Z o-< I— q: oo UJ I— >- z < O ZD h- o- Z Oi CO — I to «/) to J* TO o us o CO O CJ3 c cu 0) u X UJ to -o i_ < o < TO s- -p X -o C O to o .— 1 o LO s- V cu > c o TO ■1— ss ■a o CD . — 1 CD .— E T- CU -r- a> •r— J2 O T3 r— "O ^~ ■a TO S- C -Q E c: .o E c 1— e s- 3 c E c 3 c E C 3 c Z U 4-> o to +■> o to +-> o o cu to •^ o .c to •r— o .c to •r— LO z "O c ■t-> z o g ■•-> z o c ■M V to E TO i/> $_ -o c to o to •r- o &s -o o o o OjcvjhO E v |v ki- o o O CM o i— i co O -t- c .— i -o to v |cy •r- cu T3H U cu c x E fl O to ■a .-h c + to H- O CT> o oo •* v I CM +■> CT> I LO • LO LO LO A 6^ O s~ o o ■p i- 3 +J tO to -O CTi c + to \— ^^i* o ' — ^ , ^- T-H CO (XI v| +-> CO CO LO CO A r^ -o i Lf) c h- • f0 "— CO O CO LD o CM • co V LO r-S ■!-> ■a CD c c w •I— -o o (U LD CO V u X C a> to 't— s« -o o o a; <-t o E vM LO CTi A OO CSJ . v 4-> LO ■a • E CO 03 1 LO O © • O LO LO LO + CO rD in l— s* tO a> i- o c 5« LO O *9 O o LO c a> c CD ^— *. si >> cu o X XJ CT) 4- o > a> O E E cu 4-> c -^ ■P cu +j o to > TO TO •i- to (V •r- O f— S- ■*->'— "O TO E i— C O o i-m a> CO «^ •r- CU f0 TO TO r- 1 to Q-— - — -»-> JD j_ s- O CJ>"^- U) CD Eo ■r" $- o TO -t B-l 10 O o cu o &s c O .— «vj- o o **-* CVJ Ol LO t- o 5- v e en ■M • • -o o cu • re 10 CU t-H u «^J- «/l E v x A CD UJ < < "0 o CO O CD O o I CO CD < CO Q < 00 < 4-> c cu cu u X to o o cu o O r— C\J .-I O- v E en w •!- ■o •.- &9 CU -o o CU E v x cu c rO o c r». o •r— S- +■> o LO X S- cu +-> cu E re s- > o X o CU $- -o 3 cu ■(-> > o CVJ LO OO LO LO OO CVJ t-H CD «— I • • LT) O o o o o o cvj oo r-- -o CD 3 o >> o» 4-> LU CU x: 4-> C O o oo oo Q. oo o o oo 00 Q. «=t LO r-H CO CM * — . o o ^** OO i — r-» o o • • 1 • • o o r- lo lo oo LO o o co 00 C\J r-t — • »— ) r-» CVJ co oo --— • • LO LO CVJ 0O 00 I lo «3- CVJ .—I LO CVJ • • LO i— I o o o o o lo «^- CD CD to CD CD 1- CD CVI I CQ CQ c o •I - 4-> fO oo X oo S- o tO -P Q «3 cr s_ O) ■!-> CD o o oo O0 a. LO O O OO O0 Q. oo CVJ — » • • lo O cvj o en r^ -~~- oo oo oo I LO oo CVJ r- 1 00 oo I LO CVJ CVJ — - LO r- 1 • • LO CVJ CD O • • LO 0O O O o o o o OO «— I lo ^- o o o o o O LO «3- cvj U"> CVJ -— » oo o LO CVJ LO ~— oo o • • • • 1 O0 r- 1 00 ^r o LO O 00 i-H T—i CVJ CVJ ,— 1 a_ - — • — ' co co o o o o o oo lo CVJ v-t o o to o , ^~ ^- -»-> ■P >-, ^», o (O •r- +-> CD o -**= i- "O •r— E O) •r - c r— a» Q. -Q •r— • to 4-> E S_ r— O +-> *i — CD 3 (0 • o oo h- 1— oo Q i— CD «3 • +J C a. CD CD > O s- »\ JC= «3 «3 to <_> to ■(-> o CD to 1 — 3 Q r^ CD (TJ 1— -p > LU •r™ a; to s o UJ to S- o • • o 3 CD Ll. = i- 3 *""* ^~* O .— 1 CVJ OO B-3 TABLE B-3 Mean of Sediment Analyses in the East Waterway, Everett 1 Total Solids (mg/1) Initial Dissolved Oxygen Demand (mg/1) (1:300 dilution) 33.5 4.2 % Dry Basis Chemical Oxygen Demand Volatile Solids Oil and Grease Sulfide 40 25 0.42 0.25 Elutriate Tests - ppm above background water Arsenic Zinc Cadmium Nickel Lead Copper Chromium Undetectable 0.013 Undetectable 0.004 Undetectable 0.004 Undetectable Source: Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District May, 1976 1) For sample site locations see Figure 2-2, B-4 TABLE B-4 Water Qualty Summary for Site Off the Town of Mukilteo Parameter Temperature (°C) Turbidity (JTU) Salinity (PPT) D.O. (mg/1) Sulfite Waste Liquor PBI Total Col i forms (#/100ml) Mean Range 10.9 6-17 2.7 0-15 26 13-33 8.9 4.5-15.5 13 0-36 137 0-1000 Source: EPA STORET water quality data - 1967 to 1970 - all depths averaged B-5 TABLE B-5 Sediment Analyses at the South Mukilteo Site Location 1 Location 2 Background Water Total Solids % 79.7 78.8 % Dry Basis Volatile Solids 1.0 1.0 COD 0.9 1.0 Oil and Grease 0.06 0.03 Sulfide mg/1 Elutriate Test Mercury 0.001 0.003 <0.001 Lead 0.005 0.005 0.005 Copper 0.031 <0.001 <0.001 1) See Figure 2-4 for sample locations. B-6 to 40 30 O o o °o o o o°o°ooo Chloroph (ug/liter 20 10 ooo o CO -C 03 o £ V 5 CO S- 4 •• •• • •••• • • • 3 • 2 m "• 1 *. •• - Phosphorus (ug/liter) 70 A A A A**A A A Af *AA^ A 60 50 40 30 A 20 A 10 A * A A c o > Q 0) O) <8 0% 50% k 100% 1 1 1 1 1 , n i 1 1 1 1 1 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 i i i i i i i 1 I960 1965 1970 1975 i i O Mean chlorophyll a in top 10 meters during July and August • Mean secchi disc transparency duing July and August A Mean annual total phosphorus in top 10 meters A Mean phosphate phosphorus duing January through March Historical Variation in Water Quality Parameters Lake Washington Source, Demondson, I972 and Edmondson, In Press Figure B-1 Water Quality Summary of the Major Water Bodies in the Seattle Area Timing of Salmon and Searun Trout Fresh-Water Life Phases in the Lake Washington Drainage System. Species Fresh-Water Life Phase Month JFMAMJJASOND Summer — Fall Upstream migration Chinook j uv out migration r - - - = - _ . Upstream migration Coho Juv. out migration mu HW _ . Upstream migration Juv. out migration ™ ™ nm MM ■ _ _ .. , Upstream migration Summer Steelhead Juv. out migration - -kk n _ , Upstream migration Winter Steelhead Juv. out migration ■■ ■1 Z = ■ ^_ r» #•» **u ^ Upstream migration i Searun Cutthroat Juv. out migration || Source: Puget Sound Task Force, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Appendix XI Figure B-2 Fish Migration TABLE B-6 Sediment Analyses at the Kenmore Site Location 1 30.6 Location 2 69.5 Background Water Nearby 2 Marina Total Solids % 45 % Dry Basis Volatile Solids 14.5 1.8 17 COD 20.3 1.6 17 Oil and Grease 0.33 0.03 0.06 Sulfide 0.008 <0.001 0.18 mg/1 Elutriate Test Mercury <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Lead 0.003 0.001 <0.001 Copper 0.019 0.012 <0.001 1) See Figure 2-6 for sample locations. 2) Mean of 8 sediment samples from a nearby marina (King County, 1977) B-9 TABLE B-7 Fish Species Found in Pontiac Bay in Order of Abundance Peamouth Yel low Perch Northern Squawfish Largemouth Bass Black Crappie Largescale Suckers Sockeye Brown Bullhead Prickly Sculpin Coho Cutthroat Trout Threespine Stickleback Steel head & Rainbow Trout Chinook Carp Long Fin Smelt Tench Pumpkin Seed Smal lmouth Bass Source: Shepard, 1975. B-10 TABLE B-8 3 Water Quality Summary for the South Hylebos Waterway Sample Site CMB015 CMB106 CMB017 Water Temp °C 11.2 (17. 2) 2 11.9 (19.2) 12.0 (20.3) Turbidity JTU 4.5 (15.0) 6.9 (140) 7.3 (23) Salinity PPT 26. (16-37) 25. (17-35) 25. (14-37) D.O. mg/1 7.9 (5.0) 8.0 (5.0) 7.4 (3.0) Sulfite Waste Liquor PBI 7.1 (29) 6.4 (24) 8.9 (24) Total Col i forms #/100 ml 830. (8400) 25. (34) 5000. (65,000 1) For location, see Figures 2-10 and 2-12. 2) "Worst Case" values except for salinity where the range is given. 3) EPA STORET Data - 1969-1970 - all depths arranged. B-ll TABLE B-9 Mean Concentrations of Sediment Sediment Parameters From Six Sites in the Hylebos Waterway Total Solids % 66 % Dry Basis COD 5.2 Volatile Solids 3.4 Oil & Grease 0.06 Sulfide 0.024 Elutriate Test (mg/1 ) Zinc 0.003 Cadmium 0.003 Nickel 0.007 Mercury less than 0.001 Lead 0.009 Copper 0.012 Chromium 0.053 1) See Figures 2-10 and 2-12 for sample site locations. Source: Seattle District Army Corps of Engineers September 28, 1977 B-12 TABLE B-10 Sediment Analyses at the Manchester Site Location 1 Location 2 Background Water Total Solids % 78.8 % Dry Basis 77.8 Volatile Solids 1.3 1.1 COD 1.2 1.2 Oil and Grease 0.06 0.04 Sulfide -- — mg/1 Elutriate Test Mercury 0.001 0.002 <0.001 Lead 0.006 0.012 0.005 Copper 0.007 <0.001 <0.001 1) See Figure 2-14 for sampling locations. B-13 TABLE B-ll Sediment Analyses at the Lake Union Site Background Water Total Solids % Volatile Solids COD Oil and Grease Sulfide Mercury <0.001 0.001 <0.001 Lead <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Copper 0.042 0.025 <0.001 1) See Figure 2-16 for sampling locations, Location 1 Location 2 71.6 73.0 % Dry Basis 1.6 2.1 1.7 2.5 0.06 0.04 <0.001 <0.001 mg/1 Elutriate Test <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.042 0.025 B-14 ■o c a o -TO C o O) c !E O (o c 2 = ■£ o- 1 ^ <1> E-c £ *- g.E o <2 "& JSTS_ CO m r- W <0 0) Sg 3 7 S I O) © ccc u_ 2>(/> o o o o o s l UJ 00l/ SUJS ! ueBj O LUJOJ.IIOQ UBip9|/\J TABLE B-12 Sediment Analyses at the Salmon Bay Site Location 1 Location 2 Background Total Solids % 42.8 % Dry Basis 18.8 Volatile Solids 6.6 25.1 COD 8.8 46.6 Oil and Grease 0.24 0.42 Sulfide 0.030 0.014 mg/1 Elutri ate Test Mercury <0.001 0.001 <0.001 Lead 0.008 0.004 <0.001 Copper 0.042 0.024 <0.001 1) See Figure 2-20 for sampling locations B-16 APPENDIX C AIR QUALITY APPENDIX C Operation of the proposed consolidated facility would generate emissions from ship light off and movement out of port and from automobile traffic to and from the facility. Both will be considered primary, long-term impacts in this analysis. Applicable standards are listed in Table C-l. VESSEL EMISSIONS Ship emissions would occur when ships operate their engines in prepara- tion for departure and while in transit to and from port. The major pollutants emitted during these periods are total suspended particulates (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (S0 ? ). The greatest potential air quality impact occurs when the ships prepare to depart. Basic assumptions and methodologies used in emissions calculations for vesels in transit: o Trips Per Year and Estimated Transit Time - These data are shown in Table C-2. The transit time was estimated from observed data and typical vessel cruising speed in Puget Sound waters. o Gallons of Fuel Consumed Per Year - Table C-3 presents the gallons of fuel consumed per year in transit to each of the identi- fied alternative sites. As indicated, these values are obtained by multiplying the transit time by the specific fuel consumption for each vessel . o Air Pollution Emission Factors - Emission factors for each of the vessels are shown in Table C-4. o Annual Emission - Annual emissions were obtained by multiplying the emission factor by the fuel consumed. These results are presented in Table C-5. Basic assumptions and methodologies used in emission calculations for vessels in port: o A maximum of 2 ships preparing for departure simultaneously. o The preparation time for the two ships, the OCEANOGRAPHER and the DISCOVERER is 2 hours. o Atmospheric stability C and a 2 meter per second wind speed. o Constant wind direction and speed. o A 4 meter plume rise from the ships stacks. o Stack height of 16 meters. C-l o A maximum of 4 ships can depart in any 24 hour period. o Maximum concentrations occur at 0.2 km from source (Turners Workbook) Under C stability and 2 m/see, ~ = 2.5 x 10 4 o No emissions occur in port upon return from sea. o The sulfur content of "Navy Special" oil is 1 percent, that of diesel is 0.2 percent. o Emission factors: Emission Factor Pollutant (cbs/1000 gallons) Particulates 33 lbs/1000 gal* Sulfur Oxides (SOj 27 lbs/1000 gal *Based on diesel industrial engine emissions o Fuel use during light off (Distillate Oil): OCEANOGRAPHER 248 gal/2 hrs DISCOVERER 248 gal/2 hrs (On an annual basis, 5000 gallons of fuel are used by all ships during light off periods.) o Emission Rates: Emission Rate (2/see) 2 Averaging Time Particulate SO 1 hr. _ 0.84 24 hr. 0.086 0.07 Annual 0.00238 0.0194 C-2 o Based on above, concentration estimates were made using: x = 2.5 x 10" 4 Q u u = 2 m/see Q = emission rate (2/see) S0 2 (1 hr.) Q = 10.84 2/see x = (2.5 x 10" 4 ) 0.84 = 105 ug/m 3 = 0.05 ppm TSP (24-hr.) x = (2.5 X 10" 4 ) 0.086 = 20.8 ug/m 3 The above estimates do not include adjustments or plume meander. Expected maximum 1 and 24 hours S0~ levels attributable to vessels are 0.06 ppm and 0.02 ppm at all sites except the South Mukilteo site where levels of 0.16 ppm and 0.04 ppm would be expected. TSP levels (24 hours) due to ship operations would be 7 ug/m 3 except at South Mukilteo, where 10 ug/m 3 levels would occur. VEHICLE EMISSIONS Three locations near each site were chosen for evaluation of air quality impacts caused by traffic. The locations and maximum 1 and 8 hour concentra- tions are shown in Tables C-6 and C-7. The EPA Mobile-1 computer program was used to estimate vehicle emission factors. Speed correction factors were applied to estimate the composite emission factor under assumed traffic conditions. Worst case meteorological conditions were assumed to persist for the duration of the averaging times (F stability; 1 meter/second wind speed; a wind blowing parallel to the road). The 1 hour calculations assumed an average route speed of 10 miles per hour while the 8 hour analyses assume the posted speed limits. Emission factors used were the latest developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1978). As indicated in the Tables, the expected concentrations would be well within standards, but there would be a rather large proportionate increase over existing concenterations in the mechanical mixing cell of the road. The mechanical mixing cell is an intense zone of mixing and turbulance over the road caused by the motion of vehicles. C-3 t/1 O) +-> fl lO (O CJ 03 -O 03 _Q -a o c z 13 C o o 00 T" ^— CD to 03 -M CO ro c a) q: oo o CD E CNJ UO CNJ UO 00 cr> o o o» cu ■!- cu 3 UO O <£> LO ^ rH tO IT) E E ■•-> E D_ CD i—l C\J iflO^O I—l ro ro ro 0? 3 .— 1 C\J to to z (/I o +J cu to cn-t-> cu C 03 +J •I- +J o -C oo z to ro ro CO < GO Q a: <: Q oo o- < I— UJ i—l CO 03 U -Q CNJ CNJ LT) CX) UO (£> LT) *d" CNJ to O E--H 03 _Q but ies only .m.- 4 p. thru 10/3 o E CNJ E O O CU CU i— 03 cu E l£) LD E E Q- .-I E ro i—l ro 03 Q.O "*». 03 S_ to to 03 i— 1 «^- to CD (/> cu +-> o z >> i — s- ro 03 oo c ■o E o c "* — •1 — o CD -!-> <_> 3 ro cu z oo >> s- OO 03 E E *»>, •r— CD s- 3 o_ 03 .O _Q O O CO ro _q .a .a 03 o o CO cu CU co in E E E i— i ro 03 03 to to to o co UO 0O UO O r~-» to CNJ o o O O O O o o I—l <3- o tO O O to 03 03 C O CO ■«- 5 + J o3 03 to z ro >>^ i— o C ,— I o 4-> =3 3 t/> S_ xj co -c •i- +J LT) CU i— E CL.-H 03 Q.\ tO 03 <^- _Q CU CU 03 t/> O VO OO UJ oo c 1 — 1 C_) ro X cu I—l cu CU UJ o CU CU CD CO cu CO cu h- ^: CDQ CO CO cu oo CD CD 03 CD en CD CD CC ro i—i CD CD_J CD UJ T3 03 S_ 03 03 03 03 «C • S- X ro ro <: 03 a S_ S- CO J_ C- S- S- Cl_ E CO o Sw s- o i- •— ^ CD CO > z > > > > Q CU < o > > s: > o <=C < > =5 s- i- S- • 2: i — 3 -2Z. s_ s- o s- UJ 03 03 o =3 =3 =3 C UJ ro o o 13 3 o Z3 u_ 3 -a -c O o O •r- Q. Z3 JZ CO o O 1— o _l C i i .c sz JZ E oo C 1 CC sz sz o .c => c O "vf 1 1 1 1 ZD c «3 03 i— I tO 3 1—3 c az -a > t- ro 3 X) o CD o Q_ cu CD 03 S- cu > CU CU >> to S- c CU T- Q. CU CU O (J •<- C S. o +-> c c 03 03 J= JZ +-> -M +-> >> SI i — CD-r- •i- 03 co -u CO 03 o C CD o o 03 -c to X) CO O S- T- o s_ E co CL ■a cu s- -O 3 cu o cu _c O I X OO CO o CO +J 00 o CO -M Q- o a. Z - s < _1 CO oo o Q. o cc oo U. a: =3 O o ^ rn Q_ UJ oo o CO UJ Ll_ O uo UO uo CM CM uo CM uo uo CO UO uo uo o Cn uo oo oo uo «— I CM CM CM UO uo oo uo oo uo CM UO oo en u-> <3- uo UO CO uo uo CM UO cr> CM en CM co' CM co' OO OO oo uo uo uo <3- CM OO en oo 1—1 oo uo .—I uo cr> CM o_ cc UJ UJ >- UJ UJ cc l— oo Z ^ o UJ 3 1 — 1 UJ cc Q o cc ^ _l UJ CO CO 1 — 1 => =c a; o o CO OO u_ cc s s: Q o CO (1) > <=c co uo s. >- C-5 «* CM O ,_, cm CM «=1- o O i— l r~. «3- «* CO 00 "3- oo O O O o o 1/5 VO oo o >- CO CM 00 -H O . O O *H r«* oo .— i ^- CO o CO o CC LU o : r— 1 CO •X) o o vO 00 VO CO •a- o-> o o IT) CM VO VO ■a- 00 uo LT) CO o CM f-H — I < CO o o PO r-l t-H CM .—I i-« CD «3 CO o r- O o «t Q_ h- 3 O O o VO CO o o CM VO H CM o VO CTl o CM CM CO O-i o en VO VO o CM CM CM ^* p» »-H CM <— I O VO S- 01 E CO CO 2 o o o> VO -H CM .— I r-H C-6 TABLE C-4 EMISSION FACTORS (lb/10 3 gal) Ship HP TSP* so 2 HC CO N0 2 Oceanographer 5,000 1.04 27 32.8 41.4 339.6 Di scoverer 5,000 1.04 27 32.8 41.4 339.6 Surveyor 2,500 20 318 .682 3.45 55.8 Fairweather 2,400 1.04 27 16.8 78.3 391.7 Rainier 2,400 1.04 27 16.8 78.3 391.7 Mil ler Freeman 2,150 1.04 27 16.8 78.3 391.7 McArthur 1,600 1.04 27 44.6 623.1 Davidson 1,600 1.04 27 44.6 623.1 Oregon 600 1.04 27 24.1 77.6 349.2 Cobb 325 1.04 27 51.1 47.3 389.3 Factors from AR42, assume "cruise" mode. All diesel motorships; Surveyor is a steam turbine using residual "Navy Special" oil. *In lb/hour of operation (except Surveyor) **Assumes 2% sulfur oil C-7 TABLE C-5 TOTAL POLLUTANT EMISSION (TONS/YEAR) DUE TO SHIP TRAVEL FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE Pol lutant Alternative TSP so 2 THC CO NO X Everett 0.03 0.26 0.09 0.19 1.42 South Muki lteo 0.04 0.29 0.09 0.21 1.56 Kenmore 0.16 1.26 0.41 0.89 6.79 Sand Point 0.15 1.19 0.38 0.85 6.42 North Hylebos 0.08 0.64 0.21 0.46 3.45 South Hylebos 0.10 0.78 0.25 0.55 4.17 Manchester 0.13 1.03 0.33 0.73 5.53 Lake Union (Split Site) 0.11 0.92 0.30 0.65 4.94 Salmon Bay (Split Site) 0.10 0.82 . 0.26 0.58 4.42 C-8 oo on C_> LU r ~i o ct: C_3 O s Q_ UJ Q_ _l CO < OO 1— Z o t-H 1— < c£ t— z: LU C_) Z o C_) o o q: => o zxz 1 LxJ X -Q +-> o o|uo +-> u O) o ••—> lo o i_ Q_ O C_J T3 o s- en a fd CO rz o rO U O CD > a> 4-> <3- CM Cn cn oo CM UO «3- cm CM UD .— 1 r— 1 OO UO OO r-^ CM .— 1 r- 1 oo oo "vf CM oo CM <* OO r— 1 oo uo en -3- t-H CM < — 1 en ,-! en r-» en >^- r^ VO • • • • • • • • CM CM OO UO uo en oo <* CM CM oo CM o un CT) un uo oo oo oo CM oo X> UO OO CT> en «3- co uo i — i i—i CM UO CM CM UO OO O CM U0 CM CM OO co CM i— I CM UO uo CM CM O CD ai jz O) ZJ > o UJ OO s- o e c +-> <0 c -o •I — •1 — o ( — Q. o oo X3 z c o rd c_> OO ■ — - o oo rO JZ - — - ' — - -)-> +-> -•-> ■a ■a ■a OO OO +-> 3 rO rO ra fZ o o o o +-> JZ JZ • r— oo <4- a: <+- on an < +J +-> o *- — «• o o 1 — M- <+- uo uo Q_ jz jz JZ 0'~» O *~* >,UD >5UD +-> JZ U <_> rO <0 > +-> > +-> > 3 LU 3 LU a> - — » • i — 00 -i— 00 •■— ■z. z S- ro eu O CO O CD CO uo S- rO S_ -l-J +J OO > zr oo CM Q UJ Q 3 Q C M- C 4- OO =1 -t-> — +-> 4-> uo s ' 1 ' ■r- O •r- O M- 1 — r— i — (O . — » rO rO O o JZ o c uo zs UO =3 Z) en +-> CM CM 4-> CM 4-> CL. JZ CL. JZ 4-> o CM fO CM rO fO oo •i — CM CM T- CM •<- +-> +-) LT) +J +-> LD Z uo e C C UO UO C UO C -o s- -O Z5 IX) 00 i_ CD O) a) +-> (O rO rO c o rz o CiJ o on jz ct: jz jr < =3 on on ^ Qi =3 rO ^ rO OO LU 3 2: oo c_) OO C_) C_) — ■-D oo OO r ~0 OO T3 OO — ' OO Z oo C-9 co UJ +-> o at O s_ a. o H3 CM CO cn CT> CO co CO co' O CM <3- O co CvJ a" ro ID co* CM ro <3* y£> r-^ h*. CT> CO O CM O cu o i. a. o LO o CO* ro CO a" V£5 CM CO co uo CO o CO CT> CO CO CO CO a" CM co co m co o o CM CO KO CM CM CO *d" CO CO CM on •St I O co < a; UJ C_> o o o C_> a: o X < ■a e o S- en -*: U "3 CQ o 4-> n3 u o uo CM cu i. +j CO O GO UO CM 00 > OJ rO CD 3 S_ +-> S- CO o i — -C rO i— I uo CM >> 4-> S- > 4-> fO CO I— +J 00 f0 i_ o UO CM -M S- a> o O) r— s- >■> CO t— +-> o 4-> 3 00 O fC CO CM UO CM 00 4-> < >> a) ro cu 3 s- 4-> i- CO o i — -C U (T3 0) CO 00 O *— * O) r-t > CrT S_ CO Q O fT3 OJ CO 4-> 00 QJ O —•. <£> O) .—I > DC i- CO Q CM CD +J 00 CD U •r- C > "3 S- s- i-a CD CM r-S -t-J •— * <=c uj CD s > "3 u u_ CM CD > 5- CD +-> 00 O jn 00 CD JZ o c fO CD c +-» o •r™ •1 — CO c ZD +-> •r~ CD I — -^ CD- n3 CO C-10 to CU +-> o C_> UO o UJ _i CO < OO UJ > t— O UJ ■"O O QL Q_ < UJ Q_ OO O I— I I— < I— :z UJ c_j> o O O o i x -M O O UO O) •■"3 O _Q S- ^ Q. O (T3 u s: cu o '•-> LO o i_ Q_ JD -4-> ^ 13 O O 1— 1 _C +-> • i — 03 3 • CJ> TO 13 o S- C7> -^ o CQ c o •f— +-> fC o o O) > fO c i- ai o co o CO OO en uo OO CT> UO OO O) >>4-J T3 • r— CO oo C 4-> O •r— E i — r a. ra oo OO — uo oo a 00 OO uo oo u OvJ <=3- co oo UO UO uo OO oo uo co uo oo UO O CT> uo oo oo oo oo o oo oo oo oo uo oo <3- oo uo oo uo oo +J c ■ 1 — •1 — oo o Q_ +-> •1— T3 I C Q. fC OO oo — ' OO oo OO OO oo CO oo o oo oo oo 00 ** — -» cu *«-. 3 .. — ■- .c jz 3 >> -M ^ cu cu +J +-> — ^ ro cu 3 =3 •M uo uo 3 cu «- Z •— > C • t— >>uo >>U0 +-> %- • aj CU 00 IT3 rO O) -M +J QJ n r— > 3 UJ 3 UJ CU c OO > cu o < -t-> ■Z. g; i_ T- +J -M O +-> c oo cu cu C 4- C 4- oo o_ CU -C CU r— 1 — "■-3 •r- o •<- O Jsi 4-> > T- o o O o -C T3 S- uo < J= jr s_ Q_ JZ o_ -G +-> C fO i — oo oo Q_ +-> ■+-> UO fD S -C i — -o S- T3 =3 UO OO +-> +-> +-> •r— +-> C O c o 3 — OO — ' oo — oo * ^ O cu TO ft) O S- E O 5- 4- ^-^ 00 S- cu -*-> cu E — cu u c fO "O +-> S- 00 ra c t- -a o -a c= •r- fO +-> C 4-> fD CU 00 s- > +j •<- -a >> C rjiaj c CU -C fD U 4-J 00 Q. C f3 t— E o ■— o C_3 C J3 C_) o *o 1— -t- +J oo I — +-> 00 cc CU "3 CU ZD o s- -l-J 00 OICtj c CU CU CD •<- o cu O X c u S- •r- O X 3 S UlU o oo ion u C-ll co z: or o LU O or Q_ o < r^. Q_ i Q_ o LU co _l 2: CO o <: i — i i— I— o C_) OT o i h- 3:- C3 X o LO o O. O sz u s CL) o ■•D LO o s- Q_ -O +J 5^ 3 o O I— I SZ +J • 1 — n3 3 • O o s- CD o CO c o +-> o o O) > - <3- CO ^ • • • • • • LO LO r-. ro LO C\J CO CO CO CO CM <3- o CM LO CM CD > CO CO CM CO «3-' CM *d" "vT .-I LO LO LO CM CM CO CM CO CM O a) CD SZ s- +-> a> zi > o LU LO CD s- o E c CD o Q- CO o CM CM CM CT> LO LO CO LO CO <3" LO r^ CO LO CM CM (T3 sz - — ~ - — - -M +-> 4-> T3 T3 -o CO CO +-> ZZ> (O ra ra c o O O o +-> sz SZ •^ LO 4- OT 4- OT or 4-> o 1 — •* O O ■. ■ 4- 4- LO LO o_ sz sz sz O <— » O '— >>vO >>LO +-> CD SZ o SZ u a CD CD CD f0 CO +j -t-> > -t-> > 3 LU 3 LU CD C C S- CD ^ CD CD ^ — . •i — l/) •!- LO •!- z z S- +-> -l-> CO > Z LO CM Q LU Q 3 Q e 4- C If. CO +-> LO *- — •* *— * ^ — *• •r- o ■r- O 4- i — 1— 1 — CM CM -t-J CM 4-> o_ -C a. sz -l-> o CM "3 CM *Q fO CO ■r— LO CM T- CM «r- +-> -M LO +J +-> LO C LO C c C LO C LO C T3 S- -o zz LO LO S- CD CD CD +-> 03 or — ' rs — ■ co rs CO ""3 CO CO — z: — - CO C-12 OO UJ cm LU o LU ■-3 O ce: ' — ' Q_ "O C 1— o LU GO _l 2£ CO O O «* ■^t-' C\J ■vf ■^r CNJ +-> _Q c_> sr O) o ■l~J LO o s_ Q_ _Q 4-> 5^ 13 O O > — I Z3 O S- cn o CO o o o o LO LO CNJ CNJ r^ CM CNJ ro LO CNJ LO LO CNJ LO o CU ja > OJ 1 — ^— +-> >> fO zc c s- -SZ cu -*-> +-> S- o CNJ oo LO CNJ CNJ 00 CNJ CNJ LO CNJ ro <3- LO CNJ CNJ oo CNJ o o CO co CNJ LO CNJ CNJ CO CNJ LO CNJ LO CNJ LO CNJ LO CNJ LO CNJ LO CNJ CO o .a cu >> 3= O OO s- a> +-> LO cu j= <_> cu c 4-> o • i— -1 — LO S3 ZD +-> •r" CU i — ^ Q. rd OO co CNJ CNJ CO «3" CO LO CNJ O * - — . ^ — . * — . LO JC JZ >> >> >> >> r-H o u fC fO +-> fO fO +-> 3 3 L0 (T3 oo CU CO cu CO cu +-> +-> s- +-> i- LU CD +-> S- +-> S- LU +-> O O) o cu O cu CU o CU o +-> 4- 4- • r— CU i— cu i — +-> S- cu 1 — cu r— +-> > S- >> ■=C 4-> s- >5 S- >^ fC +-> fO LO +-> 03 -t-> fO ' ^ — ^ 4-> -r-> +-> ^ — -- LO h" LO 1— oo 1— LO 1— +-> CU L0 L0 <=c s >>x: >, a > fO cu ' — ^ Z cu JC 4- _cr 4- fO +J J3 <+- _sr l+- O 3 r- 1 +j o 4-> o 3 s- S- ■ ' 3 cu s > r— 1 i— i . 1 ^H r— 1 -M a QJ u cu s_ r-H -C i—i sz S- r-H x: <— 1 -C s- oo o ^ — ^ o ^ — ^ • 1 — c •1 — •( — +-> -M o +-> -t-> +-> o -C LO cu LO cu > "3 +-> S- +-> Z5 I LO +-> s_ +-> =3 1 — x: a i— 1 > r-H > S- S- S- u_ LO O LO O >-> > +-> 03 •r— •r— • 1— 4-> • r— re 2: OJ o S- Cl_ -t-> Z1 o JZ C_) cm l£> LO cr> cm LD CO oo u cm o r- 1 C\J CO oo O cm o CM LO CO oo oo lo oo LO oo oo oo oo O • • CSJ (XI O oo • • LO C\J o oo oo oo LO oo oo LO LO LO CM LO C\J CM C\J CM oo CNJ CD QJ > >>+-> •1 — 03 -r- +-> DQ CO o3 c £Z +J s- O •■- cu E ■— +-> r— Q. 1 — 03 OO < LO o 03 OO C\J O CsJ CVJ CM OO CM -M +-> +j OO oo oo - — ~ QJ >> - — * * — -s JZ JZ 3 4-> --'IS QJ Z 3 ZJ -t-> LO LO cu Z -— « C • i— >>LO >>LC +-> -M S- H QJ QJ 00 o3 03 QJ C +-> CD »* I— - " > 3 LU 3 LU QJ -r- U~) > QJ O 2: Z S- O < zs jz u 4-> +-> +-> o_ -l-> c OO QJ o> C M- c M- OO cu JZ O) ,— i — '<~i •i — O • 1 — O ■o -^ +-> > -r- O a o o JZ C S- LO LO OO c s: JZ 1 — "O S- ■a rj LO o +-> +-> -M •1 — +-> c o c o <4- •1— 3 ^ ** — -• .— 1 LO — -* OO ** — -' oo ^ — «* ^ 03 u o • • • • • • aj -a Zi o -a 03 o o oo i- cu +-> QJ aj u c 03 "O -(-> S- oo 03 c •<- T3 o T3 C •1 — 03 -l-> C +-> 03 OJ oo s- > +-> •i o c CD QJ >) QJ -JZ c O -M 00 03 c 03 ■<- Ql o i — E C_) C X3 O O "3 C_) •^ •r- +J 1 — -t-> 00 O0 QJ 03 aj or C_J S- ZD +-> 00 cn c -o c QJ CU • » •r— U QJ OJ X C U u .f— O X s- s O LU ZJ o oo o3 JD O C-14 APPENDIX D NOISE APPENDIX U NOISE Noise level measurements were conducted by URS from May 4, 1978 to May 10, 1978 to determine the current noise environment in the vicinity of the alternate NOAA sites. URS noise measurements were made with a battery-powered Bruel and Kjaer Type 166B/S45 sound level meter equipped with a windscreen. The "A-weight ing" scale set on slow response was used for all measurements. The sampling period lasted approximately 20 minutes each for three daily time periods (morning, afternoon, and evening). The results of the survey are presented in Table D-l for noise levels of L cn , L 1n , L / 0/n , and I , . 50' 10 eg(24)' dn D-l Table D-l RESULTS OF NOISE SURVEY FOR NOAA Site Date Time Location Noise Levels (dBA) L 50 L 10 L eg(24) L dn Comments Salmon Bay 1. 5-5-78 5-4-78 5-5-78 8: 30 a.m 2:10 p.m 9:10 p.m 2. 5-5-78 5-4-78 5-5-78 8:10 a.m 2:40 p.m 9:35 p.m Lake Jnion 3. 5-5-78 5-4-78 5-5-78 9:20 a.m 4: 55 p.m 10:20 p.m Kenmore 4. 5-8-78 5-4-78 5-7-78 8:20 a.m 3: 35 p.m 9:45 p.m 5. 5-8-78 5-4-78 5-7-78 8:45 a.m 4:05 p.m 10:10 p.m South Muki 1 teo 6. 5-6-78 5-6-78 5-9-78 8:05 a.m 1:10 p.m 8:45 p.m. 7. 5-6-78 5-6-78 5-9-78 8:30 a.m. 1:40 p.m. 9:10 p.m. Manchester 8. 5-8-78 5-6-78 5-8-78 11:30 a.m. 4:05 p.m. 9:30 p.m. North Hylebos 9. 5-5-78 5-5-78 5-6-78 11: 10 a.m. 4: 15 p.m. 9:55 p.m. 10. 5-5-78 5-5-78 5-6-78 11:35 a.m. 3:30 p.m. 10:20 p.m. South Hylebos 11. 5-5-78 5-5-78 5-6-78 10: 35 a.m. 3: 30 p.m. 9:30 p.m. Port c >f Everett 12. 5-10-78 5-10-78 5-9-78 9:30 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 9:50 p.m. Corner of 20th Avenue, NW & Shilshole Avenue, NW Corner of NW 46th Street and Shi lshole Avenue , NW Corner of Fairview Avenue, E & E. Garfield Street 200' from Juanita Drive on NE 175th Street Boat launch area on Sammamish River North end of Marine View Drive South end of Marine View Drive 400' inside of gate On Marine View Drive at west end of site 400' north of 11th Street Bridge Between Western Farmers Association & small powerplant 66 72 65 73 54 64 61 64 60 72 63 ■ A 61 68 64 76 58 64 63 73 61 76 53 61 58 63 59 62 52 60 40 44 38 43 35 37 44 50 41 48 35 36 49 57 41 53 43 51 55 69 57 68 53 61 55 63 57 63 51 60 57 60 56 64 54 61 Near gear company 61 67 59 62 56 64 63 60 62 59 57 38 41 45 55 55 56 59 65 66 66 63 60 42 43 50 59 59 61 63 Heavy car & truck traffic on Shi lshole Ave. in morning and afternoon Heavy car & truck traffic on Shilshole Ave. in morning and afternoon Car traffic on Fairview Avenue. Noise from lumber company and vehicles on State Route 522 Bird noises hrd noises Motor Boat noise in background Traffic noise on Marine View Drive Traffic noise on 11th Street Saw mi 1 1 noise in background Truck & car traffic, wood chip noise in background D-2 Table D-2 AVERAGE NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT CONSTRUCTION SITES WITH A 50 dBA AMBIENT TYPICAL OF SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Domestic Housing Office Building Hotel , Hospital , School , Public Works Industrial Park- ing Garage, Religious, Amuse- ment & Recreation, Store, Service Station Public Works, Roads & High- ways, Sewers and Trenches II II II II Ground 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84 Clearing Excava- 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78 tion Founda- 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88 tion Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78 Finish- 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84 ing I = All pertinent equipment present at site. II = Minimum required equipment present at site. Source: Anon., "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1971. D-3 LxJ LU CO Lt_ LU -J o CO o < r-H t— 1— r~- < *—i i— < 00 LU S— S cs: Z3 o _l Q. o UJ > Q£ o 2: 1— 1 o u_ C£ u_ < < UJ Cd 00 V- UJ DC OO Q£ 1 =5 >- Q O < 3: 3E LU 1 X _l i«i CD CO < i — i <. LU 3T t— D_ UJ Q£ > o t— i Li_ t~ O LU O _J o LU —1 OO < I— I Z o O Q <£ < CD _J Z ^D i— i O 00 _l ZO < c _J CD CD —1 CD C CD O ro to LO o o ■a c o o <4- oo 00 CT> O lo CL) LO ^ CO LO O r« cm MOW CO ro oo 1 E LO LO CO r- 1 .-1 LO CO CO 00 CO CD o LO ■o 3- O CO CO CO O .-» LO CO CO LO CD CO LO CO LO 00 r^ 0O OJNH 00 OO OO ■ E CO LO CM LO OO LO OO r^ oo <3- oo lo r^ J* S- 3 CD LO CO CM CD CO oorsH CO 00 •* tO 3 i— ft A #t * * #% CD O O CM CM OO CM t— 1 <— 1 Q. 3C > LO LO CM CM CM CM >> > CD LO LO CM CM n3 O CD CD P P o- • • > CD 3 3 CC P P c c P p < +-> O O 3 3 •r— •r- JZ CD 00 OO •r— dL C£ JZ o O o o p p c 00 <-> CD Cd a. Q_ Q_ LO •i- JZ JZ o CD CD 03 > CD CO OO P +-> +-> o P +-> CD •i- CD CD P -o "O T— 1 .— 1 s- CD (T3 03 CO i. +-> P •r- c c LU I/) «— 1 r-H CD o P P ■!-> CD Q t0 n3 00 (O > o o p S c CD c o o o p 3: +-> • • • CD s- • • a> o JZ O O JZ o 3 • • o o CD jz o o s_ 00 P z OO O E i~3 UJ 3 -a z OO 3 p z 00 a> 3 c c i- > O CD to o LU 00 ^ 00 z OS to D-4 UJ LU OO Ll_ UJ _l O CO o < ^H h- 1— r- < — i i— < 00 UJ h- 2! en r=> _l Q_ O UJ >■ q; O 3= l-H O - — * u. q; -o u_ < cd < UJ 3 o: 00 c 1— UJ •1— o; +-> dc: c Z3 >- o < o :n 3 »• — - 1 :r i«i C3 co < •-. 1 ui re Q a. UI UJ ac > _J i-h CO u. 1— < < h- OO Oi — 1 UI UI Q- > O UI O —1 O UI _J 00 < o o ~z. <— < h- Q < UI Z I— < CD _l 3 Z3 >-* O 00 _l ZD c 'cd •r- > ai CD _i CT) c a> 03 to JZ T- o o uo ■o c o o u co 00 o LO CD fO 3 1— a> o o a_ in >■ o CD 1 E 03 3 t— • -o 03 o -o c 03 cd 4-> 00 HOM o 00 O CM O O «3- + .—1 o r~-» + + «3" ■=* CM LO LO LO HHOO lo lo lo lo 1 — CO t— 1 lo ^1- LO LO LO ,-1 <3" O^ LO LO LO r-. co lo CO 00 CM r^ 00 a> r- 1 CO CO O O Oh W LO LO LO CO CO CO co lo r- sO CO -vf CO LO CM LO LO LO O «3- r-- >X5 LO LO CO +-> cd 00 +-> •1- JZ 00 +-> to 1 — o -Q UI CD r— C >> ° 4-> 13 O OO 00 03 jz ■p s- .-1 o <— I I — >> UI OS I— o c o o • 00 UI CM LO O LO LO LO CO CO CO LO LO LO r-~ 00 co CTl «3" CM CT> O CO CM LO LO LO LO LO 1^- CO LO LO LO r-» co <3- lo co r-» COrNr-l CM >1 >1 fO (T3 3: 3: 3 zz. - 4-> +-> • • a> c C +J 0) r— •r— •r- 00 +-> > O O O CD < -£Z Q_ o_ JZ J^ «1 +-> S- JZ ,» TD TO LO (T3 4-> • t— C C '-O 21 LO jr fO 03 l/> * r— 1 00 00 00 UI cd c >>3 +J -z 4-> 03 z c c c: c c •r— •r- CO O *r- O £= OO c c O O Z3 c • • a. • • 4-> O O • •^ CD E UI 00 00 -0 z 00 3 r— J*! 1 — c Ql 03 03 f0 00 _! 00 00 s- o «3 ■l-> xi to at 4-> s- O) JZ +-> o o +j 10 c $- dJ -p 4-> iZ 4J • 4- (U •t- CD JZ C Irt rtJ JZ 03 (_> > •1- CD OO 1— £= CD O t(1 ■1— «^- c o ZD C CD to -^ CD 03 •■- _l S- QJ CD +-> JZ i- I— 03 * D-5 APPENDIX E TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY TABLE E-l DOMINANT PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED AT ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATIONS i— i— OP Common Name Scientific Name Horsetail Equisetum spp. X X X X X Sword fern Polystichum munitum X Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum X Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menzeisii X Black cottonwood Populous trichocarpa X Wil low Salix spp. Alders Alnus spp. X Red alder Alnus rubra X Stinging nettle Urtica dioica X Dock Rumex spp. X X Miner's lettuce Monti a perfoliata X Western spring beauty Montia siberica X Fringecup Tel lima grandi flora X Blackberry Rubus spp. X X X Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis X Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius X X X Lupine Lupinus spp. X X X X X Clover Tri folium spp. X X X X X X Vetch Vica spp. X X X X X X Vine maple Acer circinatum X Big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum X Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia X Small bindweed Convolvulous arvensis X Mul lei n Verbascum spp. X Plantain Plantago spp. X X X X Bedstraw Galium spp. X Thistle Cirsium spp. X Rush Juncus spp. X Sedge Carex spp X Grasses Gramineae X X X X X X X Common Cattail Typha latifolia X Nomenclature follows Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976). TABLE E-2 BIRD SPECIES THAT MAY BE FOUND AT ALTERNATE SITE LOCATIONS AND ADJACENT WATERS ] O 0) v> to ■t-i o o f— jQ jzt •1— ■l-> 01 a> s- c >> -* c r— ^~ ai o fO Zi •r— >> >> -p •^ CO ■»-> s: CD o zn DC to c 4-> S_ Q- a* 13 c
  • E -a ■»-> +-> o a» E O 0) <0 o o »a ra to LkJ CO s»£ 00 zz. oo 2: _J 00 X X X X X X X (X) X X X X X X X (X) X X X X X (X) (X) X (X) X X (X) X X X X X X X X GAVIIDAE - LOONS Common Loon XX XXX Arctic Loon XX XXX Red-throated Loon XX X X X X PODICIPEDIDAE - GREBES Red-necked Grebe Horned Grebe Eared Grebe Western Grebe Pied-billed Grebe PROCELLARIIDAE - FULMARS, SHEAR WATERS, PETRELS Sooty Shearwater XX X PHALACROCORICIDAE - CORMORANTS Double-crested Cormorant XX X Brandt's Cormorant XX X Pelagic Cormorant XX X ARDEIDAE - HERONS AND BITTERNS Great Blue Heron X (X) X (X) X Great Egret ("Common") X X Black-crowned Night Heron X X ANATIDAE - WATERFOWL Whistling Swan XX XXX Canada Goose X X X (X) X (X) X X X Brant XX XXX Snow Goose XX XXX Mallard XXXXXXX(X)X X X X X E-2 TABLE E- -2 (Continued) +-> CD CD > o CD ■•-> 1— J* +■> O CO CD i_ o E c CD +-> c o a. ■o c m CO to o CD 4-> s_ o CO o -Q CD !•■• >> a: 4-> o CO CD +-> to CD sz o c m 2: c •r" c CD o o fM .Q -O •1— 4-> (L) > Jtt c r— ^— d> o re 3 •r- >> >> +■> 'r— CO ■»-> s: 0) o ■£ S V) c 4-> S- Ql. CD rD c 11 jC o sz XT .c o s- ■p E -o ■p ■t-> o CD E o» 3 c c $- 3 c J»£ r— > O CD o o 1— .o J3 •1— +J > J*£ c ^— ^~ a> o « 3 *l — >> >> +-> •1— CO +J s: O) o zc ^ w c +J i_ Q. 0) ZD c CD jz o sz .c -C o s_ 4-> E T3 ■•-> •4-> u O d) (O o o (C r — JD JO If— 4-> Ol (L) s» c >> -*£ c ^— r— O) > >> •»-> •1— CO ■l-> ST o> O 31 n: to c +J s_ Q. E -O 4-> 4-> u cu E o» 13 c C i- 3 c -^ r— > O cu to to +-> O o i — J3 -Q • r— +-> a* a> i_ c >> .*: c r— ^~ a> o (t5 3 •r— >> >> +J *r- OQ +-> s: cu o m 3: to c ■)-> S- Q_ at =d C a» -C o .c JC .c o S- +J E -a +J -i-> u CD E a> 3 c c S- Z3 c J*Z i— > o a> (T3 o O fO fO fO LxJ oo i^ 00 ~z. oo ^ _l oo HIRUNDINIDAE - SWALLOWS (Continued) Bank Swal low Rough-winged Swallow Barn Swal low Cliff Swallow X X X X X) X X X X X CORVIDAE - JAYS, CROWS AND MAGPIES Steller's Jay (X) Common Crow X (X) X (X) X (X) PARIDAE - CHICKADEES, TITMILE AND ALLIES Black-capped Chickadee Common Bushtit X (X) X (X) SITTIDAE - NUTHATCHES White-breasted Nuthatch Red-breasted Nuthatch TROGLODYTIDAE - WRENS House Wren Winter Wren Bewick' s Wren TURDIDAE - THRUSHES, SOLITAIRES AND BLUEBIRDS American Robin Varied Thrush Hermit Thrush (X) X (X) X X SYLVIIDAE - GNATCATCHERS AND KINGLETS Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet E-7 TABLE E-2 (Continued) O a> «/> t/> -•-> O ,— X) X) •r™ ■*-> ai cu l_ c >1 14 C ^~ ^~ a> > >> -t-> •1— CO +J SI CD O :n ■jo. c +J S- a. cu =3 c E -O ■p +J a> E a» 3 c c 1- 3 c J*J r— > CD to (/) •p o o ^~ -Q XJ *r— 4-> a) 0) 1_ c >> _*: C r— r— OJ o A3 3 'r~ >> >> 4-> •r— CO +-> s: i- O. d) ^ c a» x: o x: x: x: o s_ 4-> E -a 4-> +J u ai E a> 3 c c S- 3 c j^ > O a> «o o O > -i»£ c r— i — CD o > >> 4-> •r— CO -(-> s O) o in nz 00 c 4-> S- Q_ O) ID c cu .c o -C JC -C o t- +-> E "O +-> +-> o O CD fO o O (T3 fO - < O ►— i re 3: oo _l < Aeg uouites uoiun a>|ei jaq.S9LjDUPH soqeL^H M^nos soqaL/CH M^on ^ULOd pues ajouiua>i oa^LMnW Minos <4- C cd o 00 c o E E o o X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4-> •r— -Q T3 3 "O l/> l/l 3 .a C U •r— C 3 to •i — •p™ •r— cd •t— c CD O 3 -r-> S_ in CD to c o lO •i — 4-> •r~ o 3 to c H3 CD C CD fO S- -C 4-> CD a to 3 E O) 3 to CD +■> o Ol 3 S- fO 3 o S- o 3 > o 4-> CD CL J- .C ■r-> to o +-> r— S- c O E c cd o 3 3 o •r— r— CD •r™ fO •1— to <_> to to O c S- to r— u > s- 3 t/> 3 3 to +-> c •r— fO +-> c >> ■»-> ■»-> 3 to o 4-> cd X X o > •i— o cd CD i. Q. o s_ s- -t-> 3 o .c r— s- s_ 3 fO i- <_> o Irt 4-> a. o Q. • r— o o cd U CD •r— •1 — 3 fO 3 .*: ^: .C oo r— to o 3 rO ■-D oo oo OO o -o 3 > T3 o CU 4-* s: e o c: s: U C TD ■o T3 c CD s: cr CD >) -r— o CD CD CD fO 3 l/» o (/> CD (T3 <+- o Q. +-> -^ s_ CD c S- CD C to 3 •i— o •r- +-> to CD S- 3 CD CD 3 3 s_ u u t- o fO 00 r- Q o 1— nz zz. Q. Qi OO OO <3- CD i- CD "O •p— CD sz. c CD {/) to O S- CJ3 "O rd +-> s- 3 CQ O CD s- fO to CD O e CD S- 3 U o o T3 c fO c CD E o E-ll APPENDIX F TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Manchester (5430) 5790 + 980 (2200) 2350 + 2500 3330 + 1520 Manchester Site Marine View Drive North Hylebos Site (10,580) . 12,505 + Site 2330 (3210) 3790 + 1580 1 (11.970) 14,150 + 750 ■• Taylor Way 0) O) JC +•* Lii (10,580) 12,505 + 220 Site (3210) 3790 + 1670 1 0) Taylor Way CO 4: *-• (11,970) 14,150 + 610 South Hylebos Site Legend (1978) Existing Traffic 1983 + NOAA Projected Traffic + NOAA Traffic Figure F-1a Traffic Volumes a. xz +■* ID 111 (22,700) z 23,040 + 1460 J N.E. 65th St. 1 (9340) 9480 + 460 Sand Point Site (1550) / Site 1575 + 580 / 0) D+ 1 (28,620) 770 SR 522 30 < 330 + Negligible Kenmore Site N.E. 175th Site (21,150) & s