DOCSLIB.ORG

Petrogas Ferndale Wharf Subsurface Reclamation Project Dredging Activities Table of Contents ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Petrogas Ferndale Wharf Subsurface Reclamation Project Dredging Activities Table of Contents ____________________________________________________________________________ Petrogas Ferndale Wharf Subsurface Reclamation Project Dredging Activities Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Table of Contents: 1. Substantial Development Permit Application 2. Project Proposal and Extended Responses Document 3. Bargain and Sale Deed 4. Whatcom Evidence of Development before 1976 5. DNR Aquatic Lands Lease 20-A08488 6. Vicinity Map, Site Plan, Design Drawings, Bathymetric Data (2 copies) 7. Critical Areas Assessment (2 copies) 8. SEPA checklist 9. Nearby Property Owners list and self-adhesive mailing labels Petrogas Ferndale Wharf Subsurface Reclamation Project Dredging Activities Project Proposal and Supplemental Application Extended Responses Project Proposal: Since the construction of the Pier in 1965, sediment transport and deposition at the pierhead has resulted in the loss of approximately 5-8 feet of underkeel clearance along the west edge of the Pier. This clearance is critical to safe operation of the ships. The accumulated sediments have resulted in more frequent reberthings of ships during tidal changes. To address this issue, in August 2019, Petrogas submitted to the US Army Corps Dredged Materials Management Office (DMMO), a Tier 1 report to begin the process of planning for maintenance dredging at the Petrogas Pier. Petrogas is currently developing a Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SSAP) by way of the sediment sampling experts at Anchor QEA, in coordination with the DMMO, to collect core samples of the sediment to characterize the sediment quality. The results of this sampling and analysis will be submitted to the DMMO to determine what options are available for proper disposal of dredged sediment. Petrogas is proposing to dredge up to 12,000 cubic yards of sediment to re-establish the original -38 ft of depth at Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to reduce the frequency of reberthing. The reduction in tugboat traffic and mooring operations will result in a safer overall operation and reduce environmental impacts. The dredging prism would be approximately 850 ft north to south along the west head of the Pier, up to 60 ft wide and -8 ft maximum depth from current lidar reading to the -38 ft MLLW design water depth, not including overdepth. The bathymetric data shows the sediments have accumulated close to the Pier structure where the piles have disrupted sediment transport. Dredging activities will be focused near the edge of the pier. A conversation has been started with the aquatics land owner, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), regarding disposal options. It was proposed that if the dredged sediments were of suitable quality, that they be used to fill in the depressions to the west of the Pier. These depressions are the remnants of two removed mooring buoys. You can see these in the attached Bathymetric Map as the two large blue depressions within the Aquatic Lease Boundary. Based upon the bathymetric data, the mooring buoy depressions are roughly 250 ft wide and 13 feet deep, with approximately 23,500 cubic yards of available space. The DNR is supportive of this proposal pending verification that the sediment is sufficiently clean. Please see the letter from the DNR dated November 1, 2019, attached to the project description. 1 Petrogas Ferndale Wharf Subsurface Reclamation Project Dredging Activities Project Activities: To prepare the site for sediment removal, Petrogas is planning to pull the 16 historic abandoned pile stubs identified during the post Fender Repair Project underwater inspection. If the pile stubs cannot be successfully pulled, they will be cut off below the mudline. These piles are on the immediate north and south ends of the fenders and increase sediment deposition. Pile removal will be completed per the most current version of the Washington Department of Natural Resources Derelict Creosote Piling Removal Best management Practices. Petrogas is planning to dredge by means of mechanical bucket dredging using a crane and barge. The barge will spud in to stabilize the equipment while working. The spoils will be deposited on a barge for open water disposal or if deemed unsuitable, delivered to an approved upland solid waste facility. The overall dredge design depth is -38 feet (not including 2 ft of overdepth) MLLW. Project Construction Sequence: 1. Dredging will take 15-25 days assuming weather is appropriate. Accounting for regular monthly ship traffic, total project time is estimated to take up to 2 months. ● The contractor is planning to dredge by means of mechanical bucket dredging using a crane and barge. ● The barge will spud in to stabilize the equipment while working. ● As work is done, multibeam sonar will be used to measure the depth of the cut and ensure the dredging is done to the design specifications. ● As the sediment is dredged, the spoils will be deposited on a barge for open water disposal or if deemed unsuitable, delivered to an approved upland solid waste facility. ● The overall dredge design depth is -38 feet (not including 2 ft of overdepth) MLLW. ● The dredge bucket will not over-penetrate surface sediments, which can cause sediment to be expelled from the vents in the bucket, or cause sediment to become piled on top of the bucket, and then become eroded during bucket retrieval. ● The bucket will be closed smoothly when it is collecting dredge material. ● The method of operating the dredge will be modified based on changing site conditions, such as tides, waves, currents, and wind. ● Multiple bites while the bucket is on the bottom will not be permitted. ● Dredged material aboard the barge will be observed daily for the presence of fish to ensure that they are not being entrained by the clamshell bucket. If 2 Petrogas Ferndale Wharf Subsurface Reclamation Project Dredging Activities entrainment occurs, crane operation will be slowed to increase opportunity for fish to avoid the bucket. ● The barge will be managed such that the dredged sediment load does not exceed the capacity of the barge. The load will be placed in the barge to maintain an even keel and avoid listing. ● Water quality will be monitored during dredging to ensure compliance with Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A) or per the terms of the project permits. 2. If open water disposal is approved the following methods will be used: Using GPS, a tug boat will orient the barge at the disposal site. A front-end loader will scoop sediment from the deck of the barge and offload it over the edge of the barge. As the sediment deposits on the seafloor, the tug captain will track the location of the boat to distribute the sediment as evenly as practicable over the disposal site. This method allows for more even distribution of sediment when compared to a dump scow. This also reduces the impacts on benthic biota that reside in the sediments allowing for earlier recolonization of the surface sediments. Project Schedule: The project will be planned and completed during Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) designated in-water work windows to minimize impacts on the local biota and critical habitat. Supplemental Application Extended Responses 1. Property Description: The property is a timber pier structure located at 4050 Mountain View Road, Ferndale, Washington. The pier, which was originally constructed in 1965, has undergone frequent routine repairs to maintain it in a fully serviceable condition. The structure serves as a loading point for LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas). The pier is also a receiving point for raw aluminum ore, which is offloaded from ships with a clamshell transfer bucket and conveyed to shore with an enclosed conveyor belt system. The conveyance pipe for Intalco Aluminum Corporation’s main wastewater and stormwater outfall also runs along the pier to a diffuser below the surface of the water. The Pier serves as a deep water port on the east bank of the Strait of Georgia, a large marine inlet with heavy commercial boat traffic. The area is zoned heavy impact industrial and is neighbor to other industrial facilities that refine and distribute petroleum and smelt aluminum. 3 Petrogas Ferndale Wharf Subsurface Reclamation Project Dredging Activities Adjacent properties to the pier include oil refineries to the north and south, an LPG terminal facility to the southeast, an aluminum smelter to the east and railway property running north-south. 2. Shoreline Designation Regulations Per 23.90.120(B)(1)(c): This project is permitted as Maintenance dredging for the purpose of restoring a lawfully established development. Per 23.90.120 (4) Spoils Disposal: Petrogas has developed a Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SSAP) by way of the sediment sampling experts at Anchor QEA, in coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers Dredged Materials Management Office (DMMO), to collect core samples of the sediment to characterize the sediment quality. The results of this sampling and analysis will be submitted to the DMMO to determine what locations are available for proper disposal of dredged sediment. The selected location will either be a DMMO approved open-water disposal site or the sediment will be sent to an approved upland landfill. Either result will meet the Whatcom County spoils disposal regulations when combined with project BMPs and mitigation measures. 23.90.120 Dredging. 23.90.120(5) Minimum Requirements: a. A description of the purpose of the proposed dredging and an analysis of compliance with the policies and regulations of this program: See the Substantial Development Permit (this document) b. A detailed description of the existing physical character, shoreline geomorphology and biological resources provided by the area proposed to be dredged, including: See the Critical Areas Assessment. ​ i. A site plan map outlining the perimeter of the proposed dredge area.
Recommended publications
  • V. Inland Ports Planningand Cargos Handling Opera Tion*

    V. Inland Ports Planningand Cargos Handling Opera Tion*

    V. INLAND PORTS PLANNINGAND CARGOS HANDLING OPERA TION* Inland Ports Planning General The term inland waterway port or an inland waterway terminal conveys the idea of an end point. Indeed, traditionally, ports were perceived as end points of the transport system whereby water transport of cargoeswas either originated or terminated. However, from a broader point of view, the one encompassingthe so-called "c~ain of transport", ports or terminals are neither starting nor ending points; they are simply the intermediate points where cargoesare transferred between the links in the transport chain. The emphasis on the transfer function in this introductory section is made since: (a) Ports' main function is to move the cargo and to avoid accumulating and damaging it; (b) In order to efficiently fulfill their transfer function, ports or terminals have to possess convenient access(rail and road) to the connecting modes of transport. broader definition ora port seems especially appropriate for our discussion on inland waterway transportation (IWT). IWT is part of the domestic transportation system which also includes rail and road transpiration. IWT, unlike rail and road transportation, can oQly connectpoints which are locatea on the waterway network. Consequently, in most caSes othercomplementary land transportation modes are required for the entire origin-to-destinationtransport. In other words, since in most casesthe IWT cargo does not originate or terminate atthe port site itself, the main function of the inland port is to transfer the cargo between IWTvessels, trains, and trucks. The inland ports are important for the economic development of a country. The inland port, therail, the road and the seaport are equally important.
  • Potomac River Transporation Plan.Indd

    Potomac River Transporation Plan.Indd

    Potomac River Transportation Framework Plan Washington DC, Virginia, Maryland Water transportation is the most economical, energy effi cient and environmentally friendly transportation that exists for major cities today. The vast river network that was the original lifeblood of the Washington, DC region remains underutilized. The Potomac River Transportation Framework Plan is a comprehensive master plan outlining a water based transportation network on the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia, for commuters, tourists and the federal government (defense and civilian evacuations). This plan outlines an enormous opportunity to expand the transportation network at a fraction of the cost (both in dollars and environmental impact) of other transportation modes. The plan includes intermodal connections to the existing land based public transportation system. See Detail Plan GEORGETOWN REGIONAL PLAN KENNEDY CENTER RFK STADIUM NATIONAL MALL THE WHARF BASEBALL The plan to the left GEORGETOWN STADIUM NAVY YARD PENTAGON BUZZARD POINT/ SOCCER STADIUM POPLAR POINT illustrates the reach of FORT MCNAIR JBAB the transporation plan KENNEDY CENTER that includes Virginia, NATIONAL AIRPORT RFK STADIUM JBAB / ST. ELIZABETHS SOUTH Maryland, and the DAINGERFIELD ISLAND NATIONAL MALL GENON SITE District of Columbia, CANAL CENTER ROBINSON TERMINAL NORTH fully integrated with THE OLD TOWN- KING STREET existing land based WHARF ROBINSON TERMINAL SOUTH BASEBALL PENTAGON STADIUM NAVY YARD JONES POINT transporation. NATIONAL HARBOR POPLAR POINT BUZZARD POINT/SOCCER STADIUM FORT MCNAIR JBAB A TERMINAL ‘A’ Both Plans illustrate B TERMINAL ‘B’ C TERMINAL ‘C’ potential routes and landings for D TERMINAL ‘D’ MOUNT VERNON FORT WASHINGTON Commuters, Tourists NATIONAL AIRPORT and the Federal JBAB / ST.
  • Marinas of Anne Arundel County

    Marinas of Anne Arundel County

    Marina Inventory Of Anne Arundel County 2018 Office of Planning & Zoning Long Range Planning Division Marina Inventory Of Anne Arundel County July 2018 Anne Arundel County Office of Planning and Zoning Long Range Planning Division ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Office of Planning and Zoning Philip R. Hager, Planning and Zoning Officer Lynn Miller, Assistant Planning and Zoning Officer Project Team Long Range Planning Division Cindy Carrier, Planning Administrator Mark Wildonger, Senior Planner Patrick Hughes, Senior Planner Andrea Gerhard, Planner II Special Thanks to VisitAnnapolis.org for the use of the cover photo showing Herrington Harbor. Table of Contents Background Marinas Commercial Marinas Community Marinas Impacts of Marinas Direct Benefit Census Data and Economic Impact Other Waterfront Sites in the County Appendix A – Listing of Marinas in Anne Arundel County, 2018 Appendix B – Location Maps of Marinas in Anne Arundel County, 2018 Office of Planning & Zoning Long Range Planning Division Marinas of Anne Arundel County Background Anne Arundel County has approximately 533 miles of shoreline along the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This resource provides the opportunity for the marine industry to flourish, providing services to the commercial and recreational boaters. In 1980, the first Boating and Marina Study was completed in the County. At that time, the County had 57 marinas and 1,767 boat slips.1 Since that time the County has experienced significant growth in all aspects of its economy including the marine industry. As of June 2018, there are a total of 303 marinas containing at total of 12,035 boat slips (Table 1). This report was prepared as an update to the 1997 and 2010 marina inventories2 and includes an updated inventory and mapping of marinas in the County.
  • Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center Tier 1 University Transportation Center U.S. Department of Transportation

    Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center Tier 1 University Transportation Center U.S. Department of Transportation

    MARITIME TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTER TIER 1 UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transit-Oriented Development and Ports: National Analysis across the United States and a Case Study of New Orleans Project Start Date: October 2013 Project End Date: September 2017 Principal Investigator: John L. Renne, Ph.D., AICP Director and Associate Professor, Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions School of Urban and Regional Planning Florida Atlantic University Building 44, Room 284 777 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33431 561-297-4281 [email protected] Honorary Research Associate Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and the Environment University of Oxford Final Report Date: November 2017 FINAL RESEARCH REPORT Prepared for: Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center University of Arkansas 4190 Bell Engineering Center Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-6021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation under Grant Award Number DTRT13-G-UTC50. The work was conducted through the Maritime Transportation Research and Education Center (MarTREC) at the University of Arkansas. In partnership with and as a member of the MarTREC consortium, this project was funded through the University of New Orleans Transportation Institute, where Dr. John L. Renne was employed until the end of 2015. Dr. Renne would like to acknowledge Tara Tolford and Estefania Mayorga for their efforts on the data analysis and assistance with the report. He is grateful to all of the interviewees who donated their time for the benefit of this study. Finally, Dr. Renne wishes to thank James Amdal for his expertise and assistance on this project.
  • Feasibility Analysis

    Feasibility Analysis

    Utah Inland Port - Feasibility Analysis prepared for World Trade Center - Utah Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc Global Logistics Development Partners, Inc www.camsys.com report Utah Inland Port - Feasibility Analysis prepared for World Trade Center - Utah & Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 Global Logistics Development Partners 14362 N. Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd. Suite 1000 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 USA date December 29, 2017 Utah Inland Port - Feasibility Analysis Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 2-7 Summary of Recommendations: .............................................................. 2-8 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2-14 2.0 Inland Port Typology ....................................................................................... 2-17 2.1 What is an Inland Port?............................................................................ 2-17 2.2 Where are Existing Inland Ports? ........................................................... 2-17 Inland Port Types ..................................................................................... 2-17 Port Profile: DuisburgPort ....................................................................... 2-19 Port Profile: CentrePort Canada
  • Port of Houston Authority

    Port of Houston Authority

    Port of Houston Authority Tariff No. 14 January 1, 2020 Additional Rates, Rules, and Regulations Governing the Fentress Bracewell Barbours Cut Container Terminal EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 111 East Loop North - Houston, Texas 77029 USA P. O. Box 2562 - Houston, Texas 77252-2562 Phone (713) 670-2400 - Fax (713) 670-2564 Barbours Cut Container Terminal 1515 East Barbours Cut Boulevard – La Porte, Texas 77571 Phone (281) 470-1800 - Fax (281) 470-5580 PORT OF HOUSTON TARIFF NO. 14 Page No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ONE: DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS SUBJECT SUBRULE PAGE NO. Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ 048 ......................................... 11 Agent or Vessel Agent .............................................................................................. 001 .......................................... 6 Baplie ....................................................................................................................... 002 ........................................... 6 Berth ......................................................................................................................... 003 ........................................... 6 Bonded Storage ....................................................................................................... 004 ........................................... 6 Checking .................................................................................................................. 005
  • Review of Maritime Transport 2012

    Review of Maritime Transport 2012

    UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2012 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2012 New York and Geneva, 2012 ii REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2012 NOTE The Review of Maritime Transport is a recurrent publication prepared by the UNCTAD secretariat since 1968 with the aim of fostering the transparency of maritime markets and analysing relevant developments. Any factual or editorial corrections that may prove QHFHVVDU\EDVHGRQFRPPHQWVPDGHE\*RYHUQPHQWVZLOOEHUHƅHFWHGLQDFRUULJHQGXPWREHLVVXHGVXEVHTXHQWO\ * * * 6\PEROVRI8QLWHG1DWLRQVGRFXPHQWVDUHFRPSRVHGRIFDSLWDOOHWWHUVFRPELQHGZLWKƄJXUHV8VHRIVXFKDV\PEROLQGLFDWHVD reference to a United Nations document. * * * The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * * * 0DWHULDOLQWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQPD\EHIUHHO\TXRWHGRUUHSULQWHGEXWDFNQRZOHGJHPHQWLVUHTXHVWHGZLWKUHIHUHQFHWRWKHGRFXPHQW QXPEHU VHHEHORZ $FRS\RIWKHSXEOLFDWLRQFRQWDLQLQJWKHTXRWDWLRQRUUHSULQWVKRXOGEHVHQWWRWKH81&7$'VHFUHWDULDWDWWKH following address: Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland. UNCTAD/RMT/2012 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales no. E.12.II.D.17 ISBN 978-92-1-112860-4 e-ISBN 978-92-1-055950-8 ISSN 0566-7682 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Review of Maritime Transport
  • Gpm Demolition

    Gpm Demolition

    Sheet 7 of 11 MONTH 11 - 40 GPM DEMOLITION 525 11 PHASE 1 B COMPLETE A 6 7 8 9 10 THE TERRACE WATERFRONT 1 2 PARK C 3 C B A GANGPLANK MARINA CAPITAL RECREATION YACHT CLUB PIER Y X Z WHARF MARINA OPERATIONS ACTIVITY 1. Management Office: The Terrace A. Excavation of P9 & P10 Garage 2. Shower, Laundry, and Mail: The Terrace B. Site Prep and Excavation of P6 – P8 Garage 3. Slip Access: Waterfront Park C. Demolition of A-C Docks (Month 12) 4. Marina Parking: Offsite ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 11-03J ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.11-03J EXHIBITDeleted NO.82A2 Sheet 8 of 11 MONTH 11 - 40 PH 2 CONSTRUCTION 525 11 PHASE 1 C COMPLETE A 6 7 8 9 10 THE TERRACE WATERFRONT 1 2 PARK 3 B GANGPLANK MARINA CAPITAL RECREATION YACHT CLUB PIER Y X Z WHARF MARINA OPERATIONS ACTIVITY 1. Management Office: The Terrace A. Construction of P9 & P10 Garage & Buildings 2. Shower, Laundry, and Mail: The Terrace B. Construction of West Wharf Marina 3. Slip Access: Waterfront Park C. Excavation/Construction of P6 – P8 Garage & Buildings 4. Marina Parking: Offsite Sheet 9 of 11 MONTH 40 P9 & P10 COMPLETION 525 11 PHASE 1 A 9 COMPLETE 6 7 8 3 10 THE TERRACE WB1 WB2 4 3 WATERFRONT 1 2 C PARK B GANGPLANK MARINA CAPITAL RECREATION PIER YACHT CLUB V W Y X Z WHARF MARINA OPERATIONS ACTIVITY 1. Management Office: WB2 A. Construction of P6-P8 & Buildings 2. Shower, Laundry, and Mail: WB2 B.
  • Shaped by Function: Boston's Historic Warehouses

    Shaped by Function: Boston's Historic Warehouses

    124 Sara E. Wermiel Shaped by Function: Boston’s Historic Warehouses This paper discusses the history of warehouses built before had the leading port. Boston’s port remained one of the busi- 1920 in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., with a focus on est through the nineteenth century, and in the latter nine- those in the Fort Point Channel Landmark District (FPCLD). teenth century, port facilities – including piers, warehouses, The FPCLD is a roughly 55-acre (22.3 hectares) area in the and railroad service – expanded in the South Boston area. South Boston neighborhood of the city, and it contains 85 In the twentieth century, other North American ports grew Figure 1: Warehouses in Fort Point Channel District, photo 1925 historic warehouses and lofts, which were built between to outrank Boston. Today, most of the wharves and facilities 1880 and 1930. This is the largest collection of warehouses of the old harbor have disappeared. In South Boston, the in a definable area in the city, and it probably is also one warehouses and lofts of the FPCLD survive. Although they of the most intact warehouse districts in the United States. now serve purposes other than storage and manufacturing, Before discussing the history of the FPCLD, the paper pres- these warehouses and lofts continue to physically represent ents an overview of the development of Boston’s old har- a time when maritime commerce and industry dominated bor and the distinctive warehouse blocks that were once a the city’s economy. These building feature a special form prominent feature of it. Until the mid-eighteenth century, of heavy-timber interior framing, adapted from a regional Boston was the most populous North American town and construction tradition.
  • Port of San Francisco Vessel Schedule 2020-09-25

    Port of San Francisco Vessel Schedule 2020-09-25

    Port of San Francisco Vessel Schedule Pier 1, The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111 2020-09-25 (415) 274-0400 [email protected] Pier Arrival Date (ETA) Vessel Name Departure Date (ETD) Agent/Operator Remarks Pier 15-17 Exploratorium Vacant Pier 17 Baydelta Vacant Pier 19 South Vacant Pier 27 Cruise Terminal Vacant Pier 29 North Vacant Pier 31 South Longterm Assignment Alcatraz Cruises Vessel TBA Alcatraz Cruises Layberth Pier 30-32 04/06/2020 CityTestSF TBA City of SF City First Responders Pier 35 North 05/26/2020 SS Jeremiah O'Brien TBA National Liberty Ship Emergency Layup Pier 35 South Vacant Pier 45 East (A) Longterm Assignment USS Pampanito TBA Maritime Park Assn Homeport Pier 45 East (C) Vacant Downtown Ferry Terminal Gate B Daily Vallejo Daily WETA/Blue & Gold Commuter Service Gates C and D Daily Tiburon-Sausalito-Larkspur Daily Golden Gate Ferry Commuter Service Gate E Daily Richmond WETA/Blue & Gold Gate F Daily Harbor Bay WETA/Blue & Gold Gate G Daily Alameda-Oakland Daily WETA/Blue & Gold Commuter Service Excursions Open China Basin Ferry Terminal Temporarily Closed Oracle Park Events WETA/B&G/GGF Pier 48.5 Ferry Terminal Temporarily Closed Chase Center Events WETA/Golden Gate Ferry Pier 50 East (inboard) Longterm Assignment Cape Horn TBA California Sealift/MARAD Layberth Pier 50 East (outboard) TBA Cape Hudson California Sealift/MARAD Layberth Pier 50 D Vacant Pier 54 North Vacant Pier 54 South Vacant Pier 68-70 Shipyard Wharf 3 East Vacant Wharf 3 West Longterm Assignment Marine Express Barges TBA Marine Express Layberth
  • Port Safety Plan

    Port Safety Plan

    Partnering in growth, connecting people and supporting potential PORT SAFETY PLAN Published Month Year Teamwork | Respect | Integrity | Honesty | Safety XXX-LEG-XX Uncontrolled Copy When Printed Port Safety Plan HSE-LEG-03 Partnering in growth, connecting people and supporting potential CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 2 AMENDMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 2. HAZARD AND RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 11 3. WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SMS)......................................................... 16 4. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION, COMMUNICATION AND INVOLVEMENT .................................... 17 5. IMPLEMENTING, REVIEWING AND REVISING PLAN ....................................................................... 23 6. AUDITING AND REPORTING ........................................................................................................... 25 7. PUBLICATION .................................................................................................................................. 27 8. VESSEL MOVEMENT ......................................................................................................................
  • Proposed Wharf and Dredging Project Consultation Report

    Proposed Wharf and Dredging Project Consultation Report

    APPENDIX P PROPOSED WHARF AND DREDGING PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT PROPOSED WHARF AND DREDGING PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT PROPOSED WHARF AND DREDGING PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT NOVEMBER 2017 AUGUST 2017 PAGE | 1 NAPIER PORT PROPOSED WHARF AND DREDGING PROJECT CONSULTATION REPORT CONTENTS DOCUMENT APPROACH ............................................................................... ..2 PART 1: PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT ........................................................... 3 PART 2: CONSULTATION APPROACH .......................................................... 5 PART 3: CONSULTATION IMPLEMENTATION .............................................. 6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 23 APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 24 VERSION CONTROL ....................................................................................... 24 DOCUMENT APPENDICES ............................................................................. 25 DOCUMENT APPROACH This document has been prepared for use by Napier Port to support resource consent applications for the development of the Proposed Wharf and Dredging Project (PWDP). THE CONSULTATION REPORT IS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS: PART 1: PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT; Sets out the foundation of the consultation campaign; the governance structure, the agreed approach and the resources put in place to support the process. PART 2: CONSULTATION APPROACH; AND Sets out