DOCSLIB.ORG

Light, Glare and Aesthetics Assessment MAY 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THORNDYKE RESOURCE DRAFT Light, Glare and Aesthetics Assessment MAY 2014 Prepared for Hood Canal Sand and Gravel LLC, dba Thorndyke Resource POULSBO WASHINGTON Prepared by point environmental consulting, inc. SEATTLE WASHINGTON Cover Photos: Taken from Jefferson County WHR Hicks Park in Shine WA, on the shores of Squamish Harbor Top photo 2006 telephoto, looking southwest toward the former Shine Pit Bottom photo: 2014 telephoto, looking southwest toward the former Shine Pit Note: regrowth of reclaimed mining areas Ver. 1.3 b THORNDYKE RESOURCE PROJECT DRAFT Light, Glare and Aesthetics Assessment MAY 2014 Prepared for Hood Canal Sand and Gravel LLC. dba Thorndyke Resource POULSBO WASHINGTON Prepared by point environmental consulting, inc. SEATTLE WASHINGTON This page is intentionally left blank Light, Glare and Aesthetics Assessment May 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1 Methods and Approach ....................................................................................................... 1 1.0 VISUAL SETTING ................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Location ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Landforms .................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Human Elements .......................................................................................................... 4 Structures ..................................................................................................................... 4 Light and Glare ............................................................................................................ 8 Haze ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Viewers ........................................................................................................................ 9 Residents ...................................................................................................................... 9 Highway Travelers ....................................................................................................... 9 Tribal, Government and Commercial Vessel Operators ............................................ 10 Outdoor Recreationists .............................................................................................. 10 2.0 EXISTING VISUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS .................................. 12 2.1 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan ...................................................................... 12 2.2 Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC)............................................... 12 2.3 Jefferson County Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 ............................................................ 13 2.4 Additional Environmental Protection Proposed in the Application .......................... 13 3.0 EXISTING VIEWS .............................................................................................. 14 3.1 Views toward the mining (Meridian Extraction Area) .............................................. 14 3.2 Views toward the sand and gravel processing area (Operations Hub) ...................... 17 Visual assessment area A through F .......................................................................... 18 Visual assessment area A: South Point Road ............................................................ 18 Visual assessment area B: Squamish Harbor............................................................ 22 Visual assessment area C: Shine Road mid-slope ..................................................... 25 Visual assessment area D: Shine Road upper-slope .................................................. 27 Visual assessment area E: Hood Canal Bridge .......................................................... 28 Visual assessment area F: Kitsap County Salisbury Point Community Park ............ 30 3.3 Views toward the sand and gravel conveyor (Central Conveyor) ............................. 33 Visual assessment area A through F .......................................................................... 34 Visual assessment area I: Thorndyke Road bridge crossing ..................................... 35 3.4 Views toward the marine load-out facility on Manhattan Beach (Pier) .................... 38 Visual assessment area D: Shine Road, upper-slope ................................................. 38 Visual assessment area E: Hood Canal Bridge .......................................................... 41 Visual assessment area G: Kitsap County shoreline .................................................. 45 Visual assessment area H: Thorndyke Bay ............................................................... 50 Visual assessment area J: Manhattan Beach .............................................................. 52 i Light, Glare and Aesthetics Assessment May 2014 4.0 VISUAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 57 4.1 Mining........................................................................................................................ 57 4.2 Operations Hub .......................................................................................................... 58 Visual Attributes ........................................................................................................ 58 Visual Changes .......................................................................................................... 58 Overall Visual Impact of the Operations Hub ........................................................... 60 4.3 Central Conveyor ....................................................................................................... 61 Visual Attributes ........................................................................................................ 61 Visual Changes .......................................................................................................... 61 4.4 Pier ............................................................................................................................. 63 Visual Attributes ........................................................................................................ 63 Visual Changes .......................................................................................................... 64 Overall Visual Impact of the Pier .............................................................................. 68 4.5 Tugs, barges and ships on Hood Canal (Marine Transportation) .............................. 69 Visual Attributes ........................................................................................................ 69 Visual Changes .......................................................................................................... 72 Overall Visual Impact of Marine Transportation ...................................................... 73 5.0 MITIGATION ...................................................................................................... 74 APPENDIX A - REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX B - TERMINOLOGY................................................................................... 76 ii Light, Glare and Aesthetics Assessment May 2014 INTRODUCTION Purpose This report describes the existing visual environment and potential visual impacts of the proposed Thorndyke Resource project (See Jefferson County DCD File No. MLA 03-00155 for project details). The report is intended to inform the applicant and others interested in the visual aspects of the proposed project, as well as to assist Jefferson County in developing the environmental impact statement (EIS) being prepared for the proposed project under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Information presented in this report is preliminary and is subject to review and revision based on the analysis and information generated through Jefferson County’s SEPA review. Methods and Approach The assessment consisted of the following steps: 1. Establish the project’s “viewshed.” The project viewshed is the surface areas from which proposed project features could be seen (FHWA 1989). The viewshed was determined based on examination of topographic maps, Google Earth digital terrain modeling, and direct, on-the-ground observation and photography. 2. Establish “visual assessment areas.” The project’s viewshed was then divided into areas that would have similar views of project elements, called Visual Assessment Areas (similar to the “Landscape Units” concept used in the Federal Highway Administration’s visual assessment methodology [FHWA 1989]). The areas were defined by identifying 1) areas where one or more project features would be visible and 2) sharing the same overall viewshed. 3. Select Representative Viewpoints. Representative viewpoints were defined for selected visual assessment areas where additional visual assessment was required (e.g., parks, residential areas). 4. Determine who would see the project (“viewer groups”). Viewer types were identified primarily
Recommended publications
  • 1968 Mountaineer Outings

    1968 Mountaineer Outings

    The Mountaineer The Mountaineer 1969 Cover Photo: Mount Shuksan, near north boundary North Cascades National Park-Lee Mann Entered as second-class matter, April 8, 1922, at Post Office, Seattle, Wash., under the Act of March 3, 1879. Published monthly and semi-monthly during June by The Mountaineers, P.O. Box 122, Seattle, Washington 98111. Clubroom is at 7191h Pike Street, Seattle. Subscription price monthly Bulletin and Annual, $5.00 per year. EDITORIAL STAFF: Alice Thorn, editor; Loretta Slat­ er, Betty Manning. Material and photographs should be submitted to The Mountaineers, at above address, before Novem­ ber 1, 1969, for consideration. Photographs should be black and white glossy prints, 5x7, with caption and photographer's name on back. Manuscripts should be typed double-spaced and include writer's name, address and phone number. foreword Since the North Cascades National Park was indubi­ tably the event of this past year, this issue of The Mountaineer attempts to record aspects of that event. Many other magazines and groups have celebrated by now, of course, but hopefully we have managed to avoid total redundancy. Probably there will be few outward signs of the new management in the park this summer. A great deal of thinking and planning is in progress as the Park Serv­ ice shapes its policies and plans developments. The North Cross-State highway, while accessible by four­ wheel vehicle, is by no means fully open to the public yet. So, visitors and hikers are unlikely to "see" the changeover to park status right away. But the first articles in this annual reveal both the thinking and work which led to the park, and the think­ ing which must now be done about how the park is to be used.

  • Mountaineer INDEX 1967-1980

    1 2 3 4 NOTE : THIS IS A DIGITAL TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL INDEX . The original document was scanned page by page. The results, beginning with this page, were then processed using optical character recognition (OCR) software, edited for accuracy and reformatted in MS Word. A marker is placed beneath the record that ends each page of the original. - Tom Cushing, Mountaineers History Committee, March, 2009 HOW TO USE THE INDEX This index to the Mountaineer Annual is divided into two parts: the Subject Index and the Proper Names Index (PNI). To use this index, find the year of publication of the Annual in dark type followed by a colon and the page number of the citation. Example: Ansell, Julian, 73: 80 (c/n) This means that a climbing note by Julian Ansell can be found on page 80 in the Annual published in 1973. Unnumbered pages are designated by letter and number of the last preceding page: 16, 16A, 16B. WHAT IS IN THE INDEX? The PNI contains all proper names of persons, organizations and places. If names are identical, persons precede places. Included as persons are all authors of articles, poems, and books reviewed, all artists, photographers and cartographers, as well as persons of note written about in the annuals. Authors of climbing notes are indexed. Authors of outing notes, obituaries, and book reviews are not. Maiden and married names, and alternative first and second names are listed as published, with cross-references where known. Included as places in the PNI are all geographical locations and special properties, such as huts or lodges.
  • Mountain Goat Census in the Olympic Mountain Range, July 1994

    Mountain Goat Census in the Olympic Mountain Range, July 1994

    MOUNTAIN GOAT CENSUS IN THE OLYMPIC MOUNTAIN RANGE, JULY 1994 D.B. Houston, R.W. Olson, R.A. Hoffman, B.B. Moorhead1 Report to the Superintendent Olympic National Park 1 August 19 94 1. DBH with the National Biological Survey, all other authors with the National Park Service. MOUNTAIN GOAT CENSUS IN THE OLYMPIC MOUNTAIN RANGE, 1994 D.B. Houston, R.W. Olson, R.A. Hoffman, B.B. Moorhead Abstract We conducted a helicopter census of introduced mountain goats {Oreamnos americanus) in the Olympic Mountains during July 1994. The population on the 50,063 hectare census zone was estimated with a stratified random block design at 288±32(SE) goats. Confidence limits are ±63 goats, thus with 95% certainty the true value of the population estimate lies between 225-351 goats. The 1994 estimate did not differ significantly from the 1990 census. Record high temperatures may have influenced goat observability. Introduction Mountain goats were introduced to the Olympic Mountains during the 1920's (Houston et al. 1994). An initial helicopter census conducted in July 1983 returned an estimate of 1175±171(SE) goats. A second census in July 1990, conducted following the extensive National Park Service management program to remove goats, produced an estimate of 389±106 goats. Here we report results from the third extensive census, conducted during July 1994 . Study Area and Methods The rationale for the helicopter census design has been described in detail (Houston et al. 1986, 1991). Briefly, the census zone included all of the 50,063 ha of land free of glacial ice above 1520 m (5000 feet) in the Olympic Mountains.
  • Summits on the Air USA (W7W)

    Summits on the Air USA (W7W)

    Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7W) Association Reference Manual (ARM) Document Reference S39.1 Issue number 2.0 Date of issue 01-Dec-2016 Participation start date 01-July-2009 Authorised Date 08-Jul-2009 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Darryl Holman, WW7D, [email protected] Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Summits on the Air – ARM for USA W7W-Washington Table of contents Change Control ................................................................................................................... 4 Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................... 5 Copyright Notices ............................................................................................................... 5 1.0 Association Reference Data .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 Program Derivation ....................................................................................................... 7 2.2 General Information ...................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Final Access, Activation Zone, and Operating Location Explained ............................. 8 2.4 Rights of Way and Access Issues ................................................................................
  • Note : This Is a Digital Transcription of the Original Index

    Note : This Is a Digital Transcription of the Original Index

    1 2 3 4 NOTE : THIS IS A DIGITAL TRANSCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL INDEX . The original document was scanned page by page. The results, beginning with this page, were then processed using optical character recognition (OCR) software, edited for accuracy and reformatted in MS Word. A marker is placed beneath the record that ends each page of the original. - Tom Cushing, Mountaineers History Committee, August, 2009 The abbreviation "c/n" is used throughout this Index for references to "Climbing Notes." Volume numbers and corresponding years are: VOLUME YEAR VOLUME YEAR VOLUME YEAR 1 1907-08 21 1928 41 1948 2 1909 22 1929 42 1949 3 1910 23 1930 43 1950 4 1911 24 1931 44 1951 5 1912 25 1932 45 1952 6 1913 26 1933 46 1953 7 1914 27 1934 47 1954 8 1915 28 1935 48 1955 9 1916 29 1936 49 1956 10 1917 30 1937 50 1957 11 1918 31 1938 51 1958 12 1919 32 1939 52 1959 13 1920 33 1940 53 1960 14 1921 34 1941 54 1961 15 1922 35 1942 55 1962 16 1923 36 1943 56 1963 17 1924 37 1944 57 1964 18 1925 38 1945 58 1965 19 1926 39 1946 59 1966 20 1927 40 1947 |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End original page 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 5 A ACCIDENT PREVENTION Climbing Committee 33:1 p. 30-31 ACCIDENTS — MOUNTAINEERING 46:13 p. 69-72 Dyer, John 45:13 p. 85-87 Hazle, Jack Mount Constance — Boston Peak 50:1 p. 118-120 Josendal, Victor 47:13 p. 70-72 Josendal, Victor Three mountaineering accidents — Mount Rainier, Mount Shuksan, St.
  • The Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan Developed out of a Long History of Planning Efforts

    The Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan Developed out of a Long History of Planning Efforts

    This plan was prepared by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe for the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Pilot Planning Project's Regional Planning Group. Funding for the DQ Project came through a special appropriation from the State of Washington, administered by the Department of Ecology Water Resource,, Program. Under the Chelan Agreement, the task of the Regional Planning Group was to develop a regional water resources management plan for eastern Clallam and Jefferson Counties. For over two years, eight caucuses worked together planning for the water quality and quantity of the surface and ground waters of the region for the next twenty years. Program Development and Administration Ann Seiter, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Coordinating Entity Linda Newberry, DQ Project Coordinator Cindy Young, Research Staff Linn Clark, Data Management/GIS Staff Nancy Kovach, Project Assistant Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim, WA 98382 (206) 683-1109 Plan design and production was done by the DQ staff. Table of Contents List of Figures, Tables, and Maps ......................................................................... vi Abbreviations: Terms and Organizations . ............................................................ ix The Regional Planning Group .............................................................................. :x Signature Paper ..................................................................................................... xi Executive Summary . ..........................................................................................
  • The Interaction of Climate, Tectonics, and Topography in the Olympic Mountains of Washington State

    The Interaction of Climate, Tectonics, and Topography in the Olympic Mountains of Washington State

    THE INTERACTION OF CLIMATE, TECTONICS, AND TOPOGRAPHY IN THE OLYMPIC MOUNTAINS OF WASHINGTON STATE: THE INFLUENCE OF EROSION ON TECTONIC STEADY-STATE AND THE SYNTHESIS OF THE ALPINE GLACIAL HISTORY BY JESSICA LYNN HELLWIG THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2010 Urbana, Illinois Adviser: Assistant Professor Alison M. Anders ABSTRACT The interaction of climate, tectonics, and topography in the Olympic Mountains of Washington State is explored to determine the influence of glaciers on spatially variable erosion and rock uplift rates. As glaciers have long been present on the peninsula, could glacial erosion explain the observed pattern of rock uplift? A numerical model of glacial flow, ICE Cascade, is used to reconstruct the glacial extent of the Last Glacial Maximum for the first time. Modeled ice extent best matches observations when summer temperatures range from 7.0-8.0°C and precipitation is reduced to 0.4-0.8 times the modern. These values are consistent with paleoclimate records. Simulated glacial erosion based on a sliding law varies with observed trends in rock uplift rates across the peninsula. If erosion rates are assumed to equal rock uplift rates, as suggested by evidence of tectonic steady state in the region, a glacial erosion constant on the order of 10-5 is indicated based on modeled sliding rates in three valleys on the western side of the range. These efforts are hampered by the lack of a glacial and paleoclimate record from the northern and eastern peninsula.
  • 1970 and 1971

    1970 and 1971

    The Mountaineer THE MOUNTAINEER for 1970 and 1971 Published June, 1972 Cover Photo: Flowers Near Paradise, Mount Rainier T. M. Green 2 The Mountaineer EDITO RIAL STA FF Stella Degenhardt, Herb Belander, Mary Cox, Margaret Fickeisen, Joan Firey, Robert Latz, Hester Page, George Sainsbury, Loretta Slater. Entered as second-class matter, April 8, 1922, at Post Office, Seattle, Wash­ ington, under the Act of March 3, 1879. Published monthly and semi-monthly during June and July by The Mountaineers, P.O. Box 122, Seattle, Washington 98111. Clubroom is at 719 Pike Street, Seattle. Subscription price, monthly bulletin and annual, $5.00 per year. Material and photographs should be submitted to The Mountaineers, at above address, before January 15, 1973 for consideration. Photographs should be black and white glossy prints, at least 5 x 7 inches, with caption and photog­ rapher's name on back. Manuscripts should be typed doublespaced and Include writer's name, address and phone number. Manuscripts cannot be returned. Properly identified photos will be returned about June. Printed on recycled paper. 3 THE MOUNTAINEERS PURPOSES To explore and study the mountains, forests, and water­ courses of the Northwest; To gather into permanent form the history and traditions of this region; To preserve by the encouragement of protective legislation or otherwise the natural beauty of Northwest America; To make expeditions into these regions in fulfillment of the above purposes; To encourage a spirit of good fellowship among all lovers of outdoor life. RECOGNIZED CHARTER MEMBERS 1 - Florence E. Curtis (Mrs. Asahel) Nursing Home, Honolulu, Hawaii 2 - L. D.